|
As administrators employed by a school district you have the right to:
-
Meet and Discuss in good faith with the school board - The purpose of these
discussions is to present data and arguments for salary increases and methods
of determining future raises and benefits. Benefits would include the usual
medical, dental, vision, etc. It could include retirement benefits, vacations,
other time off, and buy-back of such time should the administrator leave the
district for any reason. Some school boards like to include transfer language,
a limited grievance procedure, evaluation language and work-day, work-year
definitions, which can be part of the discussions.
-
A written compensation plan as board policy whether or not you have Meet and
Discuss - The plan must be written and contain as a minimum a description of
benefits, salaries (how they are determined), and an overall description of the
compensation plan.
-
To use the grievance procedure provided by the 1947 Anti-Strike act -This
process of fact finding is administered through the Pennsylvania Department of
Education. The process, which is non-binding, is used most often when school
boards refuse to even meet with their administrators.
The law requires that a majority of administrators support Meet and Discuss
sessions with the school board. While the law does not define the word majority
it has become the practice that if more than 50% of the administrators support
the concept of meeting with the board, then the board must meet with the
administrative group. It is also understood that if successful conclusions are
to be reached, whatever is agreed to will be for all administrators. Therefore,
no special deals can be made later for one person or a subgroup within the
larger group.
REMEMBER THE PURPOSE OF ACT 93 IS TO STRENGTHEN THE MANAGEMENT TEAM BY HAVING A
PROCEDURE IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH SALARIES AND BENEFITS. IT IS NOT A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING LAW.
ACT 93 AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACT 195/88
-
Under Act 93, the school board after good faith Meet and Discuss can adopt the
administrator compensation plan without the concurrence of the administrators.
On the other hand, act 195 does not require either side to agree to a
particular contract. However, no collective bargaining agreement is in effect
until both parties agree to the terms and conditions contained in the document.
-
Act 195/88 has strict time limits. Act 93 is more flexible and the
determination of when to start discussions is left up to administrators. Unlike
collective bargaining which may take many months or even years, administrators
tend to have a plan implemented in much shorter period. However, because each
district culture is different the local administrative team needs to determine
if working past the ACP’s expiration date without a new plan is in their best
interest. If good faith Meet and Discuss has occurred the board may adopt the
ACP. Unlike in collective bargain, the administrators cannot delay the adoption
of the ACP by failing to agree to its terms and conditions.
-
It is important to start the process early. The administrative group needs to
determine that a majority wants to initiate Meet and Discuss. By failing to
start early not enough time may exist before the expiration of the ACP to
discuss the issues thoroughly. Rather than continue discussions the school
board may unilaterally act to adopt the new ACP rather than have no plan in
place. It becomes difficult to argue that there has been insufficient time to
adequately discuss the issues when the complaining party waited so long to
begin discussions. Remember school boards because of their busy schedule may
require many weeks between sessions.
WHAT IS GOOD FAITH MEET AND DISCUSS?
-
Not an easy concept to prove/disprove. A good definition was never defined when
reviewing Act 195.
-
The courts make a determination on good faith based on intention.
-
Were the sessions productive? Did open dialogue take place?
-
While time is not usually an indicator, it can be considered for good faith.
For example, if the board only held one meeting or if they scheduled and
constantly canceled meetings, this may be a basis for not meeting the good
faith intent.
-
Did the school board convey factual reasons and rationale for its decisions?
-
Is the ACP complete in stating the term, salaries, benefits, early retirement
incentives, college credits, dues payments and any other factor affecting
salary, such as evaluations, in the plan?
-
Did the school board present a written plan to administrators for their
consensus after Meet and Discuss, or did they pass the plan without
administrative input into the written document?
-
While not required, a document that is written as a contract signed by both
parties shows a strong intent on the part of the school board.
-
Did the board treat the Act 93 team with the purpose of mutually solving this
problem?
-
Was the school board decision contrary to the law, board policy, or the facts?
-
Were there attempts on the part of the school board to intimidate or coerce the
participants in the discussion?
-
Was a serious effort made to resolve differences? (this would apply to both
parties)
ACT 93 ISSUES
SALARY COMPARISONS
The problem is who to compare - teachers, other school districts,
business community, or general wage trends? It is recommended the Act 93 group
consider a number of factors. This enhances the credibility of your argument
for salary and benefit increases.
APPROACH
This should be one of mutual problem-solving rather than negotiations
- proposal - counter proposal approach. There are certain expectations that
society has evoked on management level employees. Contract negotiations are not
one of the characteristics school board members expect to see from management
employees. Instead, they expect a teamwork, mutual problem-solving approach.
This doesn’t mean the school board will agree with the Act 93 group; however
board members will be more likely to continue discussions with this approach.
With additional discussion , there is more likelihood an agreement can be
achieved.
LEGAL
The courts have determined that once the school board approves a
compensation plan it may not be changed without mutual agreement (Curley v.
Greater Johnstown School District). A mandamus action in extreme situations may
be used if the school board refuses to meet and discuss or decreases/freezes
wages.
TERM
A one-year minimum or multiple-year agreement is the decision faced by
the Meet and Discuss group. This is a local decision determined on the
particular issues. A concern is that the group is being forced to take a long
multiple-year agreement if they do not concur with the terms the board
proposes.
|