BREA : Impasse Continues in School Pact Dispute

A state mediator has failed to break the impasse in contract negotiations between the Brea Olinda Unified School District and the Brea Olinda Teachers Assn.

District Assistant Supt. Peter J. Boothroyd said last week that the two sides are as far apart as they were when talks started almost a year ago. The impasse has continued despite several meetings with state mediator Draza Mrvichin, the last on Oct. 20.

No further talks have yet been set.

At the heart of the contract dispute is the teachers’ union demand that all teachers, including non-union members, pay an “agency” fee for representing them in negotiating salaries and benefits, in disputes between teachers and their superiors, and other job-related legal matters such as grievance hearings.

District officials contend that requiring the fee would be tantamount to forcing teachers to join the union.

Union officials, however, said that the teachers should settle the agency-fee issue themselves through an election that would be sanctioned by the district as provided by state law.

Pay is not an issue in the impasse, though teachers have not had a raise since the 1990-91 school year because of the district’s tight budget, Boothroyd said. However, he said that teachers understand the district’s financial position and that money is not the reason for the deadlock in negotiations.

“Compensation is part of the contract we’re negotiating. But it’s not the primary focus this year,” said Laurry Bishop, president of the teachers’ union.

The district opposes the union’s request for an election on the agency-fee issue, saying that putting it to a vote would be unfair to non-union teachers because a majority of the district’s 200 teachers belong to the union.

In addition, district officials said they would lose the ability to attract quality teachers because the agency fee, in effect, will lower salaries.

Union members pay $62.50 monthly in membership dues for 10 months. It includes the agency fee and membership in other teachers’ organizations, like the California Teachers Assn. For non-members, the agency fee would amount to about $47 monthly, which just pays the expenses of the local union, Bishop said.

For close to two years now, the teachers have been without a contract. When the negotiations reached an impasse in December, 1991, Mrvichin, who works with the state’s mediation and counseling services, was asked to mediate the dispute.

Boothroyd said Mrvichin met the two sides separately in March and May--with no results. Mrvichin called the Oct. 20 meeting but again failed to work out a compromise.

Union officials contend that since all teachers receive benefits as a result of the union’s representation, all teachers must pay an agency fee, which is about 75% of the membership dues.

Currently, about 165 of 215 teachers belong to the union, according to Bishop. “Those who don’t belong are represented (by the union) but pay nothing,” he said.

Bishop said that in a survey conducted in early October, union members endorsed putting the agency issue to an election. However, he said the survey did not include non-union members.

The district is opposed to the agency fee because it would be a requirement for employment, according to Boothroyd.

“An individual would not be able to choose not to pay. The teacher should have that choice.”

There are two other issues that the district and teachers’ union are negotiating: personal leave and extended child-care leave. Boothroyd said these are “pretty much settled, except for the language” in the contract.