Oregon City board votes 5-2 to deny teachers' grievance over extra‑duty pay schedule

The Oregon City School Board on Monday, Aug. 25, voted 5‑2 to deny a grievance from the Oregon City Education Association alleging that the district violated Article 22 of the collective bargaining agreement by adding, removing and paying extra‑duty stipends without formal process.

The grievance, presented by a spokesperson for the Oregon City Education Association (OCEA), sought to require the district to align the actual extra‑duty payments with the schedule in the contract and to create a clear, written process for adding or removing stipends. Teachers from Oregon City High School and feeder schools testified that the district’s practice had produced persistent pay disparities between athletics and academic and arts activities.

The teachers’ testimony illustrated the complaint’s scope. Jory Jones, drama teacher at Oregon City High School, described the time commitment for productions and said, “That is roughly 200 hours of work, and that is being very generous,” arguing drama stipends are lower than comparable coaching stipends. Dave Behringer, who coaches speech and debate, said his activity is OSAA‑sanctioned but “is paid less than half of other OSAA coaches,” and that his team attended more than 25 days of competition in the past season. The union representative told the board the district had promised a committee in a January 2023 memorandum of understanding that never formed, and that ad hoc changes had left the contract’s appendix inconsistent with actual practice: “The district often makes quick and unilateral decisions on things that it deems important, all the while maintaining this illusion of teams, processes, and committees,” the spokesperson said.

District staff told the board they have been working to address the concerns through job descriptions and labor‑management discussions. Lisa Norman, identified in the hearing as a district director working on the extra‑duty review, said the district has completed more than 100 job descriptions as a first step and that proposed language to form a committee is part of successor bargaining: “We are actively and currently working on this issue during successor bargaining,” Norman said. District testimony noted that leaving stipend lines on the schedule for positions the district does not currently fill is an intentional practice and that management retains discretion to fill positions as needs arise.

Board members pressed both sides on process, precedent and timelines. Several directors said they were troubled by the disparities teachers outlined but also expressed that reclassification and compensation changes are normally finalized through collective bargaining and by a committee that evaluates time and responsibility. At the close of public testimony and board questions, Director [name as recorded in the hearing] moved to deny the grievance and delegate authority to the board chair to communicate the decision; the motion passed on roll call, 5 ayes to 2 nays.

The board’s vote does not change the district’s stated plan to continue work on job descriptions and to pursue committee review and bargaining language; multiple directors encouraged the administration and the association to accelerate the committee formation and to report progress to the board. The district and OCEA will continue negotiations on article 22 language in successor bargaining, and the board requested updates on the committee and placement work at future meetings.

Votes at a glance: The board approved a motion to deny the grievance and to authorize the chair to communicate the decision (roll call recorded in the hearing transcript: Director Stroh — Aye; Director Blackwell — Nay; Doctor Hoppern — Nay; Director Cantuola — Aye; Director Pitts — Aye; Director White — Aye; Director Wilson (chair) — Aye).