Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARDIN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYEES OF ::: Case No. ACT 88-09-37-E:NORTHWESTERN LEHIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT :REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONSFACT FINDER: Alex A. KaschockFOR THE EMPLOYER: FOR THE UNION:Ellis H. Katz, Esquire Mark Lynn, UniServ RepresentativeSweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams LLP Pennsylvania State Education Association

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Act 88 of 1992 (Act 88) and the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA), the undersigned was appointedby the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (Board) on October 9, 2009, as the Fact Finder in the impasse between theNorthwestern Lehigh School District (District) and the Northwestern Lehigh Education Association PSEA/NEA (Association).In accordance with the Board’s Order of October 9, 2009, the parties filed written statements of the issues indispute with the Fact Finder. On November 5, 2009, a hearing was held at the Northwestern Lehigh School District, atwhich time both parties were offered a full opportunity to present testimony, examine and cross-examine witnesses,introduce documentary evidence and argue orally in support of their respective positions.The Fact Finder commends both parties for their professional and courteous presentations. The positions of theparties were clearly articulated and the documentation presented was helpful and informative.In some instances, when a party has proposed adding a new section or changing existing language from theAgreement, recommendations have been made with little or no discussion. This is intended to indicate only that theseproposals are not being recommended as part of the overall proposal for settlement suggested by the Fact Finder at thistime and not to negate the concerns expressed by the party offering them. Some of these issues might very well beappropriate for informal discussions between the parties and/or bargaining for future agreements.The recommendations that follow constitute the settlement proposal upon which the parties are now required toact, as directed by statute and Board regulations. Pursuant to statutory authority, this report will be released to the public ifnot accepted. A vote to accept the report does not constitute agreement with or endorsement of the rationales, but ratherrepresents only an agreement to resolve the issues by adopting the recommendations.

ISSUES

The District and the Association have identified twenty (20) general issues as remaining in dispute between theparties at the time of Fact Finding. The outstanding issues, as presented at the Fact Finding hearing, are as follows:Issue I. Term of Agreement (Article II)Issue 2. Non-Discrimination Clause (Article IV)Issue 3. Association Rights (Article VII)Issue 4. Professional Development (Article VIII, Section 1)Issue 5. Teacher Preparation Time (Article VIII, Section E)Issue 6. Employee Meetings (Article VIII, Section F)Issue 7. Medical Insurance (Article IX, Section A.1)Issue 8. Life Insurance (Article IX, Section A.7)Issue 9. Vision Insurance (Article IX, Section A.8)Issue 10. 125 Health Savings Account (Article IX, Section A.10)Issue 11. Medical Coverage Benefits Waiver (Article IX, Section A.11)Issue 12. Tuition Reimbursement (Article IX, Section B)Issue 13. Personal / Emergency Days, Bereavement Leave (Article X, Section 4,8)Issue 14. Child Rearing Leave (Article X, Section C.3)Issue 15. Salary Schedules (Article XI)Issue 16. Retirement Severance (Article XI, Section B)Issue 17. Homebound Instruction (Article XI, Section C)Issue 18. Assistant Coaching / Extracurricular Activities Salary (Appendix B-1 and B-2)Issue 19. Fractional or Percentage Contracts (Proposed New Section – Article VIII)Issue 20. Behavioral Interventionist and Therapeutic Case Managers (Proposed New Section)These issues are discussed in detail in the following section.It is important to note that the specific recommendations of the Fact Finder made in this report on each issue,although discussed separately, were made only after consideration of all the issue recommendations taken together andtheir total combined impact upon both parties in this dispute.

Background / Bargaining History

The Northwestern Lehigh School District is located in Eastern Pennsylvania in Lehigh County. It is part ofIntermediate Unit Twenty-one (21). The District includes one (1) high school, one (1) middle school and two (2)

2

elementary schools. At the time of the Fact Finding, the bargaining unit consisted of one hundred, eighty-three and eighttenths (183.8) full-time employee positions. The current Agreement between the parties became effective on July 1, 2003and had an expiration date of June 30, 2007. On April 18, 2007, an extension of that contract was agreed to between theparties. It extended that Agreement for two (2) years, moving the expiration date to June 30, 2009.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

During the process of Collective Bargaining that preceded the Fact Finding in this matter, the parties exchangedtheir proposals for changes to the contract. These proposals included many suggested changes in contract language thatare meant to clarify and/or update existing contract language and that do not require substantive changes in the parties’mutual working relationship to enact. In the following discussion, recommendations will be made that address only thesubstantive issues separating the parties.For those language changes that address clarifications of existing terms and conditions of employment that bothparties agree with, this report recommends incorporating those changes of language into the Agreement. If the proposedlanguage “clarification” is not acceptable to both parties, this report recommends that the language remain “status quo.”

Issue 1: Term of Agreement (Article II)

Current Status:The most recent Agreement between the parties was negotiated to cover the period commencing on July 1, 2003and terminating on June 30, 2007. That contract was extended by mutual agreement to June 30, 2009.Positions of the Parties:District Proposal: The District proposal recommends a two (2) year Agreement. The District argues that in light of thevolatile economic conditions, given the current recession and the unpredictability of the budgetary obligation and theresources of the School District in the near future, it is prudent to seek a shorter Agreement.Association Proposal: The Association proposes a three (3) year Agreement. It points out that the District and theAssociation have a long history of reaching agreements for three (3) or four (4) year terms. The Association argues that athree (3) year contract is of mutual benefit to both parties because it provides for extended labor stability and enablesmore accurate financial planning into the future.Discussion:The Association proposes an Agreement that would cover the period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012.We are currently almost half-way into the first (1

st

) year of that proposed Agreement. Negotiations for a successorAgreement will most likely begin in the fall of 2011. If the Agreement were a two (2) year contract, the next negotiationcould conceivably begin in the fall of 2010.A three (3) year Agreement will allow the parties time to better assess the positive aspects of their relationshipand analyze their respective needs with regard to changes in the economic climate.Recommendation:It is my recommendation that the term of this Agreement be for a three (3) year period from July 1, 2009 throughJune 30, 2012.

Issue 2: Non-Discrimination Clause (Article IV)

Current Status:The current contract language provides:Article IV. NONDISCRIMINATION CLAUSEThe School District and the Association agree that they will not discriminate against any employee on the basis ofrace, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, marital status, religious beliefs, political activities, qualified handicaps orparticipation in the affairs of the Association for the term of this Agreement. This clause is not subject to the grievance / arbitration section of this contract.

3