BEFORE THE FACT-FINDER

In the matter of the request of: )
)
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ) CASE 10578-F-93-166
)
For fact-finding involving a )
bargaining unit of certificated )
employees represented by: ) FINDINGS OF FACT
) AND
SEATTLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ) RECOMMENDATIONS
)
_____________________________________)

Perkins Coie, by Lawrence B. Hannah, Attorney at Law; and
Catherine E. Aqor, Assistant General Counsel, and Lawrence J.
Miner, Director of Labor Relations, appeared on behalf of the
district.

No appearance was made on behalf of the association.

On July 12, 1993, the Seattle School District requested the Public
Employment Relations Commission to initiate fact-finding procedures
as outlined in RCW 41.59.120. On August 9, 1993, a Notice of Hearing
was sent to all parties, scheduling the fact-finding hearing for
August 20, 1993 at 9:30 a.m., in the Commission's office at
Kirkland, Washington. Fact-finder Katrina I. Boedecker opened the
hearing at the date, time, and place specified in the notice of
hearing. The employer entered its appearance: nobody was in
attendance for the Seattle Education Association (SEA). The
Fact-finder recessed the hearing and attempted to make contact, by
telephone, with an SEA representative. The Fact-finder spoke
directly to "Doc" Dengenis of the Washington Education Association,
who had represented the SEA during negotiations. Dengenis confirmed
that the SEA was aware that the fact-finding hearing was occurring
in Kirkland, Washington. Dengenis indicated that the SEA neither
wanted to appear nor wanted to participate in the fact-finding
process. He intimated that the SEA was not participating in the
process because the employer had acted unilaterally. The Fact-finder
advised Dengenis, however, that a review of the Commission's records
indicated that the employer was following the dictates of the
Educational Employment Relations Act, Chapter 41.59 RCW, and the
Commission's Impasse Resolution Rules, Chapter 391-55 WAC. (fn:1) The
Fact-finder reconvened the hearing. The employer submitted a
position paper and argument on each issue as it was presented during
the hearing. The employer then waived the filing of a post- hearing
brief. The materials submitted by the employer were mailed to the
SEA by the Fact-finder, after the close of the hearing.
____________________
fn:1 RCW 41.59.120 provides:

(1) Either an employer or an exclusive bargaining representative
may declare that an impasse has been reached between them in
collective bargaining and may request the commission to appoint a
mediator for the purpose of assisting them in reconciling their
differences and resolving the controversy on terms which are
mutually acceptable. If the commission determines that its
assistance is needed, not later than five days after the receipt of
a request therefore, it shall appoint a mediator in accordance with
rules and regulations for such appointment prescribed by the
commission. The mediator shall meet with the parties or their
representatives, or both, forthwith, either jointly or separately,
and shall take such other steps as he may deem appropriate in order
to persuade the parties to resolve their differences and effect a
mutually acceptable agreement. The mediator, without the consent of
both parties, shall not make findings of fact or recommend terms of
settlement. The services of the mediator, including, if any, per
diem expenses, shall be provided by the commission without cost to
the parties. Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to
prevent the parties from mutually agreeing upon their own mediation
procedure, and in the event of such agreement, the com- mission
shall not appoint its own mediator unless failure to do so would be
inconsistent with the effectuation of the purposes and policy of
this chapter.

(2) If the mediator is unable to effect settlement of the
controversy within ten days after his or her appointment, either
party, by written notification to the other, may request that their
differences be submitted to fact-finding with recommendations,
except that the time for mediation may be extended by mutual
agreement between the parties. Within five days after receipt of the
aforesaid written request for fact-finding, the parties shall select
a person to serve as fact-finder and obtain a commitment from that
person to serve. If they are unable to agree upon a fact-finder or
to obtain such a commitment within that time, either Party may
request the commission to designate a fact-finder. The commission,
within five days after receipt of such request, shall designate a
fact-finder in accordance with rules and regulations for such
designation prescribed by the commission. The fact-finder so
designated shall not be the same person who was appointed mediator
pursuant to subsection (1) of this section without the consent of
both parties.

The fact-finder, within five days after his appointment, shall meet
with the parties or their representatives, or both, either jointly
or separately. and make inquiries and investigations, hold hearings,
and take such other stem as he may deem appropriate. For the purpose
of such hearings, investigations and inquiries, the fact-finder
shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence. If the
dispute is not settled within ten days after his ap- pointment, the
fact-finder shall make findings of fact and recommend terms of
settlement within thirty days after his appointment, which
recommendations shall be advisory only.

The rules adopted by the Commission for impasses include:

WAC 391-55-330 The order of presentation at the hearing shall be as
agreed by the parties or as deter- mined by the fact finder. The
fact finder shall be the judge of the relevancy of the evidence. All
evidence shall be taken in the presence of all parties, unless a
party is absent in default or has waived its right to be present.
Each documentary exhibit shall be filed with the fact finder and
copies shall be provided to the other parties. The exhibits shall be
retained by the fact finder until an agreement has been signed,
after which they may be disposed of as agreed by the parties or as
ordered by the fact finder.

WAC 391-55-335 The fact finder may proceed in the absence of any
party who. after due notice. fails to be present or fails to obtain
an adjournment. Fact finders shall treat any subject on which one
party has taken a position that it is not a mandatory subject for
bargaining in accordance with this rule. Findings of fact and
recommendations shall not be made solely on the default of a party,
and the fact finder shall require the participating party to submit
such evidence as may be rewired for making: of the findings of fact
and recommendations.
[All emphasis supplied.]

BACKGROUND

The Seattle School District is an urban district with approximately
2,750 non-supervisory, certificated employees. Those employees are
in a bargaining unit which is represented by the SEA. (fn:2) In addition
to the collective bargaining agreement covering the certificated
bargaining unit, the district has collective bargaining agreements
with 12 other bargaining units: The SEA represents two other units
-- one of clerical employees, and one of para-professionals; Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, Local 609, represents three
units, covering custodial workers, security guards and food service
workers; the Seattle Building Trades Council, Teamsters Local 117,
Teamsters Local 174, Machinists Lodge 79, Machinists Lodge 289, the
Principals Association of Seattle, and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 46, represent one unit apiece.
____________________
fn:2 Hereinafter, this unit will be referred to as the certificated
bargaining unit.

The district and the SEA met informally in January, 1993, regarding
a replacement for their 1991-1993 collective bargaining agreement.
Formal negotiations began February 22, 1993. After 21 meetings, the
employer gave the SEA a final offer on June 11, 1993. That same day,
the SEA responded that it would not recommend the offer, and it
agreed to request a mediator from the Commission. On June 18th, the
SEA membership rejected the district's offer.

On June 21st, Mediator Frederick Rosenberry ofthe Commission staff
contacted the parties to schedule mediation. The district agreed to
three dates for mediation sessions; the SEA stated it was not
available until the week of August 23rd. The district asserted that
waiting over two months to resume negotiations was unacceptable to
it.

On July 7, 1993, the district requested the Commission initiate this
fact-finding process. In the absence of SEA participation in the
selection of a fact-finder, the district also requested the
Commission to appoint a fact-finder.

ISSUES

During the course of the fact-finding hearing, the district
presented argument on thirteen proposals. Since the SEA chose not to
attend the hearing, its position on those proposals is only before
the Fact-finder as the employer's understanding of the issue.(fn:3) It
should be noted that a fact finder's recommendations are based on
the evaluation of a proposal as measured by a standard of
"reasonableness", not on the number of arguments presented.(fn:4)
____________________
fn:3 Each of the district's representatives who entered an
appearance on the record at the hearing was sworn to tell the truth.
However, the fact-finder emphasized at the hearing that the
employer's statement of the "union position" on each issue could
only be admitted into evidence as "the employer's understanding of
the union's position."
fn:4 Another of the impasse rules, WAC 391-55-345, provides:

The findings of fact and recommendations of the fact finder shall
not be subject to review by the commission. Fact finders shall rule
only on the reasonability of the proposals advanced in the context
of the whole of the negotiations between the parties and shall not
rule on whether or not a subject or proposal in dispute is a
mandatory subject for collective bargaining. [Emphasis supplied.]

ISSUE ONE: WORK YEAR CALENDAR

Employer position --
The employer proposes that the work year calendar for each year of
an anticipated three-year collective bargaining agreement be
established now, at the outset of the agreement. It points out that
a broad range of district constituents have to make plans which are
contingent upon knowing when required work days are scheduled. The
district cites examples of students, parents and staff who need to
plan travel, summer school and outside employment; present staff and
new employees who need notification of scheduling and personnel
assignments; operators of data processing systems: speakers and
consultants for workshops and programs; people participating in
athletic and extra-curricular activities; participants in programs
involving special education students from other districts; vendors
of supplies and equipment; outside organizations that plan camps
outside of school hours; and reports required by state and federal
governments.

The district advances that it receives hundreds of calls and
inquiries from calendar "stakeholders" each spring and summer. It
contends that it needs to have the calendar established to answer
the inquiries in a timely fashion, and to avoid inconvenience to the
public and administrative burden created by repeat callers.

The district also submits that in years past, education associations
have delayed the setting of the calendar as a tactic designed to
enhance their leverage in bargaining. The district suggests the use
of a "perpetual calendar formula", as was suggested in the
fact-finding in Everett School District and Everett Education
Association, Case 4895-F-83-150 (1983). At a minimum, the district
urges that calendars be set now for all three future school years.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district perceives that the SEA agrees to the calendar proposed
by the employer for 1993-1994. The district understands the SEA to
assert that the establishment of the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 work
year calendars should be deferred to subsequent years.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON WORK YEAR CALENDAR
There is no question that the establishment of the work year
affects a myriad of people -- including the parties to this
proceeding, other unions representing district employees,
and outside third parties. As was held in Lower Snoqualmie
School District, Decision 1602 (EDUC, 1983), the development
of the work year calendar is a mandatory subject of
bargaining. Thus, a bargaining unit's claim to be able to
bargain the establishment of the calendar is a greater legal
right than the consider- ation of the convenience of outside
third parties. Nevertheless, the employer's point is well
taken that no party is served by keeping the calendar in
limbo to a late date.

Balancing the certificated employees' bargaining rights with
the efficient functioning of the district and the needs of
all the constituent groups, the parties will be directed to
adopt the calendar for 1993-1994 that is not in dispute; and
bargain during a specific time for the establishment of the
1994-1995 and 1995-1996 work year calendars, with a
predetermined tldefaulttt calendar that will take effect if
the parties are unable to reach agreement during bargaining.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties'
collective bargaining agreement should be amended
as follows:

1. The appendix regarding work year for
1993-1994 should be as detailed in Attachment A to
this fact-finding report.

2. An appendix regarding work year for 1994-
1995 should be added as detailed in Attachment B to
this fact-finding report, and include the following
additional language:

On or before February I, 1994, the parties
shall meet to bargain the establishment of
the work year calendar for the 1994-1995
school year. If no agreement is reached by
April I, 1994, the work year calendar for
1994-1995 shall be as detailed in this
Appendix.

3. An appendix regarding work year for 1995-
96 should be added as detailed in Attachment C to
this fact-finding report, with the following
additional language:

On or before February I, 1995, the parties
shall meet to bargain the establishment of
the work year calendar for the 1995-1996
school year. If no agreement is reached by
April 1, 1995, the work year calendar for
1995 -1996 shall be as detailed in this
Appendix.

ISSUE TWO: HEALTH INSURANCE

Employer position --
The employer asserts that "pass through" based on state funding for
insurance benefits should be maintained. The district contends that
the benefit contributions bargained with the certificated unit have
historically been based on the state funding amounts. It points out
that the district pays the entire amount of health care benefits for
teachers whose positions are not even funded under the state
formula.

The district interprets Substitute House Bill (SHB) 1784, passed by
the 1993 legislature, as establishing a system intended to increase
access to health insurance for retired and disabled school
employees, by providing a subsidy financed through a charge against
the health insurance allocations for active school employees. The
district advances that, starting October 1, 1993 for the 1993-1994
school year, it is required to remit $10.00 per month to the State
Health Care Authority for each full-time employee plus a prorated
amount for part-time employees not receiving a full district
contribution. It further advances that the required remittance
increases to $16.46 per month, effective October 1, 1994. The
District cites Section 504 of the 1993-1995 State Budget, as showing
that the state-funded net amount declines because of the remittances
required. The district argues that a Washington Education
Association lobbyist supported the interpretation that the net state
contribution is decreased to "carve out" a subsidy fund which will
allow retired and disabled school employees to participate in the
state medical plan at a reduced rate. The district asserts that the
"carve out" amounts to a deferred compensation plan, which will
apply to and benefit all present school district employees in the
future.

Finally, the district maintains that the cost to fund the subsidy
from local monies would be $1.2 million for the certificated
bargaining unit over the biennium.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The employer believes that the union wants the district to cover the
cost of the subsidy with local funds. The employer understands that
the union has acknowledged that such payment would be a large cost
to the district.

FINDINGS OF FACT ON INSURANCE
There is no question that the Legislature increased its
funding for the health care benefits for school certificated
employees supported by the state formulae. For the 1993-1994
school year, the amount provided by the state will be
$317.79. For 1994-1995, the state-funded amount will be
$350.25.

The parties have an insurance pool, which redistributes any
insurance dollars not used by bargaining unit employees to
pay insurance benefit costs for employees whose premiums are
more than the state-funded amount. Out of the 2,751
employees in the certificated bargaining unit in 1992-1993,
only 951had their insurance premiums fully covered by the
insurance pool. The remaining 1,800 employees had to
self-pay part of their insurance premiums.

The fact that the district chooses to pay health insurance
costs for teachers that the district chooses to employ
beyond those funded by the state formulae, is not
persuasive. That is a cost of doing business if the district
desires to enrich its staffing through local or grant funds.

The claim that it would cost over $1 million dollars in
local funds to pay the subsidy is also not persuasive. In
fact, the districtls cost analysis is suspect, since it
includes costs for non-certificated employees.(fn:5)
____________________
fn:5 Only certificated employees have the right to fact-finding,
and the Executive Director of PERC expressly declined the district's
request for "factfinding" in the two "classified" units represented
by the SEA.

The determination of the intent of the legislature in the
passing SHB 1784 is pivotal in your Fact-finder's
recommendation on insurance. The district submitted a
transcript of public testimony received on SHB 1784 in the
House Appropriations Committee, chaired by Representative
Gary Locke, on February 16, 1993. A spokesperson for the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU),(fn:6) expressed
concern with the intent section of the bill
____________________
fn:6 The SEIU represents 4,000 school classified employees.

". . . where you [the bill sponsors] clearly articulate
that if [sic] is your intent to provide retired school
employees with a subsidy charged against Health Insurance
allocations from active employees . . . ."

A representative of the Washington State Retired Teachers
Association testified,

". . . But let there be no mistake about it, this bill is
good for every active K-12 employee in that they no longer
will have to be concerned about where they will find
affordable health insurance when they retire. It will be
available throught (sic) the Health Care Authority . . . .
"

Interesting testimony defining the intent of the bill came from
the Washington Education Association's lobbyist, Karen Davis,
who stated,

". . . Finally one comment on the funding, it's going to
be difficult, I know, with the projection rates for
funding health insurance. We're very anxious about how
much the carve out will be, we know it's a form of
extended or deferred compensation, if you will, for
retirees, and our active [members] will be retirees, but
we also want to phase this in with the lease [sic] amount
of hurt, if you will, and so appreciate a lower percentage
the first year going up to the full percentage in the
second year. . . ."

Testimony before a legislative committee does not necessary
reflect the intent of the bill when it was ultimately passed,
but it appears that SHB 1784 was non-controversial when it
became Chapter 386, Laws of 1993.(fn:7) The measure carried an
effective date of July 25, 1993, except for certain sections
which are effective on either October 1, 1993 or May 15, 1993.
The intent section, which was one of those effective May 15,
1993, reads:
____________________
fn:7 The Certification of Enrollment for the bill indicates that it
was passed by the Senate April 8, 1993 by a vote of 46 to 0 and
passed by the House April 20, 1993 by a vote of 97 to 0.

Sec 1. It is the legislature's intent to increase
access to health insurance for retired and disabled
school employees and also to improve equity between
state employees and school employees by providing
for the reduction of health insurance premiums
charged to retired school employees through a
subsidy charged against health insurance
allocations for active employees. It is further the
legislature's intent to improve the cost-effec-
tiveness of state-purchased health care by managing
programs for public employees, in this case retired
school employees, through the state health care
authority. [Emphasis supplied.]

The language of the bill supports the district's assertion
that the funding of health care insurance for retirees of
school districts was intended to come, in part, from a
"carve out" of the state allocated funds for current
employees. On the other hand, a study of the exact language
of the employer's proposal in this area reveals that the
employer does not trust that it is prohibited by any statute
from paying the subsidy out of local monies. This is an
excellent example of where it would have been most helpful
if the union had chosen to participate in the proceedings,
instead of boycotting the fact-finding.

Although nothing is found that would bar the employer's
payment of the subsidy from local funds, the employer's
argument concerning the intent of the statute (i.e., to have
the subsidy come from the state allocation of money for
health care insurance benefits), is reasonable. As stated
above, all arguments in a fact-finding must be judged
against a standard of reasonableness. With no other
arguments to consider, your fact finder adopts the
employer's proposed language for health insurance.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties should
incorporate the following language into their
collective bargaining agreement, at ARTICLE V:
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS; Section A: Group Insurance
Provisions

1. The District shall make avai-
lable funds to contribute toward premiums
of District-approved group insurance
programs. It is the in- tent of the
parties to comply with the limitations
imposed by State laws, appropriations acts
and implementing regulations as they
relate to expenditures for employee bene-
fits. No provisions of this Contract
shall be interpreted or applied so as to
place the District in breach of the
benefit limitations imposed by State law
or to subject the District to a State
funding penalty. Pursuant to RCW 281.400-
.275(1), the parties agree to abide by the
State laws relating to school district
employee benefits. The parties acknowledge
that this insurance agreement is for a
term of one year, subject to automatic
extension for the ensuing year 1994-95 in
the absence of written notice otherwise by
one party to the other prior to June 1 of
1992 1994.

a. Employees eligible for full
participation in the District-
approved insurance programs are
defined as those who work four
(4) or more hours per day.

b. For 1991-92 1993-94 the District
contribution to the Group
Insurance Pool shall be at the
rate of two hundred forty six
dollars and twenty four cents
($246.24) three hundred
seven-teen dollars and
seventy-nine cents ($317.79) per
month for September 1991 1993 and
then two hundred eight-nine
dollars and ninety-five cents
($289.95) three hundred seven
dollars and seventy-nine cents
($307.79) per month for the
remaining eleven (11) months for
each full-time equivalent
certificated employee of the
District.

For 1994-95 the District con-
tribution to the Group Insur-
ance Pool shall be at the rate
of three hundred seven dollars
and seventy-nine cents ($307-
.79) and for September 1994 and
then three hundred thirty-three
dollars and seventy-nine cents
($333.79) per month for the
remaining eleven (11) months
for each full-time equivalent
certificated employee of
the District.

For 1992-93, the District's
contribution shall be based on
a pass through of State funding
for insurance (the monthly sup-
port figure).

c. The process for distribution to
employees and for adjusting the
rate of available benefits for
1991-93 1993-94 and 1994-95 is
as set forth in Appendix K.

2. During 1993-94 and 1994-95 the District and the
Association shall continue a committee to study the
District's Insurance Program and to make
recommendations.

3. Group Insurance for 1995-96 will be the subject
of timely nego- tiations in light of state health
care laws and regulations.

Additionally the parties should amend Appendix K of their
collective bargaining agreement to be consistent with this
article.

ISSUE THREE: TRANSFERS WHILE ON PROBATION

Employer position -
The employer contends that the current contract language allows a
poorly performing employe to nullify a carefully designed evalua-
tion and monitoring system, by requesting a transfer to another work
site. It asserts that, because of the way an existing "unassigned
transfer pool" functions, there is no administrative control over
who must assume responsibility for following through on the
observations and other requirements of probation. Thus, poor
performers can "beat the system" by recycling themselves from one
school or program to another. Additionally, the employer points out
that a well-intentioned probationary employee who transfers to
another work site with the belief that it will provide a clean slate
may actually be undermining chances for a successful probation, by
breaking the continuity of supervision and sustained monitoring
efforts.

The employer characterizes this as a "quality of education" issue.
It proposes that probationary employees only be allowed to transfer
with the approval of the principals or program managers of the work
sites involved and the appropriate education director(s).

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district states the union position as "No".

FINDINGS OF FACT ON TRANSFERS ON PROBATION
The district should be commended for all its attempts to
improve the quality of education it offers its students.

The district posited that the proposal would affect 10 to 15
certificated employees a year. The district was unable to offer
a reasonable explanation of how the proposal would adequately
protect a bargaining unit employee from a vindic- tive
supervisor. Additionally, the district did acknowledge that a
certificated employee who might perform poorly under one
principal, might perform well when working with a differ- ent
principal.

Although the district's goal is admirable, it has not offered a
reasonable means of getting there.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: No new language regarding
transfers while on probation be added to the parties'
collective bargaining agreement.

ISSUE FOUR: STAFFING WAIVERS -- NEW POSITIONS

Employer position --
The employer proposes to add "newly-created positions" to the list
of position openings which could be filled on the basis of a
selection by an interview team. The employer submits that current
contract language permits bargaining unit employees to take a vote
to authorize that position openings created as a result of
resignation, promotion, voluntary transfer, retirement or death be
filled through an interview selection process, which the SEA
controls, rather than on the basis of straight seniority.

The employer views its proposed language as a logical extension of
the current process. The employer submitted evidence that the
process has been in effect for the past two years: The first year,
35 schools applied for contract waivers; the second year, 50
schools applied. At least one school requested a waiver for the
purpose of filling a newly-created position, but that request was
denied because it did not comply with the contract language. There
is no memory at the district as to why "newly created" positions
were not included when the language was first developed.

The district stresses that it cannot require a school to request a
waiver from the contract, nor can it force the employees at a given
school to take a vote to request a waiver. The SEA has an
established union committee which evaluates all waiver requests, and
makes the final decision in each case.

The district is also proposing inclusion of language that details
the process currently in use.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district believes that the SEA has responded that "our members
are not ready for this", without further explanation.

FINDINGS OF FACT ON STAFFING WAIVERS
The current language is clear that the SEA retains control of
all the waiver requests. There is nothing in the district's
proposal that would modify that control.

The district's argument that this is a logical extension of the
current practice is reasonable. This is especial- ly the case
in light of the fact that SEA members in at least one school
have requested a waiver for a newly- created position.

There is no indication that the procedural details that the
district includes in its proposal would erode any working
conditions for bargaining unit members.

These are modest changes. Since the SEA chose not to
participate in the fact-finding, there is no explanation for
the its alleged response that its members were not "ready" for
the additional inclusion.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Filling of Certain Vacancies"
that is attached to the parties' collective bargaining
agreement, should be amended as follows:

1. The memorandum will expire August 31, 1996;

2. The third line of paragraph "1" will read:
"qualified applicants for the filling of vacancies which
are newly created or created by . . .";

3. Paragraph "7" will read: "Positions that are
newly created or open due to resignations, promotions,
voluntary transfer, retirement, or death shall be
clearly identified."

4. A new paragraph 8 will read: "Positions that
are open should be posted as early as the budget process
makes practical, and there should be at least two (2)
weeks given for applying an interviewing."

5. A new paragraph 9 will read: "The application
and interview processes should be the same for all
positions, at all sites."

6. A new paragraph 10 will read: "The District
shall provide each school with five (5) copies of the
announcements of positions open for selection through the
waiver process."

7. Renumber remaining paragraphs for consistency.

ISSUE FIVE: COUNSELOR REQUIREMENTS

Emplover position --
The employer proposes to eliminate the requirement that school
counselors have a teaching certificate and one year of successful
classroom experience.

The district's research shows that it is the only district in the
state with this requirement. It advances that the language came
from historic state requirements which have since been changed. Its
rationale for the proposal is in two parts. First, the district
does not believe the teaching certification/experience requirements
are bona fide occupational qualifications, and - sees that they bear
no rational relationship to satisfactory performance as a counselor.
Second, the district has experienced how these requirements create
economic barriers for qualified applicants who otherwise would seek
employment with the district, and how the requirements are
detrimental to the districts affirmative action efforts in
attracting qualified minority applicants.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district states the union position as "No".

FINDINGS OF FACT ON COUNSELOR REQUIREMENTS
The State Board of Education sets the educational and
professional requirements for school counselors. That board no
longer requires a teaching credential and one year of
successful teaching experience as prerequisites for an
Educational Staff Associate (ESA) counselor certification. An
ESA certificate is required of certain other professional
employees: Communication disorders specialists, school nurses,
occupational and physical therapists, psychologists, social
workers and reading resource specialists. None of these
positions require the teaching certificate or year of
experience.

The district has experienced difficulty filling counselor
positions. Two presently employed counselors do not have the
required one year of teaching experience. The SEA granted
waivers in order for the incumbents to fill the positions.

There is no evidence that counselors with a teaching
certificate and one year of teaching experience perform better
in their jobs than those without those qualifica- tions. There
appear no reasons to continue these additional requirements for
the SEA members.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties should delete the
language in Article VI: Assignment and Scheduling of
Employees; Section M: School Counselors; Paragraph 1.
that reads: "Counselors shall also hold valid teachers'
credentials in the State of Washington and have at least
one (1) year of successful classroom experience."

ISSUE SIX: PARENT-TEACHER CONFERENCES

Employer position --
The employer proposes that a joint committee be established for the
purpose of finding more effective ways of scheduling parent-teacher
conferences for grades K-5. It proposes to have the committee issue
its report by February 1, 1994.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district states the union position as "No".

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PARENT CONFERENCES
Parent-teacher conferences are currently held in the month of
November, over a seven-day to ten-day period. To allow time
for the conferences, students are dismissed about two hours
early each day. This causes a reduction in the time that
education goes on in the classroom. It can also cause
difficulties for working parents, who have to find additional
care for their children, outside of their normal arrangements,
for up to two weeks. School board members and district
administrators have received numerous complaints from parents
about the way the conferences are currently scheduled.

The scheduling of parent-teacher conferences is clearly a
working condition for the members of the certificated
bargaining unit. The parties should be encouraged to negotiate
all working conditions. The parties have recently agreed upon
the creation of a bargaining council to make mid-term changes
in their collective bargaining agreement. The bargaining
council would be the ap- propriate body to receive the
committee's report. Having the committee conclude its work by
February 1, 1994 is sensible, as it would allow time to plan
for the follow- ing school year. The district's proposal is
reasonable.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties' collective
bargaining agreement should include a new "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning Parent-Teacher Conference Study
Committee". The Memorandum of Understanding shall detail
that both the district and the SEA shall each have 5
members on the committee, unless mutually agreed
otherwise, and the committee shall report to the
bargaining council by February 1, 1994.

ISSUE SEVEN: WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Employer position --
The employer desires to modify two aspects of the contract language
concerning worker's compensation. First, it wants to charge an
employee's accrued sick leave for the "supplement" that it pays to
maintain an injured employee at his/her normal pay.(fn:8) Second, the
district wants to be able to require an employee to return to work
in a suitable interim assignment, while awaiting clearance to return
to regular contracted duties.(fn:9)
____________________
fn:8 The Seattle School District is a self-insured employer under
the state worker's compensation system. The workers' compensation
benefit amount establish by the state is less than the employee's
normal wage, Currently, a employee on leave due to a work-related
injury receives "continuation of salary without loss of sick leave."
fn:9 The contract now requires that the employee's return to work
must be only to his/her "contracted professional duties".

The employer offered proof that, under the present scheme, an
injured worker is better compensated while off work than while
working. This is the result of a combination of the tax treatment of
worker compensation "time loss" payments and the contractual
requirement that the district offer full pay without loss of sick
leave. The employer supplied statistics to show a low rate of
workers compensation claims exists in this bargaining unit of 2,751
members: For school year 1991-1992, 26 time-loss claims were paid;
for school year 1992-1993, 18 time-loss claims were paid. The
employer argues that the current payment scheme is indefensible from
any perspective -- cost, legal requirements, or common sense.

The employer contends that limiting return-to-work assignments to
regular contracted duties exceeds the requirements of the state
industrial insurance laws, may conflict with the Rehabilitation Act
of 1978, and may prevent making reasonable accommodation under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Emplover's understanding of the union's position --
The district states the union wants no change made.

FINDINGS OF FACT ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Under normal workers' compensation arrangements, there is an
incentive to return to work. Only by returning can the
worker achieve full income. The district's proposal is not
reducing a person's normal income during the time of an
injury. The proposal maintains an employee's normal pay,
and protects the district from claims of waste from the
public who sees an employee "double dip" to earn more while
off the job, than while working. The incentive to return
still exists under the district's proposal, because the
worker must utilize accrued sick leave (which has a "cash
out" value) in order to receive the equivalent of full pay.

The current language regarding return to work calls for
input from the district's appointed medical officer.
Returning to one's "contracted professional duties" is more
reasonable than requiring return to "other suitable, interim
work". The language proposed by the district invites
mischief from supervisors and begs future arbitrations to
define "suitable".

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties'
collective bargaining agreement should be amended
at Article IV: LEAVE RULES, REGULATIONS AND
PROCEDURES; Section A: Short Term Leaves: Paragraph
2) Worker's Compensation, by modifying the first
sentence as follows:

Employees who are on a leave of absence
due to injuries or occupational illness
(es) which resulted from the employee
performing con- tracted professional
duties shall be provided by the District,
as a self-insured employer, Worker's
Compensation benefits as defined by law
during the period of disability in
compliance with the terms of the
Industrial Insurance Laws of the State of
Washington.

The following new sentence should be added next:

When an employee receives time-loss payments for an
injury or occupational illness covered by worker's
compensation, the employee may use accumulated sick
leave to cover the difference between the time-loss
payments and the employee's regular salary.

ISSUE EIGHT: SICK LEAVE/EMERGENCY LEAVE UTILIZATION COMMITTEE

Employer position --
The district desires to establish a committee with the SEA to review
sick leave and personal leave utilization by bargaining unit
employees, and to make recommendations to the bargaining council for
future negotiations.

The employer reports that certificated employees use an average of
eight days of sick leave per year. With a nine month school year,
this is practically one day per month (4.4% of available work time),
as opposed to the employer's information that the usual private
sector absentee rate is 2.5%. The district also believes that there
is a large number of absences on the Friday before major holiday
weekends, particularly in November.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district believes that the SEA does not agree that any action is
necessary.

FINDINGS OF FACT ON SICK LEAVE UTILIZATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Rather than insist on contract language changes at this
time, the employer has made a reasonable proposal for a
joint examination of the data for the 1992-1993 school year.
The district seems to assume the existence of a problem, and
an intention that the committee develop a plan to reduce
sick leave utilization, but your Fact- finder sees the
situation from a broader perspective. The committee should
study whether or not there is a problem. If so, it should
explore possible solutions.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties'
collective bargaining agreement should include
a new "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning
Sick Leave and Personal Leave Utilization
Study Committee" as detailed in Attachment D.
to this fact-finding report.

ISSUE NINE: BEREAVEMENT LEAVE

Employer position --
The employer desires to modify the language that defines "family
members" for whose death a certificated employee may use bereave-
ment leave. Current contract language reads ". . . or anyone who is
living with or considered part of the family . . .". The district
proposes changing the disjunctive to the conjunctive "and".

The district submits that it wants to standardize the language with
all of its other agreements to ensure fair and prudent treatment of
all its employees. The district asserts that the current language
has created disputes as to its interpretation. The district
maintains that because of the difficult nature of dealing with a
death in the family, the contract language must be abundantly clear
and must be applied uniformly.

The district submits that seven other Puget Sound area school
districts have the proposed language, or even more restrictive
language, on bereavement leave.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district states that the union wants the contract language to
remain unchanged.

FINDINGS OF FACT ON BEREAVEMENT LEAVE
Although the district justifies its proposal on the basis of
bringing its collective bargaining agreements into
conformity, it has not established that all its labor
agreements and policies contain the same language as
proposed. It is not "reasonable" to upset the parties'
existing contract language on this subject.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties
should maintain their current contract lan-
guage regarding bereavement leave.

ISSUE TEN: RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE LEAVE

Employer position --
Current contract language allows an employee to use up to two days
of sick/emergency leave for the observance of religious holidays. It
then allows the employee to have the days credited back to his or
her sick/emergency leave balance. The employer wants to delete the
"crediting back" of days used for religious leave.

The employer contends that the contract should be neutral on the
subject of religion. It advances that employees who claim time off
for religious observance under the current language work up to two
fewer days per year than other employees. It views its proposal as
an equitable middle ground between requiring an employee to take the
time off without pay and giving the employee paid time off to
practice his/her religion. Further, the employer argues that it is
difficult to define and document a mandatory religious observance.

The employer cites seven other Puget Sound area school districts
that charge religious leave to the employee's sick/emergency leave
balance, without the "credit back" feature which the employer
desires to remove from the Seattle contract.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district states the union position as "No".

FINDINGS OF FACT ON RELIGIOUS LEAVE
In 1991-1992, a little over 200 days were claimed by
employees for religious leave. Some employees claimed one
day; some both days. A study of sick/emergency leave
utilization is recommended above. Since religious leave
comes from the sick/emergency leave bank, the study
committee will be in the best position to become well-
versed on the statistics, and will be able to evaluate
whether or not there is a problem. The employer has not
proved that its deletion of the "crediting back" of
religious observance days is a reasonable proposal at this
time.

The employer's proposal for a minor change of account-
ability in documenting the use of the religious leave is
reasonable.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties'
collective bargaining agreement should be amended
at Article IV: LEAVE RULE, REGULATIONS AND
PROCEDURES; Section A Short term leaves; paragraph
3) Religious Observance Days, by adding the
following sentence to the end of the paragraph:

A supplemental sheet shall be attached to
the Employee Leave Report form which:
1. Describes what mandatory holy day
is to be observed; and
2. Attests to the fact that the
employee's religious affilia-
tion requires observance of the
day in such a manner that he/-
she cannot perform his/her as-
signed duties on that day."

ISSUE ELEVEN: PRINTING OF CONTRACTS

Employer position --
The current collective bargaining agreement provides that the
contract is printed at the district's expense. The district proposes
that, since it has absorbed the cost of printing the last several
contracts, the SEA should pay the cost of printing the 1993-1996
collective bargaining agreement, and that future contracts be
printed on a 50% / 50% cost sharing basis.

The employer argues that it is equitable to share the cost between
the employer and the union. It states that the cost of printing the
SEA contract, approximately $27,000, amounts to an unfair burden on
the district in light of recent funding and budget cuts. It advances
that in Auburn, Lake Washington, Bethel and Edmonds School
Districts, the unions share or pay the entire printing costs. It
cites that in King County, the City of Seattle, and the Washington
State Ferry System, the printing costs are borne entirely by the
individual union. It advances that this is the custom in the private
sector.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district states that the union wants the district to absorb all
of the printing costs.

FINDINGS OF FACT ON PRINTING OF CONTRACTS
The district admits that it has printed the parties'
collective bargaining agreements at its own expense, at
least over the last decade. The $27,000 cost it cites is
for all three bargaining units represented by the SEA. The
contract for the certificated bargaining unit represents
about 2/3's of the total cost. Thus, the district is looking
at a savings of only about $9,000 with the proposed cost
sharing. The district has not demonstrated a reasonable
basis for its proposal at this time.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties should
maintain their current contract language regarding
the printing of their collective bargaining
agreement.

ISSUE TWELVE: PAY RATES FOR SUBSTITUTES

Employer position --
The parties' present contract sets the rate of pay for substitute
teachers at $90.48 per day. It grants three premium pays: A "half
day" premium of $50.00; a "two assignment" premium of $100.00; and a
"sixth day on same assignment" premium of $102.00. The contract also
provides for Time/Responsibility/Incentive (TRI) payments to
substitutes who work 30 or more days in a school year, as well as
additional TRI money for those who are continuously available for
the following year.

The district proposes rolling the premium payments and the TRI money
into a flat daily rate of pay of $102.00. The district contends that
documentation is too confusing under the current compensation
system, requiring half of the work time of one employee in the
Payroll Services Office to ensure compliance with the terms of the
collective bargaining agreement. Even with that effort, the
substitutes and supervisors still encounter difficulties in
verifying that the pay rates are correct. It claims that by moving
to a flat daily rate the system would be more easily understood by
all parties and enhance employee morale by ensuring consistency and
equitability.

The district asserts that it will not save any money under its
proposal. In fact, its calculations suggest that the proposal will
cost approximately $41,000 in additional compensation.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district states that the union is willing to roll the TRI money
into the daily rate, but that the SEA is unwilling to relinquish the
"premium" payments. Additionally, the district understands the SEA
to want a higher daily rate for substitutes than is being proposed
by the district.

FINDINGS OF FACT ON SUBSTITUTE PAY
The employer offered evidence of the substitute pay rates from
the surrounding school districts of Bellevue, Edmonds, Everett,
Federal Way, Highline, Kent, North- shore, Lake Washington,
Puyallup, Shoreline, and Tacoma. In 1992-1993, two of those
districts paid $86.00 per day; five paid of $90.00 per day;
three paid $91.00 per day, and one had a split rate of $82.00
or $94.00. Six districts paid a half-day premium, one paid a
two- assignment premium, and two paid a sixth- day premium.
Seattle was the only district that paid TRI money to
substitutes.

At a flat daily rate of $102.00, Seattle's substitute teachers
would be the highest-paid in the area by a margin of greater
than 10%. Only two districts would pay more for a half-day, and
only one would pay more than Seattle in a two-assignment or
sixth-day situation. The district's proposal would also be a
benefit to all members of the certificated bargaining unit who
are employed as "substitutes", not just those who happen to be
assigned to one of the premium pay activities. The district's
offer is reasonable; there is no evidence submitted to justify
higher pay.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties should delete
sub-paragraphs e.; e. 1); e. 2); and f. from ARTICLE 111:
PROVISIONS FOR COMPENSATION AND WORK HOURS; Section E.
Substitute teacher; paragraph 3. Assignment of
Substitutes. Additionally, the parties should delete all
reference to substitute employees in their Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning 1991-93 (sic) Time Responsibility
Incentive (TRI) Stipend Program beginning at page 275 of
their collective bargaining agree- ment. Finally, the
parties should incorporate Attachment E to this
fact-finding as the new Appendix B in their collective
bargaining agreement.

ISSUE THIRTEEN: DURATION

Employer position --
The employer advances that both the district and the SEA are in
essential agreement on a three year duration. The employer focuses
the issue on the reopener language of the duration clause.

For the third year of the agreement (1995-1996), the district
proposes that the SEA be allowed to reopen the contract in the areas
of salaries, increments, and health benefits, and that the district
be allowed to select three items for negotiation. The employer
submits that a historical pattern has been that when the SEA opens
on one or more issues, the district has been able to open on an
equal number of items.

Employer's understanding of the union's position --
The district states the union has said, in principle, that it wants
a three-year contract, but it is not clear on the reopeners.

FINDINGS OF FACT ON DURATION
The district has supplied I1reopenerf1 language from all
collective bargaining agreements for this certificated
bargaining unit since 1983, and your fact-finder has studied
those materials. The language supplied by the employer relates
only to salaries, and is virtually identical in each contract
except for the reference to the school year involved:

Contingent Reopener: The STA may reopen negotiations
concerning the 1983-84 salary schedule within thirty (30)
days of either of the following events, provided that the
Dis- trict may reopen one (1) additional issue:
a) The present salary limitations laws, as applied to
the District, are voided by a final and binding court
order: or,
b) The Legislature removes the present sala- ry
limitations, as applied to the Dis- trict.

The 1985-1986 contract added "provided state funding is
available" in the opening paragraph, and that phrase has been
carried forth since then.

It is logical for this contingent reopener to continue
independent of other "reopener" language, since the contingency
would be triggered, if at all, by acts of outside third
parties. However, it is also logical to allow the parties to
have limited reopeners in the third year of their collective
bargaining agreement. By that time, the legislature will have
met twice, and the parties will have lived under the language
negotiated this year for 24 months.

The employer's proposed limitation on the issues to be reopened
by the SEA does present a problem. The 1993 legislature froze
salaries for certificated employees, and even prohibited
increment movement for employees earning over $45,000 per year.
Given the inability to predict the future actions of the
Legislature, it would be unreasonable to limit the SEA to
reopening a "wages" topic in which it might be impossible to
achieve any improvements for its membership.

The district has successfully demonstrated that it has a
history of securing the same number of reopeners as the SEA is
allowed. Three items per side is a reasonable reopener. At
times, there have been disputes regarding what qualifies as an
"item" that can be "reopened". Your fact-finder defines "item"
for the purposes of this recommendation as any section of any
article listed in the table of contents of the parties'
collective bargain- ing contract; any Appendix, or Memorandum
of Understand- ing, or Letter of Understanding listed in the
table of contents of the collective bargaining contract; or the
purpose statement or Article X.

To ensure prompt attention to the bargaining of any reopeners,
a timeline for negotiations will also be specified.

YOUR FACT-FINDER RECOMMENDS: The parties' collective
bargaining agreement should be for the period from
September l8 1993 through August 318 1996. The "Contingent
Reopener" language contained in Article 111: PROVISIONS
FOR COMPENSATION AND WORK HOURS, should remain a part of
the contract. The following sen- tence should be added to
Article I: RECOGNI- TION AND AGREEMENTS; Section A: Status
of the Agreements; Paragraph 8:

No sooner than October 1, 1994 nor later than January 31,
1995, either party may reopen up to three items in the
collective bargaining agreement, for the purpose of
negotiating changes to be incorporated in the parties'
collective bargaining contract for the 1995- 1996 year.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES

The foregoing findings and recommendations address all the issues
that were presented at the fact-finding hearing. The parties are
reminded of their obligations under the statute at this point:

RCW 41.59.120 RESOLVING IMPASSES IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING--MEDIATION--FACT-FINDING WITH RECOMMENDATIONS-
-OTHER.
...
(3) : Such [fact-finder's] recommendations, together with
the findings of fact, shall be submitted in writing to the
parties and the commission privately before they are made
public. Either the commission, the fact-finder, the employer,
or the exclusive bargaining representative may make such
findings and recommendations public if the dispute is not
settled within five days after their receipt from the
fact-finder.

Additionally, the parties are reminded of their obligations under
the rules adopted by the Commission as part of the Washington
Administrative Code. Specifically:

WAC 391-55-350 EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES -- RESPONSIBILITY
OF PARTIES AFTER FACT FINDING. Not more than seven days
after the findings and recommendations have been issued, the
parties shall notify the commission and each other whether they
accept the recommendations of the fact finder. If the
recommendations of the fact finder are rejected by one or both
parties and their further efforts do not result in an
agreement, either party may request mediation pursuant to
chapter 41.58 RCW and, upon the concurrence of the other party,
the executive director shall assign a mediator.

The notice of acceptance or rejection of these fact-finding
recommendations is to be filed with the Commission at its Olympia
office.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 27th day of August, 1993.

KATRINA I. BOEDECKER, Fact-finder

ATTACHMENT A

APPENDIX E-1: 1993-94 Work Year Calendar

SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
1993-94 Work Year Calendar
SEPTEMBER Days Taught: 17 OCTOBER Days Taught: 21
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 1
6# [7] [8 9 10 4 5 6 7 8
13 14 15 16 17 11 12 13 14 15
20 21 22 23 24 18 19 20 21 22
27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29

NOVEMBER Days Taught: 19 DECEMBER Days Taught: 13
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
8 (9) 10 11# 12 6 7 8 9 10
15 16 17 18 19 13 14 15 16 17
22 23 24 25# 26# 20* 21* 22* 23* 24#*
29 30 27* 28* 29* 30* 31#*

JANUARY Days Taught: 19 FEBRUARY Days Taught: 19
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
10 11 12 13 14 7 8 9 10 11
17# 18 19 20 21 14 15 16 17 18
24 25 26 (27) 28& 21# 22 23 24 25
31 28

MARCH Days Taught: 23 APRIL Days Taught: 16
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 4 1
7 8 9 10 11 4* 5* 6* 7* 8*
14 15 16 17 18 11 12 (13) 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29

MAY Days Taught: 21 JUNE Days Taught: 12
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
9 10 11 12 13 6 7 8 9 10
16 17 18 19 20 13 14 15 16]+ [17]
23 24 25 26 27 20 21 22 23 24
30# 31 27 28 29 30

JULY Days Taught: 0 AUGUST Days Taught: 0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 1 2 3 4 5
4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12
11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19
18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26
25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31

Calendar Notes

School Year Begins ........................................... September 8, 1993
School Year Ends ................................................. June 16, 1994

First Semester Begins ........................................ September 8, 1993
First Semester Ends ........................................... January 27, 1994
First Semester Total Days ................................................... 88

Second Semester Begins ........................................ January 31, 1994
Second Semester Ends ............................................. June 16, 1994
Second Semester Total Student Days .......................................... 92

HOLIDAYS: Denoted by #

Labor Day .................................................... September 6, 1993
Veterans' Day ................................................ November 11, 1993
Thanksgiving Day ............................................. November 25, 1993
Day After Thanksgiving Day ................................... November 26, 1993
Christmas Holiday ............................................ December 24, 1993
New Year's Holiday ........................................... December 31, 1993
Martin Luther King Jr. Day .................................... January 17, 1994
Presidents' Day .............................................. February 21, 1994
Memorial Day ...................................................... May 30, 1994
Independence Day .................................................. July 4, 1994

VACATIONS: Denoted by *

Winter: December 20, 1993 through December 31, 1993
Spring: April 4, 1994 through April 8, 1994

OTHER CALENDAR SYMBOLS:
[ ............................................................ First Student Day
() ................................................................. Quarter End
] ............................................................. Last Student Day
[] ............................................... Teachers on Duty - No Classes
& ........................................... Day Between Semesters - No Classes
(Work day from full-year employees only
+ ....................................... NOTE: In case of school closure due to
inclement weather, up to 5 work days
may be added to the end of the
school/work year on a day-for-day basis.

ATTACHMENT B
APPENDIX E-2: 1994-95 Work Year Calendar

SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
1994-95 Work Year Calendar

SEPTEMBER Days Taught: 18 OCTOBER Days Taught: 21
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5# [6] [7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
26 27 28 29 30 31

NOVEMBER Days Taught: 19 DECEMBER Days Taught: 17
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 4 1 2
7 (8) 9 10 11# 5 6 7 8 9
14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16
21 22 23 24# 25# 19 20 21 22 23
28 29 30 26#* 27* 28* 29* 30*

JANUARY Days Taught: 15 FEBRUARY Days Taught: 19
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
2#* 3* 4* 5* 6* 1 2 3
9 10 11 12 13 6 7 8 9 10
16# 17 18 19 20 13 14 15 16 17
23 24 25 26 (27) 20# 21 22 23 24
30& 31 27 28

MARCH Days Taught: 23 APRIL Days Taught: 15
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 3* 4* 5* 6* 7*
6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 31

MAY Days Taught: 22 JUNE Days Taught: 11
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 4 5 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 17 18 19 12 13 14 15]+ [16]
22 23 24 25 26 19 20 21 22 23
29# 30 31 26 27 28 29 30

JULY Days Taught: 0 AUGUST Days Taught: 0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
3 4# 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
10 11 12 13 14 7 8 9 10 11
17 18 19 20 21 14 15 16 17 18
24 25 26 27 28 21 22 23 24 25
31 28 29 30 31

Calendar Notes

School Year Begins ........................................... September 7, 1994
School Year Ends ................................................. June 15, 1995

First Semester Begins ........................................ September 7, 1994
First Semester Ends ........................................... January 27, 1995
First Semester Total Days ................................................... 89

Second Semester Begins ........................................ January 31, 1995
Second Semester Ends ............................................. June 15, 1995
Second Semester Total Student Days .......................................... 91

HOLIDAYS: Denoted by #

Labor Day .................................................... September 5, 1994
Veterans' Day ................................................ November 11, 1994
Thanksgiving Day ............................................. November 24, 1994
Day After Thanksgiving Day ................................... November 25, 1994
Christmas Holiday ............................................ December 26, 1994
New Year's Holiday ............................................. January 2, 1994
Martin Luther King Jr. Day .................................... January 16, 1995
Presidents' Day .............................................. February 20, 1995
Memorial Day ...................................................... May 29, 1995
Independence Day .................................................. July 4, 1995

VACATIONS: Denoted by *

Winter: December 26, 1994 through January 6, 1995
Spring: April 3, 1995 through April 7, 1995

ATTACHMENT C

APPENDIX E-3: 1995-96 Work Year Calendar

SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
1995-96 Work Year Calendar

SEPTEMBER Days Taught: 18 OCTOBER Days Taught: 22
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 4 5 6
4# [5] [6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

NOVEMBER Days Taught: 19 DECEMBER Days Taught: 16
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 1
6 (7) 8 9 10# 4 5 6 7 8
13 14 15 16 17 11 12 13 14 15
20 21 22 23# 24# 18 19 20 21 22
27 28 29 30 25* 26* 27* 28* 29*

JANUARY Days Taught: 16 FEBRUARY Days Taught: 20
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1* 2* 3* 4* 5* 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9
15# 16 17 18 19 12 13 14 15 16
22 23 24 25 (26) 19# 20 21 22 23
29& 30 31 26 27 28 29

MARCH Days Taught: 21 APRIL Days Taught: 17
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 1* 2* 3* 4* 5*
4 5 6 7 8 8 (9) 10 11 12
11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19
18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26
25 26 27 28 29 29 30

MAY Days Taught: 22 JUNE Days Taught: 9
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13]+ [14]
13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28
27# 28 29 30 31

JULY Days Taught: 0 AUGUST Days Taught: 0
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2 3 4# 5 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 1 18 19 12 13 14 15 16
22 23 24 25 26 19 20 21 22 23
29 30 31

Calendar Notes

School Year Begins ........................................... September 6, 1995
School Year Ends ................................................. June 13, 1996

First Semester Begins ........................................ September 6, 1995
First Semester Ends ........................................... January 26, 1996
First Semester Total Days ................................................... 89

Second Semester Begins ........................................ January 30, 1996
Second Semester Ends ............................................. June 13, 1996
Second Semester Total Student Days .......................................... 91

HOLIDAYS: Denoted by #

Labor Day .................................................... September 4, 1995
Veterans' Day ................................................ November 10, 1995
Thanksgiving Day ............................................. November 23, 1995
Day After Thanksgiving Day ................................... November 24, 1995
Christmas Holiday ............................................ December 25, 1995
New Year's Holiday ............................................. January 1, 1995
Martin Luther King Jr. Day .................................... January 15, 1996
Presidents' Day .............................................. February 19, 1996
Memorial Day ...................................................... May 27, 1996
Independence Day .................................................. July 4, 1996

VACATIONS: Denoted by *

Winter: December 25, 1995 through January 5, 1996
Spring: April 1, 1996 through April 5, 1996

ATTACHMENT D

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
CONCERNING SICK & EMERGENCY LEAVE UTILIZATION
BETWEEN
THE SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND
THE SEATTLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by the Seattle School
District No. 1 (District) and the Seattle Education
Association (Association)representing certificated non-supervisory
employees. The parties have agreed that this Memorandum shall
expire on August 31, 1994.

The agreement between the parties is as follows:

The District and the Association agree to establish a joint task
force to study sick leave and emergency leave utilization. The
Superintendent shall appoint up to five ( 5 ) members and the
President of the Seattle Education Association shall appoint an
equal number of members. The task force shall be charged with the
following responsibilities:

1. Review sick leave and emergency leave utilization data for
certificated employees.

2. Review use of Religious Observance short term leave.

If any usage patterns by a certificated bargaining unit member
emerge, or other problem, is found to exist, then:

1. Identify occurrences of patterned leave usage. Communicate
pertinent information to those employees whose records
indicate that they have a history or pattern of recurring sick
or emergency leave usage.

2. Find ways to reduce sick and emergency leave utilization.

3. Find ways to educate employees on the proper usage of sick and
emergency leave.

4. Issue a final report no later than February 1, 1994, and refer
any unresolved issues to the Bargaining Council.

Dated this ______ day of ________, 1993

ATTACHMENT E

SALARY SCHEDULE FOR SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS
1991-92 1993-94 & 1994-1995

Casual Substitutes .................................. $87.85 102.00 per full workday

After the 5th day in a continuous assignment ........ $98.88 102.00 per full workday

A short term substitute assignment made for up to one-half (.5) day shall be paid at fifty-five (55) percent
of the daily rate and any assignment made for more than one-half (.5) day will be paid at a full day rate. Two
(2) assignments for two (2) buildings in one (1) day shall be paid at one hundred ten (11) percent of full
day rate.

Hourly Equivalents: Base rate ........................... $10.98 12.75
Adjusted rate............................... 12.36

Daily Rate: Half day assignment ........................... $48.42 51.00
Two assignments for two
buildings in one day .......................... $96.62 102.00