Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sick Leave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contract draft would remove sick‑bank and update sick‑leave wording to reflect new state programs
Summary
Bargaining teams discussed proposed edits to Article 11 to clarify sick‑leave definitions, align contract text with state law and Paid Leave Oregon, and remove a sunsetted sick‑leave bank provision.
Bargainers for Beaverton School District 48J discussed proposed edits to Article 11 that would clarify who may use sick leave, align contract language with current state leave statutes, and remove a now‑expired sick‑leave bank provision.
A district representative said the draft adds definitions drawn from the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) to clarify which employees the sick‑leave provisions apply to and separates a section (new C) to make clear that employees who separate from employment may have pay deductions if they used more sick leave than they had accrued. The district emphasized this is existing practice, not a change in enforcement, and said the language is being added so employees are not surprised.
The district proposed striking a previous Article E because Paid Leave Oregon (PLO) now offers leave options that were not available when the contract language was originally written; negotiators said those new statutory options reduce the need for the older contractual provision. The bargaining team also noted that the sick‑leave bank provision (previous G) had a sunset date of Sept. 1, 2023, and the district seeks to remove that expired language.
Union members asked for clarity around the term “eligible” used in a revised subsection of Article 11, especially as it interacts with PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) tiers; district staff noted the PERS statute can be complicated and said they would avoid over‑detailing PERS rules in the contract while remaining open to including clearer explanatory language if it reduces confusion. One bargainer said they did not object to removing the single word if it caused confusion, and pointed out the contract already cites ORS language for the governing rule.
No formal action or final agreement was recorded during the meeting; negotiators agreed to take the proposed wording back to caucus and to consider whether to expand the explanatory language about PERS eligibility for readability.
