Teachers union files grievance

The Whitefish Education Association

teachers union has filed a grievance against the Whitefish School

District.

The WEA claims that the school district

wrongfully denied a request for teachers to meet on union business

during the school day. In response, superintendent Kate Orozco

denied the grievance stating that the teachers contract does not

guarantee such meetings.

The WEA took its claim before the

school board at its Jan. 10 meeting. The board voted to take the

grievance under advisement. The board has a minimum of five days

and up to the next board meeting on Jan. 24 to respond.

“We will take the grievance under

advisement and come back with an answer,” boardchair Pat Jarvi

said.

The WEA claims the school district was

in violation of the collective bargaining agreement between the

district and the teachers union when it prohibited union members

from meeting about union business during their preparation times in

November.

In a letter to the board, WEA President

Kelly Haverlandt said Orozco wrongfully denied a request for

teachers to use their preparations periods to meet about union

business.

Haverlandt and the WEA claim that

historically the practice has been to allow the use of preparation

periods to conduct union business, often at the request of

administration.

Haverlandt told the board she has used

preparation time to answer teachers contract questions or mediate a

dispute between teachers. It was not uncommon for her to meet with

former superintendent Jerry House about union and district business

during that time, she noted.

In a letter to Haverlandt, Orozco

outlined the district’s position stating that the contract allows

union business to be conducted as long as it “does not interrupt

teachers in the course of their duties” and that it does not

entitle teachers to conduct union business during preparation

time.

The letter goes on to say that the

contact states that preparation periods “will be used by teachers

for class preparation or for planning.”

Orozco acknowledges there has been a

tradition of conducting union business during preparation periods,

but that the teacher contract does not guarantee that right.

Bill Howell, field representative for

the MEA-MFT state union, told the board that the decision was an

180-degree turn from the historical practice of allowing short

union business to be conducted during preparation time.

“We think, looking at the practice of

the district, this does not interrupt teaching duties,” he

said.

Howell said that it’s practical for

teachers to be able to ask the union president questions during

preparation periods and that the union does not initiate contact

with teachers during that time.

“It’s not right for the school district

to interfere with union business,” he said. “We’ve had a good

relationship with the district and we see this as a possible

chilling (of that relationship).”

Trustee Charlie Abell asked if it was

possible for teachers to meet outside school hours.

“Prep time is important,” Abell said.

“My concern is if we break up that time that is needed for

preparing for class.”

Howell said while business is conducted

before or after school that the preparation time might be the only

time that is convenient and is useful for quick questions.

Trustee Dave Fern pointed out that the

grievance has been filed based on an historical practice.

“If the district had followed its own

agreement 20 years ago, we wouldn’t be here,” he said.

Howell conceded that the contract

language and the past process have differed slightly.

“It’s sort of hard to put the genie

back in the bottle once it’s been let out,” he said.