Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor And Employment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coquille School Board upholds district in grievance over Coquille Valley Elementary schedule
Summary
After a public grievance hearing, the Coquille School District board voted to uphold the district's denial of a grievance brought by the Coquille Education Association over proposed schedule changes at Coquille Valley Elementary; the hearing featured competing claims about bargaining, implementation and teacher workload.
The Coquille School District board voted to uphold the district's decision to deny a grievance filed by the Coquille Education Association (CEA) that challenged the district's proposal to change the instructional schedule at Coquille Valley Elementary.
CEA representatives told the board the district's proposal — which would move 5th‑grade instruction toward a single‑subject (middle‑school‑style) model — alters teachers' working conditions and required bargaining under Article 5.a of the district's collective bargaining agreement. "The change from an elementary model to a junior high model certainly includes changes to job responsibilities," the CEA representative argued, saying teachers would move "from seeing 20 to 30 students per day to seeing a 120 or more," and that the change could require new endorsements and impose additional grading and workload burdens.
Superintendent Gallagher responded that the district has not implemented any schedule changes and that the administration has agreed to bargain. Gallagher presented a teacher‑developed schedule he said the district had approved for a one‑year trial, and pointed to an MOU offered to address endorsement costs and testing supports. "This grievance is about contract language," Gallagher said. "We have implemented nothing at this point. We agreed to bargain, and we have tried to schedule bargaining meetings."
Board members questioned both sides about the timeline of meetings, stakeholder engagement and whether the district at any point intended to invoke layoff procedures or involuntary transfers. Teachers said earlier district comments about reapplying for positions increased anxiety and led them to file the grievance within the contract timeline; administrators said they had sought a collaborative process and that the grievance timeline constrained direct bargaining.
Following closed‑door deliberations, the board moved, seconded and approved a motion to uphold the district's denial of the grievance. The board also directed the board chair to prepare a written response to the CEA grievance.
The board's decision was procedural and did not itself implement any schedule change; Gallagher said any new schedule would still require bargaining and additional planning before being put into effect.
