Fairview Education Association files complaint against board

The relationship between the Fairview Education Association and the Fairview School Board has gotten to the point where an unfair labor practice complaint has been filed with the Department of Labor and Industry’s Board of Personnel Appeals against the school district.

A collective bargaining session ended in late May with Fairview Education Association representatives saying mediation was the best course. At that meeting, the teachers proposed an additional $152,000 would be spent on salaries next year and $73,000 would be used in the second year of the contract. Teachers noted the $152,000 is really an increase of $142,000 because $10,000 of the increase comes from “steps and lanes” that some teachers see starting next year. The salary increase would be between 8-26 percent per teacher the first year (with the average about 15 percent) and between 5-8 percent the second year.

The board’s proposal would increase the base pay to $26,639. Teachers would receive a 4.89 percent salary increase across the board. An additional $44,269 would be spent on teaching salaries by the district. The parties are also discussing a system where teachers receive a 12 percent bonus from oil revenue after all general budget needs are met. This year the amount was 10 percent.

The unfair labor practice complaint states the board has bargained in “bad faith.” Four instances are pointed to by the Fairview Education Association including:

• Refusing to tentatively agree on anything: “until we have taken it to the full board.” (quote attributed to board member Randy Skov on April 6).

• Refusing to even consider the addition of representation fee, labeling it as “communism.” (quote attributed to Skov on May 7).

• Claiming inability to pay increases on the salary schedule matrix because oil and gas revenue are not “permanent” when more than 90 percent of the entire general fund budgets are funded with oil/gas and state monies.

• Reducing the cost of economic salary proposals at each successive bargaining meeting and claiming the district has only the “new money” awarded by the Legislature to spend.

The complaint further reads, “The union accepts we may not bargain how the district constructs its budgets. However, the district cannot fund the GF (general fund) budget almost entirely from one revenue source and then claim that source ‘off limits’ for salary and other benefits. If limited to non oil/gas monies, the current salary/budgets would be reduced to ashes. Thus, while the union does not bargain budget, the district cannot cry poor when receiving literally millions (from 2000 forward) in oil/gas revenue.”

The Fairview Education Association’s “remedy” is to have the district to cease and desist in bad faith bargaining; to order the trustees to immediately begin bargaining in good faith; and to implement whatever remedy the board deems appropriate.

In the district’s response, written by Montana School Boards Association’s attorney Tony C. Koenig on June 24, it denies the board bargained in bad faith.

The response states that Skov’s comments about refusing to agree on anything before taking it to the full board came during the ground rules conversations. “Clearly Mr. Skov’s statement was simply an affirmation of what is, in fact, true. The bargaining team lacks the authority to bind the district to an agreement that has not been approved by the board of trustees. Rather, as a committee of the board, the bargaining team may only make recommendations to the board.”

Regarding, Skov’s comment that requiring representation fee is “communism,” the response reads, “It appears to be the position of the FEA that rejection of their proposal to impose a representation fee on non-union members constitutes an unfair labor practice. This is not correct. Bargaining in good faith does not require the board’s bargaining team to simply accept every proposal submitted by the FEA.” The response later reads, “Tentative agreement has been reached on some proposals, some proposals have been rejected, and the parties continue to negotiate over others.”

The response says the board’s bargaining team hasn’t reduced salary proposals but has increased them from 3 percent May 7 to 4 percent May 18 and 4.89 percent on May 26. The response says the district’s most recent proposal would cost the district about $40,000. The Fairview Education Association’s proposals would cost between $150,000 and $200,000.

The response says that the elementary district is funded at 5.77 percent with district mill levies, 39.72 percent with oil and gas revenues and 54.51 state aid. The high school district is funded at 4.38 percent with district mill levies, 20.21 percent with oil and gas revenue and 75.41 percent with state aid.

“The district is not obligated to fund increases in teacher salaries from oil and gas money. As far as that goes, the district is not obligated to increase teacher salaries at all. The FEA is correct that it cannot dictate to the district how to construct its budget. The source of funding for proposed increases in teacher salaries is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. That being said, the district has met with the FEA and negotiated in good faith over teacher salaries. The fact that the FEA is unhappy with the proposals of the board’s bargaining team does not equate to a conclusion that the district has committed an unfair labor practice,” the response reads.

In the conclusion of the response, comments made are that the district isn’t obligated to agree to the association’s ground rules or to a 20 percent salary increase or to fund any increase with oil and gas revenue. “Stated plainly, the district is not obligated to roll over and meekly accept every demand of the FEA.”

editor@sidneyherald.com