Union files labor complaint against Kent School District

The Kent Education Association Monday filed an Unfair Labor Practice complaint against the Kent School District, charging the district with 11 different violations, including subcontracting employees from an agency, increasing workload without allowing for bargaining, unilateral changes in work rules and unsafe working conditions.

The complaint was filed with the Washington State Public Employee Relations Commission.

The KEA represents all certificated staff in the Kent School District, including teachers and others who have a professional certificate issued by the State Department of Education, including school nurses, psychologists and counselors.

KEA President Lisa Brackin-Johnson said the union has been working with the district for years to address the complaints, but said “many issues have not been resolved,” adding the district has shown an “overall lack of regard” for union’s contract.

“It’s disappointing we’ve had to move to the Unfair Labor Practices,” she said Wednesday.

Officials from the Kent School District declined to comment on the filing, except to express “disappointment” with the union’s decision to do so.

“It would be inappropriate for us to discuss the specific issues at this time,” spokesperson Becky Hanks said, adding that it was “particularly troubling” that the union filed the complaint on the same day KEA and the district agreed to go to mediation for several unresolved issues surrounding the contract, which expires in August.

The 19-page complaint is divided into 11 sections, plus a request for remedy, that lay out the union’s grievances with the district.

At the top of the list is the district practice of filling vacant bargaining positions, including psychologists, nurses, physical therapists and special education teachers, though a temp agency instead of hiring outright.

According to the union, the district last year filled 40 positions through agencies.

“They spent $1.3 million more hiring through these agencies than through direct hire,” Brackin-Johnson said.

In the past, district officials have said they use the agency hirings for positions that they are unable to fill otherwise. They cite the increased cost as reason they would prefer to hire directly.

According to the complaint, an arbitrator ruled in October the district violated the contract because of the level of subcontract hires and ordered the district to cease the practice beginning in the 2009-2010 school year.

Other complaints by the union include increased workload without compensation. The complaint cites the One-to-One laptop program, the funding of which was approved by voters in the form of a technology levy. It was unveiled earlier this year at Mill Creek Middle School.

According to Brackin-Johnson, the program takes teachers away from instructional time because of requirements to check each student’s Internet history once each month. The district estimates the checks should take 15 minutes, while the union claims it takes up to a full period.

“We’re not saying the laptops are a bad thing,” Brackin-Johnson insisted. “It’s the additional workload. Nothing else has been taken off.”

Brackin-Johnson said changing the workload requires approval and a change to the contract.

“When you have an impact on workload, that’s supposed to be bargained beforehand,” she said.

In another section, the union claims the district is not providing it with lists of teacher employee numbers and Social Security numbers in a timely manner. Brackin-Johnson said the lists allow the union to collect dues from each teacher and though the lists were provided Oct. 17, the union claims they are not entirely correct and the union is not getting full dues.

“It’s still not been corrected,” she said. “It’s just another example of interference with the association and the work of the association.”

The union also is claiming the district unilaterally changed the benefit options offered teachers. According to Brackin-Johnson, the union and the district agreed in June on a list of benefits. In August, four had been removed, six new ones added and there was a service fee, according to Brackin-Johnson.

“None of which we had agreed to,” she said.

The complaint next charges the district unilaterally changed work rules, which it claims violates protected rights.

At issue is an alleged comment from an assistant principal at Kentlake High School to a union member that the district was “pushing (the union) back on work hours.” At issue was a teacher’s need to leave before the official end of the work day stated in the contract. The teacher is a coach at another school and was leaving to go to practice.

According to the complaint, the KEA recently told the school’s principal that a schedule adjustment would have to be changed, to comply with the contract, which states that teachers are required to be at the school from 30 minutes before classes begin until 30 minutes after they end.

The assistant principal allegedly enforced that provision of the contract as a way to “push back” against the union complaint, KEA officials claim.

“It’s a form of retaliation,” Brackin-Johnson said.

Later in the complaint, the union again insists upon principals respecting the contracted work day, when another principal attempted to schedule a meeting for before the school day officially began

This essentially has KEA arguing for enforcement of the contract day at one point and against it in another.

Another principal is named in the complaint because she allegedly tried to discourage a teacher from working with the union. The principal was included in the complaint for allegedly telling KEA reps that they could no longer conduct KEA building meetings during work hours.

According to Brackin-Johnson, the current contract does not specifically allow for union meetings during the contract day, but in the past it has been allowed.

The union also claims an unfair labor practice because the district allegedly changed a bargaining process by allowing only one representative from the union in on matters involving discipline. While the contract states that a representative must be present, it does not give a specific number, though in the past more than one have been allowed

According to the union, this constitutes an unfair change.

The union also complains that teachers were “coerced” to attend special training (conducted on a non-work day) on new materials, because the district threatened to withhold those materials until training was completed.

According to Brackin-Johnson, the teachers were still required to get the results, without use of the new tools and therefore training should have been held on work days or re-negotitated.

Additional complaints revolve around increased workloads, including new programs that require additional work from teachers, such as work on student projects and phone calls to students, all of which take away form the workday and increase teacher workload, according to the union.

“It’s about making up new rules and assignments and those and things that need to be bargained by law,” Brackin-Johnson said.

The union complaint also includes sections about the district’s bargaining team lacking authority to negotiate during bargaining sessions. The union is frustrated that when it brings proposals or counter proposals, the negotiating team cannot act on them.

However, all contract decisions must be approved by the district board of directors.

“The board is supposed to send a team who can bargain,” Brackin-Johnson said.

The union also cites the district’s decision to alter when heat and air conditioning are turned on, alleging it creates an unsafe work environment because the buildings are too cold or too hot.

“It’s difficult to provide a quality education for students when they have to wear coats and gloves all day long,” Brackin-Johnson said.

District policy states the heat will be turned on one hour before classes start and the building will be kept between 68 and 70 degrees. State law requires buildings be heated to at least 65 degrees.

The complaint also states the district did not implement a grievance statement based on principals returning kids to the classroom who have been sent for disciplinary action.

According to Brackin-Johnsons, state law and board policy state a principal must receive consent from the teacher before returning a student to the classroom, and in multiple cases at one elementary school this did not happen.

“It’s about providing teachers with the support they need to keep kids from disruption,” she said.

Brackin-Johnson said the union hopes PERC acts on these issues so they can press upon the district that thy have to obey the contract.

“At some point we have to let the district know this is important and we have to make sure they are abiding by district contract and law,” she said.

According to PERC executive Director Cathy Callahan, the Unfair Labor Practice Manager will review the case to determine whether the filings, if proven, would be a violation.

If he finds that they would, if proven true, be in violation, a hearing would be set to allow both parties an opportunity to be heard.

Callahan emphasized that the manager would not make a determination of truth, simply whether the complaints would constitute a violation if they were true.

If not, the filing would receive a deficiency notice and be sent back to the complainant.

The time frame for the complaint is unknown at this time.