School District, Union Take Dispute to Judge : Education: Ruling could force L.A. district to refund all or part of teachers’ pay cut.

The Los Angeles school district and its teachers union squared off before a judge Tuesday, exchanging accusations of bad-faith bargaining during the contract battle that may lead to a February strike.

The stakes are high: A favorable ruling for United Teachers-Los Angeles could force the district to refund all or part of a 12% pay cut during the time period that bad-faith bargaining occurred.

For the district, the case stands to settle what officials claim have been unfair union tactics to prolong negotiations--namely, the union’s refusal to submit a detailed salary counteroffer and moves to renege on deadline and other agreements to settle the contract.

The case before the state Public Employment Relations Board, which has the authority to rule in labor disputes involving school districts, is expected to last 11 days. Within 60 days, Administrative Law Judge Ronald E. Blubaugh will issue his recommendations to the five-member state board, which can approve, reject or amend the proposed solution.

Blubaugh will also rule on the union’s complaint that the district’s controversial “mutual protection” agreements with six other unions--which prohibit the district from making a better contract deal with teachers than with other employee unions--unfairly ties the hands of the district in talks with the teachers union.

Blubaugh ruled Tuesday that the other unions can join the case to defend those agreements.

The hearing coincides with mediation sessions led by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, who is seen by both sides as their last hope to avert a Feb. 23 strike. The dispute stems from the district’s decision to impose pay cuts on all employees to help balance a $400-million budget deficit.

If an agreement is reached, the entire case or specific charges in it will probably be dropped, union and district officials said.

The union first brought complaints against the district in late October, alleging that school negotiators illegally imposed a 12% pay cut and medical benefit changes on Oct. 2 while contract negotiations were ongoing. The union also alleges that their talks have been hindered because the district has failed to provide requested information.

“In 35 regrettably short days a potentially disruptive, a potentially paralyzing strike by 30,000 plus teachers in the L.A. school district is likely to take place,” said attorney Jesus Quinonez, who represents the teachers union. “You are now about to hear why the district’s conduct over the last six months of meetings with UTLA has prevented any sort of meaningful and lawful negotiations.”

He said in opening statements that education codes require the district to “enter into negotiations with an open and fair mind and with a sincere desire to reach an agreement.”

He said the union will show that the district’s strategy was to “force UTLA into the position of either accepting massive pay cuts and benefit changes as proposed by the district or to have the cuts unilaterally imposed.”

The union has not given a specific number for 1992-93 salary levels, but Quinonez said union officials presented a plan for restructuring the district’s budget and other cost-saving measures. He said the district has not formally responded to those proposals.

Framroze M. Virjee, the attorney representing the school district, said in his opening remarks that the issues are not “a simple case of bad-faith bargaining by the district,” as UTLA has portrayed them. “It is a rather complex case,” he said.

He said the district will show that the union has “repudiated its own agreement” with the district by fighting the pay cuts that were imposed Oct. 2. Virjee said the union and the district signed an agreement stating that negotiations “will be complete or deemed completed” by Sept. 15, which the district argues gave it the authority to set salary levels.

Throughout the seven months of negotiations that have included 40 sessions, Virjee said the union “still to this day has no proposal for what compensation should look like for 1992-93.”

He called the union’s claim that the district has not provided important information a “red herring issue” and said he will show that documents were provided. He refuted the union claim that the so-called “me-too” agreements with the other unions interfered with the district’s flexibility to negotiate with teachers.

“The district had little choice in the matters if we wished to reach agreements with the other unions,” Virjee said, saying the others refused to sign contracts without such protections.

“The bad faith is by UTLA, not the district,” Virjee said.