Congenial David Mielke, President of the Teachers Union, flashed a victory smile across the community this morning after winning a concession from the School District in an unfair labor practice suit filed nearly a year ago.
The charge was that Steve Gourley, then the President of the School Board, made contract proposal overtures to union reps last year, on his own, after talks stalled and before a mediator had assumed control.
“We were completely satisfied with the outcome of this case,” Mr. Mielke told the newspaper this morning.
“In settlement agreements, it is expected that there will be no admission of wrongdoing. But, the promise not to deal directly with employees clearly suggests that it was done in this case.”
Mr. Mielke said it was not necessary to go to trial because “that would have given us just what we got from the settlement, other than an admission of wrongdoing.”
The Teachers Union President said he was “not sure” how expensive the suit was.
“Several hours of attorney time,” he said. “But we get assistance from our state and national organizations.
“Unions need to step up when employers interfere with the bargaining process.
“This was something we had to do.
“I am sure the District spent much more money. They had a three-page written response with all sorts of legal references showing that School Board members can say what they want
“It’s what lawyers do, of course.
“We were surprised the process got this far.
“When I first noticed the violation, I went to (then-Supt.) Myrna Cote. I asked her to rein in Mr. Gourley or, I said, we will have to file an unfair labor practice charge.
“Since we filed, you may assume she did not act to rein him in,” Mr. Mielke said.
Here is the dispatch Mr. Mielke sent yesterday to his 350-member union:
Hello again:
Just a quick note to let you know that CCUSD and the union signed a settlement agreement (yesterday) regarding the “unfair labor practice” charge we brought against them last spring.
You will recall that what prompted our action were emails sent by School Board President Steve Gourley to bargaining unit members after the teams had declared impasse and were awaiting a state mediator.
The emails, in our view, were a violation of collective bargaining law called “direct dealing.” Public employers may not bargain with individual employees, but must bargain with those employees' representatives, in this case, the CCFT.
Complicating matters was the fact that in those emails Mr. Gourley outlined a salary reduction proposal that was different from the proposal that CCUSD had on the table!
(CCUSD proposed furlough days last year, but no salary cuts.) Some teachers assumed that a proposal from the Board President was a legitimate proposal from the District.
Finally, the emails suggested that jobs would be lost if teachers did not respond affirmatively to his salary-cut proposal. This then led some teachers to contact the union to encourage us to accept Mr. Gourley's proposal, assuming, incorrectly, that it was the same proposal that the district had on the table.
You would think that this would be an easy case for PERB, the Public Employment Relations Board.
But never underestimate the creativity of lawyers.
The District's defense, essentially, was the “it's a free country and people can say what they want” defence.
According to the District, emails from the Board President, even those outlining salary proposals, are not messages from the District!
CCUSD's lawyer made it clear that they would be happy to go to trial to affirm Mr. Gourley's right to say whatever he wants.
Fortunately, PERB attorney Valerie Racho, persuaded the parties to sign a settlement agreement, bringing the matter to a close.
We were surprised that the District was willing to continue spending additional fees on this case, given the strength of the union's position and the District's tight financial picture.
In the agreement, CCUSD, without admitting that they had broken the law, “acknowledges that it has a duty under the Educational Employment Relations Act to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit and, concomitant with such duty, it must refrain from negotiating directly with employees over matters within the scope of representation so as not to derogate or undermine the authority of the exclusive representative. In the future, upon request from the Union, the District will take actions to clarify the District's position if such position conflicts with views expressed by individual Board members.”
This is essentially what we would have gotten by going to trial. The only difference is that in a trial there would be a determination as to whether or not the District had, in fact, violated the law.
