Click below to view recent arbitration awards:

Class Size Arbitration Award

Subject Preparation Arbitration Award

CLASS SIZE ARBITRATION AWARD

DISCUSSION AND OPINION

At the hearing on March 8, 2002 the parties presented the arbitrator a record which included a number of stipulations. With regard to the grievances before the arbitrator concerning school years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, it was stipulated that the District did not comply with the class size limitations contained in the provisions of Article 15 of the Labor Agreement. Those years have passed and no issue was presented with respect to the current year, 2001-2002. With the parties agreeing that no remedy for contractual class-size overages is spelled out in the parties Agreement, the question of remedy as to these grievances is problematic

The District presented as its Exhibit l, a working draft of a Settlement Agreement that the parties negotiated in April 2001 with the assistance of a mediator. The District urges the arbitrator to adopt that draft Settlement Agreement as the remedy to the class size overages in question. The Association, however, argues that since the Settlement Agreement was not finalized, approved and executed, it should not be adopted in its entirety but only utilized as a guide in the arbitrator’s deliberation, specifically noting that sections 2A, 2C and 3E were the root of the parties not having finalized and signed off on the Settlement Agreement at that time. The Association proposed alternate solutions that were not embodied by District Exhibit 1.

Against this backdrop, the arbitrator has been designated by the parties to decide on a remedy immediately available to the parties to adequately address the violations of the class size provisions of the Labor Agreement. Article 15 pertains to class size and includes language setting forth the maximum number of students in a class and maximum daily student contacts. Section 15.5 lists the maximums in the elementary grades and Section 15.7 lists the maximums in the secondary schools. Importantly, the parties Agreement also recognizes that the problem of class size is directly related to funding and, further, it clearly contemplates that the parties shall continue to attempt to address this problem even during the term of the contract. Thus, the following sections read: -

• 15. 6 The Employer and the Association agree that continued and supplemental class size reductions shall be pursued, as more money becomes available. The parties agree to meet and renegotiate this class size provision with the goal of continuing class size reductions during the budget development process each year.
• 15.12 The Employer and the Association shall collaboratively explore ways to achieve staffing allocations and class size reductions to be funded from alternative revenue sources, throughout the term of this contract. These sources may include but shall not be limited to Morgan-Hart secondary school class size reduction monies and/or parcel tax directed to class size reduction.

Further, the parties’ grievance procedure itself states that its purpose is, inter alia, to promote reasonable and effective means for resolving difficulties and to reduce the potential areas of grievance. The contract recognizes how important it is to the parties’ relationship "to establish and maintain recognized two-way channels of communication between staff and administration." Article 14.1).

Arbitrators historically tread lightly when a remedy may require a change or modification of a labor agreement which usually prohibits arbitral meddling in the substance of the agreement. In this case however the express recognition in Article 15 of the on-going nature of the problem of class size, and the parties’ explicit agreement that they are to continue to pursue and collaboratively explore ways and means to ameliorate this problem, permits the arbitrator to fashion a remedy that is not inconsistent with those provisions. Based on the particular facts of this case, the arbitrator will therefore effectively direct the parties as to how to handle situations when classes have more students than permitted by the Labor Agreement.

The arbitrator’s reading of District Exhibit l is that it thoughtfully attempts to remedy situations that might arise when there are too many students assigned to any class. It also recognizes that some of the solutions may not entirely cure the problem for every teacher every year, but within reasonable parameters of the public education setting it tries to do so.

At the same time, the arbitrator is persuaded by the Association’s argument that several items in District Exhibit 1 could not be agreed to by the Association. Those problem areas are appropriately addressed in the remedy ordered herein.

The arbitrator, after reviewing all of the evidence submitted, issues his award.

AWARD

1. The District violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 15, with regarding to these consolidated grievances. The grievances of the Oakland Education Association are granted.
2. The parties’ 4/10/01 working draft of the Settlement Agreement shall be adopted as the remedy to those violations, and shall be in full force and effect beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, with the following modifications:
1. The introductory paragraphs of the 4/10/01 Settlement Agreement are to be changed to reflect that this is now the remedy ordered by the arbitrator. In that context, the current second introductory paragraph should be deleted, and the last sentence of the third paragraph should be deleted.
2. In the context of Section II, subparagraphs A, B, and C, shall be deleted and replaced with the following language: "The District shall explore all options in its best efforts to meet class size reduction program standards.”
3. The following shall be added to Section III, E in place of the first phrase of the current first sentence: "If the overage is not resolved after parties at the school site(s) have exhausted all good faith efforts to reduce the average, as a last resort, beginning on the 20th day…..
4. The last two paragraphs of the existing document should also be deleted.
3. The arbitrator shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation of this award for the life of the revised document as ordered above.
4. IV. The parties shall submit to the arbitrator a revised document in accord with the award within 14 calendar days from the date of this award.

DATED: March 25, 2002

Statement of Remedy Pursuant to Arbitrator’s Decision and Award

This Statement sets forth the procedures to be followed in the implementation of Arbitrator William Riker’s Opinion and Award resolving grievances over the problem of exceeding class size and student load maximums from the 1999-00 and 2000-01 school years.

The elements of this Award will be in place and implemented by the beginning of the 2002-03 school year and the parties will jointly review the effectiveness of the Agreement on or about November 15, 2002. It is the intent of this Award that this process will be a permanent solution to class size and student load overages and that it will become a permanent part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties.

1. Definitions
1. Enrolled student. An enrolled student is one who has presented the teacher with a schedule, has attended the class, has been entered in the teacher’s grade/attendance book, and has not been officially dropped from the teacher’s class.
2. Qualified student. A qualified student is an enrolled student who is in attendance at least 50% of the time.
2. Elementary Class Sizes
1. The Employer shall explore all options in its best efforts to meet class size reduction program standards.
2. One K-3 class in each school may be staffed up to the maximum class size specified in the CBA. Exceptions may be made for the needs of ELD students and space limitations in the school. Should those or other, unforeseen circumstances arise, the Association and the Employer will meet to resolve the situation.
3. The Faculty Council shall be involved in determining the necessity for exceeding the 20 to 1 student ratio and in determining who will teach the class(es) that is/are allowed in paragraph B.
4. The process for determining the teacher who will teach the class allowed in paragraph B shall be as follows, assuming the teacher possesses the appropriate credential and compliance issues have been resolved:
1. Volunteer.
2. Lottery - excluding the person(s) who have most recently taught the class, until all unit members have taught the class.
3. Faculty Council and site administrator decision that is based on the educational needs of the students.
3. Secondary Class Sizes
1. The employer will provide initial staffing ratios based on historical attendance patterns for each school.
2. No later than five (5) workdays, following the existence of a class size or student load overage, a teacher must notify site administration of the situation. Failure to make such a notification will be deemed acceptance of the overage(s).
3. Within ten (10) days of notification of the class size problem, there will be a meeting of the affected teacher, union representative, the administrator, counselor and any other staff person who can contribute to resolving the overage.
4. If the overage is not resolved after the parties at the school site(s) have exhausted all good faith efforts to reduce the overage, as a last resort, beginning on the 20th day of school or the 20th day of the overage, if it occurs after the school year begins, the teacher will be paid 1/160 (.00625) of his/her per diem rate each day for each qualified student exceeding either the class or daily student load. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to allow a student to be counted by a teacher for both a single class overage and a daily student load overage.
5. Payments will be made no later than thirty (30) days following the end of the semester.

This Award will constitute resolution of grievances 99-023, 99-027, 99-033, 99-035 through 99-053, 99-064, and 99-069. It is noted that 99-051 is a duplicate of 99-023. In addition, this Award will constitute resolution of grievance 2000-06.

Subject Preparation

Arbitration Award In the Matter of an Arbitration between

OAKLAND EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

And

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

April 11, 2002

Case Number: NB1962

In relation to the class action grievance for school year 2000/2001 alleging violation of Article 12, section 8.B. the parties will initiate the following program to reduce the incidence of teachers assigned more than two (2) course preparations. The program will continue to April of the 2003-2004 school year. At that time the program will automatically sunset and cease to be in existence, unless the parties enter into a written agreement to continue this program. Any dispute alleging a violation of Article 12, Section 8.b (or its successor Section 12.10.2) will be processed through this procedure.

Step 1 (May 1 through May 15):

1. Meetings at each high school and middle school site of an administrator, a counselor, and an OEA representative to review the draft master schedule and identify problems/potential violations.
2. Expanded site meeting including affected department chairs to explain and fix problems/potential violations as necessary.

Step 2 (June 1 through June 12):

1. Teachers are encouraged to notify their department chair, administrator, counselor, and/or OEA representative of problems upon receipt of the master schedule on June 1.
2. Teachers who were adversely impacted in 2000/2001 with excessive course preparations should also notify their department chair, administrator, counselor, and/or OEA representative so they will not be so burdened in 2001/2002.

Step 3 (During the first 2 weeks of the school year)

1. Upon return to school, teachers are requested to report violations within ten (10) days of the start of school.
2. Teacher complaints will be referred to a committee composed of the affected teachers, an OEA representative, the administrator, and counselor. The committee may request the assistance of the department chair, if necessary.
3. It is recognized that in certain situations, due to credentialing and/or compliance requirements, it may not be possible to reduce a teacher to the maximum of two (2) course preparations at the same site. In such cases, the teacher will be given the option to waive the contractual guarantee for that school year only, and will not be required to exceed the maximum in the ensuing year. If the teacher from whom a waiver is to be requested is a second year probationary employee, the District will not request a waiver directly from the employee. It will notify OEA that it wishes a waiver and OEA will either provide or decline the waiver on behalf of the teacher. If OEA provides a waiver, the teacher will not be required to exceed the maximum for the ensuing year. If a teacher waives a challenge to four preparations, that teacher will be guaranteed 2 preparations for the following 2 school years. If a teacher waives a challenge to five preparations, that teacher will be guaranteed 2 preparations for the following 3 school years. For purposes of this Award only, a middle school teacher who teaches a core class to a single grade level, and another "singleton" class, will be deemed to have 2 preparations. Music and Art teachers at all levels are deemed to have 2 preparations. Any preparation that results in the teacher being paid a stipend will not count as a preparation under this Award. Teaching different levels of ELD, PE, or sheltered courses does not count as different preparations. Similarly, a sheltered class taught as part of a regular course (e.g. Sheltered Algebra I and Algebra 1) will count as a single preparation. Multiple grade levels in a single class for a single subject will be counted as one preparation. This list is illustrative, not exhaustive.
4. The teacher who has initiated this complaint procedure will receive a written notice explaining the District’s action to deny a resolution, grant a resolution, or to request a waiver. Grievance follows, if necessary.

Step 4:

1. In resolving these complaints, the District is not obligated to implement any resolution, which would result in another contract violation or adversely impact another unit member.
2. Any remaining disputes will go to expedited arbitration, where the arbitrator will determine, in accordance with Article 12, Section 12.10.2, whether there were "exigent circumstances" permitting the District to exceed the contractual limitation, and whether the additional preparations are "appropriate to the educational program." If the arbitrator finds adversely to the District on either issue, he will award only the remedies enumerated below.
3. The expedited arbitration will have the following limitations:
1. Each side will have no more than two hours to present its case.
2. There will be no briefs or transcripts.
3. Neither side will use a lawyer at the hearing.
4. The parties may schedule two or more arbitrations for the day.
5. The arbitrator will issue an Award the following day.
6. If the arbitrator finds there were no exigent circumstances, or the additional preparations were not appropriate to the educational program, he or she will award the following remedies:
1. For one additional preparation: in the ensuing year the teacher will not have any more than two preparations, regardless of the circumstances.
2. For two additional preparations: The District will pay the teacher an additional $1000 for the year.
3. For three additional preparations: The District will pay the teacher an additional $2000 for the year.
4. The amounts to be paid will be prorated by semester, so that one-half of the amount will be paid for the additional preparations for each semester in which additional preparations are required.

The parties agree to use the following arbitrators for these expedited arbitrations: Norman Brand

4. Allan Poole

Barry Winograd

Middle Schools:

The parties recognize that the curriculum needs and current configuration of middle schools create certain difficulties. They agree to establish a Joint Labor Management Committee to study and recommend ways to improve the assignment of class preparations at the middle schools.

The arbitrator will retain jurisdiction over disputes involving the application and interpretation of this Award. The parties will meet in March 2003, or any other agreeable time prior to May 1, 2003, to discuss their experience with this program and to mutually request adjustments to this Award.

April 11, 2002 San Francisco, CA

Download this document here. 

Download this document here. 

View document here. 

See document here. 

Click here to download file. 

Click here to download file. 

Greetings! Katie McLane and I have been working with New Teacher Support and Development to identify teachers that need to become “Highly Qualified”. We have made contact with principals and have met with many teachers to provide support. We attended OEA’s March workshop with presenter Dr. Gettone which we found very helpful. We want to make sure that as many teachers as possible get the message that there is an opportunity this year for teachers to receive reimbursement for CSET exams and ACOE training. Some teachers may want to take the opportunity to obtain additional credentials in order to make job changes either currently or in the future. Since many have the proper credentials for their current positions, principals may not have made mention of the fact that the reimbursement program is in place. The next CSET exams are scheduled for May 19th and July 21st. In addition to the reimbursement, the District will also provide prep books in the following areas: Multiple Subject, English, Social Science, Math and Science. Katie and I are available to meet with teachers and/or provide information packets and prep booklets. Our contact information is as follows:

MARY HAMADEH
(510) 522-3345
Dixie510@comcast.net

KATIE MC LANE
(510) 530-0613
Mclane13@earthlink.net

Thank you.
Mary Hamadeh

DEADLINE EXTENDED!

Thinking about running for office in OEA? Want to see what it’s like to be an Officer? Serve on the Executive Board? Attend CTA State Council?
There is still time to turn in your Declaration of Candidacy form– at Rep
Council April 2 your representatives voted to extend the deadline to April
18th. Forms were sent to all sites several weeks ago, or you can pick one up
at the OEA office.  Don’t miss this opportunity to be a part of OEA
leadership!