Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grievance Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bargainers propose redlined grievance changes to address board‑policy issues and timelines
Summary
Negotiators presented a redline of grievance language to allow grievances over misapplication of board policy, clarify arbitration scope, designate HR for district‑level/class grievances, and streamline timelines to a 60‑day internal resolution (excluding arbitration).
Val, a bargaining representative, presented a redlined draft of the grievance article that would expand the definition of "grievance" to include alleged misapplication of board policy and to show strike‑throughs and underlines for negotiated changes. Val said the change would give employees a consistent avenue to address harms that stem from board policy (example given: board policy 6.16, confidentiality of Social Security numbers) while noting that because board policy is not contract language it could not be taken to arbitration.
The draft also removes a clause that previously halted the grievance process at the superintendent’s level for "discharge of tenured teachers," reflecting negotiators' view that statutory appeal processes apply to some termination matters and that arbitration should be reserved for disputes over application of contract language. Val described several scenarios in which a district‑level directive affecting many worksites should be handled as a class grievance and recommended that the district’s director of human resources, or a designated substitute, serve as the administrator for step‑1 of such formal grievances to avoid duplicative filings at every worksite.
Negotiators walked through timelines in detail: an informal meeting should be requested within 10 working days of an alleged violation; administration would have five days to meet; formal step‑1 processing preserves contract timelines (10+10+10 days in prior language) and the superintendent’s step‑2 uses short, defined intervals, leading to a 60‑day target for the district’s internal grievance process. Val emphasized that once a matter proceeds to arbitration the parties are subject to the arbitrator’s schedule.
Association members clarified that an individual who is not an association member may file a grievance and obtain representation at step‑1 but cannot take the grievance to arbitration; all written formal responses at the administrator level must be copied to the association (the CCA president) so the bargaining agent can monitor settlements and ensure contract terms are not inadvertently altered.
No tentative agreement was reached on the grievance language that night; association representatives said they would consult colleagues and return with a response at the next meeting. The parties agreed to continue working on a redlined strike‑through draft for ratification once terms are finalized.
