ARTICLE FROM THE NEW MEXICAN
Dispute could further delay approval of teacher salaries
BY JOHN SENA | The New Mexican
June 25, 2006
The New Mexican The district and the teachers’ union each filed a complaint with the state Public Employees Labor Relations Board, which could take a couple of months to resolve the dispute.
A dispute between the Santa Fe school district and the teachers’ union could mean teachers work even longer into next school year without a contract.
While some years teachers have waited as late as Octo-ber for the school board to approve their salaries, the latest dispute over negotiations could push the date even further.
“Of course, that’s a pos-sibility, and we’re always concerned about that,” Board President Mary Ellen Gonza-les said. “We’re really hoping that does not happen.” The district and the teachers’ union each filed a com-plaint with the state Public Employees Labor Relations Board, which could take a couple of months to resolve the dispute. Talks aren’t expected to resume until the board makes a decision.
“We’re distressed about the fact that there’s a bump in the road,” Gonzales said.
Santa Fe school officials said they won’t bargain with the teachers’ union because they claim the union violated a set of ground rules. The union’s president said the rules were not broken and are not legally binding.
The school district has filed a complaint with the labor board claiming the union violated a requirement that negotiators not discuss negotiation issues with either bargaining-unit employees or elected officials.
The union filed a cross complaint with the labor board, claiming that by refus-ing to return to the negoti-ating table, the district has violated the current collec-tive bargaining agreement.
The union is asking that the labor board order the district to return to negotiations.
Koo Im Tong, president of National Education Associa-tion- Santa Fe, said she didn’t violate any ground rules because she addressed the school board about workers’ salaries before they were under negotiation. When the union put a newsletter in teachers’ mail boxes with a couple of the school district’s proposed changes to the col-lective bargaining agreement, it was merely trying to inform union members, Tong also said.
“We were interested in informing our constituents,” Tong said. “We have a legal obligation to represent all members of our bargaining unit, whether they pay dues or not.” By agreeing to confidenti-ality, Tong said, the union is limiting its negotiating power because the district could request any changes they wanted without the public knowing.
At least two other school districts and their teachers’ unions have some sort of con-fidentiality agreement when it comes to negotiations.
Rigo Chavez, spokesman for Albuquerque Public Schools, said the district and the Albuquerque Teachers’ Federation have ground rules. “They’re not supposed to discuss negotiations outside the negotiating table,” Chavez said.
Kim Vesley, Rio Rancho Public Schools spokes-woman, said while there is nothing in writing about con-fidentiality, her district and its teachers’ union usually maintain confidentiality during negotiations.
Efforts to reach union officials in Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Las Cruces and Gallup were unsuccessful.
Pilar Vaile, deputy director of the labor board, said both parties have filed motions to dismiss the other’s claims, and a hearing is scheduled for July 10.
Vaile wouldn’t speculate about how long it might take to resolve the issue, only that most disputes usually take about two months. Vaile said, the process could drag.
Sarah Schlosser-Moon, spokeswoman for the district, said the district is willing to return to negotiations as long as there are ground rules in place.
“The district believes that both sides must know and abide by our agreements in order to establish trust and good-faith bargaining,” she said.
Contact John Sena at 995-3812.
BY JOHN SENA | The New Mexican
June 25, 2006
The New Mexican The district and the teachers’ union each filed a complaint with the state Public Employees Labor Relations Board, which could take a couple of months to resolve the dispute.
A dispute between the Santa Fe school district and the teachers’ union could mean teachers work even longer into next school year without a contract.
While some years teachers have waited as late as Octo-ber for the school board to approve their salaries, the latest dispute over negotiations could push the date even further.
“Of course, that’s a pos-sibility, and we’re always concerned about that,” Board President Mary Ellen Gonza-les said. “We’re really hoping that does not happen.” The district and the teachers’ union each filed a com-plaint with the state Public Employees Labor Relations Board, which could take a couple of months to resolve the dispute. Talks aren’t expected to resume until the board makes a decision.
“We’re distressed about the fact that there’s a bump in the road,” Gonzales said.
Santa Fe school officials said they won’t bargain with the teachers’ union because they claim the union violated a set of ground rules. The union’s president said the rules were not broken and are not legally binding.
The school district has filed a complaint with the labor board claiming the union violated a requirement that negotiators not discuss negotiation issues with either bargaining-unit employees or elected officials.
The union filed a cross complaint with the labor board, claiming that by refus-ing to return to the negoti-ating table, the district has violated the current collec-tive bargaining agreement.
The union is asking that the labor board order the district to return to negotiations.
Koo Im Tong, president of National Education Associa-tion- Santa Fe, said she didn’t violate any ground rules because she addressed the school board about workers’ salaries before they were under negotiation. When the union put a newsletter in teachers’ mail boxes with a couple of the school district’s proposed changes to the col-lective bargaining agreement, it was merely trying to inform union members, Tong also said.
“We were interested in informing our constituents,” Tong said. “We have a legal obligation to represent all members of our bargaining unit, whether they pay dues or not.” By agreeing to confidenti-ality, Tong said, the union is limiting its negotiating power because the district could request any changes they wanted without the public knowing.
At least two other school districts and their teachers’ unions have some sort of con-fidentiality agreement when it comes to negotiations.
Rigo Chavez, spokesman for Albuquerque Public Schools, said the district and the Albuquerque Teachers’ Federation have ground rules. “They’re not supposed to discuss negotiations outside the negotiating table,” Chavez said.
Kim Vesley, Rio Rancho Public Schools spokes-woman, said while there is nothing in writing about con-fidentiality, her district and its teachers’ union usually maintain confidentiality during negotiations.
Efforts to reach union officials in Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Las Cruces and Gallup were unsuccessful.
Pilar Vaile, deputy director of the labor board, said both parties have filed motions to dismiss the other’s claims, and a hearing is scheduled for July 10.
Vaile wouldn’t speculate about how long it might take to resolve the issue, only that most disputes usually take about two months. Vaile said, the process could drag.
Sarah Schlosser-Moon, spokeswoman for the district, said the district is willing to return to negotiations as long as there are ground rules in place.
“The district believes that both sides must know and abide by our agreements in order to establish trust and good-faith bargaining,” she said.
Contact John Sena at 995-3812.
posted by Editor | 10:55 AM
<< Home