Collective Bargaining in Farmington Public Schools

Airess Stewart
EA 742

Introduction
 The National Labor Relations Act originated in 1935 by the United States Congress to

establish ground rules for labor relations in the private sector. Michigan legislature passed the

Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) in 1947, which was intended to provide the same

rights to public employees. Penalties were identified for employees who participated in strike

activity. PERA was amended in 1965 to include public employees rights for collective

bargaining. Collective bargaining is desirable to bring employers and employees together on

labor standards, secure wages and build responsibility in labor unions. All parties are expected

to participate in good faith bargaining, in which all parties agree to negotiate and reach

agreement on matters. However, it does not require either party to make concessions.

Representation is provided for public employees through unions, organizations protect

the rights of their members and advance interests such as wages and working conditions. The

National Education Association (NEA) is the organization committed to educators across the

country. There are state affiliates such as the Michigan Education Association (MEA) and local

branches in each school district. In my district it is the Farmington Education Association

(FEA). Employees pay dues to be a member in good standing with the union. Union

representation and other staff participate in the collective bargaining and as a result, a contract is

written. As part of the process, employers and employees agree to the length of the contract.

The teacher’s contract in Farmington is reviewed and revised every two years. In this paper I

will discuss the recent teacher contract negotiation in Farmington Public Schools including the

major issues and the process to resolve them.

History
 Over the past 10 years, Farmington Public Schools has experienced significant financial

challenges impacting the whole system. Approximately 5 years ago, the district was at a 5%

fund balance opposed to the desired 12% they were able to maintain in previous years. Solutions

were primarily focused on short term resolution since it was difficult to foresee what the

financial situation was going to be for the district with numerous changes of health insurance and

state funding. Eight years ago, one of the first steps to take by the district was to freeze teacher

steps in pay. In Spring 2014, 240 FEA employees (teachers, ancillary staff, instructional

coaches) were laid off, impacting employees who had been in the district for over 20 years. Part

of the reason the layoff was so large was due to the 60 day notification in tenure law and the

unforeseeable budget for the 2014-15 school year. Layoff notifications were based on seniority

and provided in April which created a lot of tension for the remainder of the year. After the

budget was finalized in July, Central Office made decisions on programs to eliminate in order to

call back more teachers. The majority of the cuts were related to elementary social/emotional

and literacy intervention, as well as K-12 instructional coaches. Approximately 70% of those

employees (mainly teachers and special education ancillary support) were called back to work in

August. As a result, there was very limited support for staff and students outside of special

education. In addition, the district offered 2 financial severance packages within a couple years

apart from each other in attempts to right size the budget. The last severance package increased

dependent on the number of people who signed up. Additionally, there have been changes in

health care and premium increases, which have impacted teacher’s income. These issues have

made the contract a large focus for FEA members in Farmington.

Within the last year Farmington Public Schools underwent a lengthy negotiation process

with the teacher contract. The team consisted of union representation instructional staff, building
based leaders, operations and human resources. An MEA legal representative and finance

representative were recently added to the team. According to team members, contracting has

always been a collaborative process in Farmington. Information gathering began almost a year

before going to the table which included finances, contract language and finances. .The greatest

challenge noted by team member was having a shared understanding of the financial state. There

have been instances when there have been disagreements about the financial numbers. With the

union stating that the district has more than there really is. This time, the team worked hard to

gain an understanding and depth around the financial reality.

Important Issues in Negotiation

The largest priority for the team were the wages of FEA staff. The goal was to shift the

focus from short term solutions to creating a system to honor staff over the years. The primary

focus was on the step staff and having long term structures to support them. This group was

impacted the most by the steps freeze 8 years ago..

The contract term ended in August 2016, however despite negotiations throughout the

summer, the team could not come up with an agreement. As a result, the FEA staff began the

school year without a contract with a message that it may take longer than expected. This

created tension amongst staff to begin the school year. A communication plan of action steps for

union members was outlined through our private emails which we were to submit to our building

union representatives.

The negotiation team met endlessly in attempt to come up with an agreement. Union

members received updates through personal emails but none promising that there was an

agreement in sight. Staff were asked to wear red on Tuesday to support the union and buttons
were made that said “teaching without a contract”. Union members were not allowed to bring up

the conversation of the contract, however could provide information if asked about it. Teachers

were also asked to work to rule and not participate in work outside of the day. Work with

additional pay was acceptable but not desirable. As a result, some teachers began requesting

extra duty pay for help at arrival and dismissal, which was approximately an additional 15

minutes a day. At one high school, teachers stood up and walked out of their rooms when

parent-teacher conference time was stated to end despite parents still wanting to meet with them.

Tension grew at all levels. Principals and other instructional leaders had difficulty

moving any work forward because many of them felt like they could not ask teachers to give

anything extra. This included the work I was attempting to do with power standards, in which

we wanted teachers to be part of. Although I offered extra duty pay for after school work, I was

only able to get 2 teachers per grade level to support.

To increase pressure on the system, teachers began attending board meetings in October.

The purpose of attending was to show support of the union during negotiation and to provide

more information to board members. During the meetings, teachers how the freeze on steps and

the increase of our insurance premiums has impacted their families. In many cases, teachers

have lost significant money they felt they should have earned over the last 10 years.

The negotiation team continued to work into November without an end in sight. A board

meeting on November 22nd was a held at one of the high schools because of the 200+ FEA staff

expected to attend. Staff continued to share facts and stories with the board. After this meeting,

the union asked to go to fact finding and a mediator became involved. The purpose of the

mediator was for an outside source to review the facts and provide information. The negotiation

team did not have to follow through with any of the recommendations, however were able to
consider them. At the end of December, right before winter break, the team came up with a

proposal for union members to vote on. Only members in good standing, which meant they paid

their dues were allowed to vote. The biggest change in the contract was honoring a step increase

to staff under step 9. The greatest increase was for teachers step 4 and below. Instead of 10

steps in the teacher contract (with the largest increase from step 9 to 10), the contract was

expanded to 15 steps. Other changes included language that needed to be adjusted because of

adjustments in the law or from situations that have arisen that questioned contract language and

it needed to written more clearly. Overall, FEA staff are content with the new contract, other

than those who were on step 8 or higher.

New statutes and issues

There have been many changes in law since 2011. According to representatives from the

Human Resources department, there were and are many adjust to be made in the contract. The

Farmington teachers contract was given its’ last “overhaul” in 2001. Negotiations between then

and now have all been tentative agreements. This means language has been amended and

adjusted with notations added opposed to rewritten. Human resources and FEA union

representatives are currently working on a process to create a new contract.

Compliance with the law is an ongoing process as new language is constantly added. To

remain up to date on changes, representation in Human Resources, Farming legal counsel and

FEA representation receive notifications through organizations they are part of. While some

adjustments occur simultaneously throughout the negotiation process, there are many changes

that need to be changed in between negotiations. Law overrides the contract and as a result,

some changes had to be made prior to the settlement of the contract. A couple examples given

included the changes in benefits, merit pay and payroll dues/deductions.

 Conclusion

Although the teacher contract negotiation went well into the year, all parties remained

collaborative throughout the process. The team worked together to create a shared understanding

of the current financial state and the goal to create long term solutions to honor their staff.

Patience was a key factor for the whole organization during this time. The past ten years in

Farmington is a good example of how financial state can effect an organization and impact

employees. Without the employee protections under PERA, working conditions and wages

could have been much worse. The amendment in 1965 made it possible for employees to

participate in collective bargaining with their employers, in this case represented through the

union.