Hollister
– The San Benito High School Teachers’ Association has filed an
unfair labor practices charge against the district over a change in
teacher work hours. The action is the second in two years, further
embroiling the two parties in what may be a costly legal
battle.
Hollister – The San Benito High School Teachers’ Association has filed an unfair labor practices charge against the district over a change in teacher work hours. The action is the second in two years, further embroiling the two parties in what may be a costly legal battle.
The union has filed suit against the district for installing a new student schedule – and altering teacher work hours – without first negotiating an agreement with teachers. Both parties were negotiating the effects of a schedule change brought about by the introduction of the 40-minute ‘Baler Connections period four times a week, but the district declared an impasse just before the end of the school year in June.
At the time, district negotiators said they were declaring impasse precisely to avoid another unfair labor practices charge, and would instead use a six-period block schedule in which each class would be 115 minutes long and each teacher would have a prep period for grading papers or lesson planning, unless they opted out.
When the first school bells at SBHS rang this week, however, the new schedule was in fact in place – students now take six classes on Monday and three classes Tuesday through Friday, in addition to an advisory or study hall period. According to teachers’ association President Chuck Schallhorn, this means teachers are working an additional 96 hours a year that their contracts do not account for, a “substantial” difference.
“We have to be at school 20 minutes before the first bell rings and 25 minutes after school,” he said. “Last year that meant we were at school from 8:10 to 3:05, now we stay from 7:40 to 3:23, and we have an additional 40 minutes of class time with 25-28 students.”
The union’s contention is not with the advent of the new study hall period or scheduling changes, but rather with the fact that they believe the district did not properly negotiate first.
“I understand they had their reasons – class minutes and improving student achievement,” Schallhorn said. “And those are all worthy goals, but not at expense of the law.”
This is not the first ULP charge the union has filed. Last year, the association filed an unfair labor practices charge against the district because teachers were unable to ratify a seven-period schedule for 2005-2006 before the end of the 2004-2005 year, although both agencies had informally agreed on it, according to district officials.
An “informal hearing” on the original suit was held Tuesday at the Public Employee Relations Board office in Oakland. PERB is the agency responsible for investigating and mediating ULP suits. The union had hoped that both suits could be discussed at the hearing, but the district did not receive the proper paperwork in time, so the discussion centered mostly around last year’s ULP charge.
Schallhorn and two representatives from the California Teachers’ Association represented the union, and Superintendent Jean Burns Slater – who will be retiring at the end of the month – and Director of Educational Services Cindy Cordova represented the district without legal assistance.
“There would have been no advantage to (bringing legal help) at that point, and it would have been very costly,” Cordova said.
According to a written statement issued by Schallhorn to the rest of the union, the administrative law judge conducting the meeting indicated that the district was not “legally justified” in imposing the seven-period schedule and changing start and end times without negotiating with the union. Schallhorn added that the union’s attorney reviewed the letter before it was distributed and said it was “accurate.”
“The question was ‘Did the district break the law, in no uncertain terms?'” he said. “And the answer is yes.”
District officials, however, say they interpret the judge’s remarks differently.
“Quite the contrary, I did not hear the judge say that (the district broke the law),” Cordova said. “That’s what I heard the lawyers say.”
Schallhorn says the union will be seeking damages, whether a second hearing is required or the two parties are able to negotiate an agreement on their own beforehand. Should the union be awarded damages, Schallhorn said, teachers would receive back pay based on an hourly rate determined by PERB, and about half of the teaching staff would be affected.
“We want the district to respect teachers by following the law completely,” he said. “And to come to the negotiations table with an open mind about what teachers deserve and their working conditions.”
Cordova added that the district also hoped to reinstate negotiations as soon as possible.
“We are anxious to negotiate with the union and work things out,” she said. “As we have always been.”
Jean Burns Slater could not be reached for comment Friday.
Danielle Smith covers education for the Free Lance. Reach her at 637-5566, ext. 336 or [email protected].
