Redbank Valley Teachers, School Board Will Continue Negotiating

Scott Shindledecker

Scott Shindledecker

Published November 17, 2016 5:40 am
Image

NEW BETHLEHEM, Pa. (EYT) – More than two years have passed since teachers in the Redbank Valley School District worked with a contract, and it’s anyone guess as to when the dispute will be settled.

Both sides agreed to fact finding on September 14 with the hope of a resolution, but after attorney William J. Miller issued his report and recommendations on October 31, neither side agreed to his findings.

Both sides are going back to the negotiating table on Tuesday, November 22, and Tom Logan, president of the Redbank Valley Education Association and Dean of Students at the high school, is hopeful that a resolution is closer to becoming a reality.

“The Association believes that the Fact Finder’s report, with the clarifications, could pave the way for a fair settlement for both the district and teachers at Redbank Valley,” Logan said.

Dr. Chad Shaffer, Redbank Valley School Board President, is also hopeful a contract agreement can be achieved.

“The board rejected the fact finder report, because it did not provide the district with the necessary contract language, salary control and employee healthcare cost share.  The contract is an important means of controlling expenses, during a time when our budget deficit is growing,” Shaffer said. “Consequently, the board is eager to resume negotiations as soon as the fact finding process that was requested by the Redbank Valley Education Association is finished. Both sides are scheduled to meet November 22. The board is hopeful the process can soon be brought to a conclusion with the production of a responsible contract.”

The Fact Finding process required the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) to appoint a Fact Finder who served as an independent, neutral third party to hear the positions of both parties.

The association and the district submitted a list of open issues to be heard by the Fact Finder.

“At the Fact Finding hearing, both parties provided positions and rationale related to their proposals,” Logan said. “Following the hearing, the Fact Finder issued a recommendation regarding each issue, which becomes part of or replaces existing contract language.”

“Unfortunately, the Fact Finder’s report lacked clarity and definition with regard to several of the open issues, including health care, demotions and furloughs, and cafeteria and study hall coverage. After discussion by both parties with the Fact Finder, he provided clarifications to the report.”

“However, the PLRB would not permit the parties to include the clarifications when voting on the recommendations. This resulted in the association voting ‘No’ to the report.”

Here’s a look at some of the major differences between the teachers union and the school board, according to the fact finding report:

– The teachers are seeking a six-year contract, but the board wants five.

– In terms of wages and salary schedule, the teacher’s association proposed a freeze for the 2014-15 school year, a 2.5 percent raise for 2015-16, and 2.9 percent raises for the next five years, beginning with the 2016-17 school year.

The District proposed salary freezes for 2014-15 and 2015-16 and 2.9 percent increases for the next three years, beginning with 2016-17.

– In regards to health insurance coverage, the association consented to moving to a qualified high deductible health insurance plan with the described benefits. The association would require that the district shall pay the full premium payment minus the premium co–payment required for individual and family coverage. The association points out that the appropriate language be established and that the district contribute into an HSA for each participating employee in each year 70 percent of the in-network deductible amount.

The district is in agreement with the position of the association, except for the contribution of 70 percent of the network deductible amount each year. Rather, the district proposes 60 percent the first year, 50 the second year, and 40 in the third.

The school district, its students, and employees aren’t strangers to prolonged contract negotiations as the district’s tax base shrinks with little job creation and many jobs lost over the years with businesses closing.

In 2005, the teachers and school district were in a similar impasse as a contract had expired in 2003.

Teachers were on strike for 20 days in November of 2004. In 2005, the contract dispute went to arbitration.

 

Recent Articles

Community Partner