Teacher union brings level 3 grievance alleging unfair labor practices; board votes to deny and refer to arbitration

Kyle Taylor, a high-school teacher and president of the teachers’ union, presented a level 3 grievance to the Houston Public School District board, saying the district had not followed the district’s master agreement when issuing extended (0.25) contracts and other overload compensation. Taylor said administrators gave extended-contract pay to some returning teachers rather than adjusting those teachers’ full-time-equivalent (FTE) level based on student workload, and that practice amounted to an unfair labor practice. "Those 25 students should be counting toward their total student numbers not issued a separate 0.25 extended contract," Taylor said.

Taylor walked the board through multiple examples he said illustrated inconsistent placement on the salary schedule, uneven use of 0.25 extended contracts, and differing treatment of online and on-site workloads. He told the board he reviewed student-count data and the district’s contract language and concluded the discrepancy was costing the district. "When I adjusted those levels based on the numbers that the school gave me, this cost of not following our contract is $1,600,000," Taylor said. He proposed a non-precedent, one-time equity payment to make compensation between groups more comparable and described a formula he had placed in a spreadsheet for administrators to review.

Patty Herman, joining the meeting online, acknowledged the historical and COVID-era practices that contributed to the situation and said she looked forward to negotiating language tailored to online staff. Mary (last name not specified) confirmed she had the spreadsheet Taylor referenced and could share underlying student data for verification.

Board members discussed options. Administrators and board members noted parts of the issue affected different programs (for example ALP and credit recovery) and that some workload definitions relevant to special education and multilingual learners were not explicit in the current contract. Mary told the board the on-site budget impact of any retroactive payment would be roughly $43,000–$44,000 and that the district had already approved the extended contracts at issue.

After discussion, a board member moved to deny the level 3 grievance and refer the matter to arbitration under the terms of the master agreement. The motion passed by voice vote; the board indicated the denial and referral would be recorded on the grievance form and the district and union would proceed to arbitration.

The board took no immediate payment action; Taylor asked that the board consider a non-precedent settlement for the current year to address perceived inequities, and he gave the board seven working days to respond in writing per the grievance process. Administrators agreed to review the spreadsheet and underlying student data during that period.

The presentation and the board’s decision establish that the dispute will proceed to level 4 arbitration. Any final remedy or payment will depend on the arbitration outcome or a negotiated settlement between the district and the union.