George Washington Elementary PTO

 

At the Special Meeting of the Bethel Park Board of School Directors on July 28, 2011, the School Board voted to reject the July 19, 2011 Decision of the Act 88 Arbitration Panel in the teacher contract negotiations.  

Act 88 is the state law governing teacher negotiations.  Last school year, the teachers went on a lengthy strike from October 25 through December 5.  Act 88 required the teachers to return to the classroom beginning Monday, December 6.  Upon return to the classroom, Act 88 required the District and teachers to participate in Final Best Offer Non-binding Arbitration.  The Arbitration procedure required both parties to provide their final best contract offer to a panel of three arbitrators.  The final best offers were exchanged and posted for public comment on March 1, 2011.  After the ten (10) day period of public comment, the Arbitration Panel conducted Hearings and issued a Decision on July 19, 2011.  Since the Pennsylvania Bureau of Mediation directed the Arbitration Panel to issue a decision on an issue by issue basis, the Panel was forced to accept either the District’s or Federation’s proposal on each issue without modification.  Act 88 provides that the Arbitration Decision becomes final unless one or both parties reject it within ten (10) days.  After weighing all factors and considering the additional financial impact on the District, in excess of $5 million over the life of the contract, the School Board was compelled to reject the Arbitration Decision.
The main stumbling blocks in negotiations have been and remain financial demands that are unrealistic and do not take into consideration economic factors affecting the local community and its taxpayers, including the significant cuts in the state education budget and new legislation which further restricts the School District’s ability to generate revenue to pay for the escalating costs imposed by the Arbitration Panel on the School District.  Although the Arbitration Decision ruled in favor of the District on its proposed salary increases, the following issues were considered by the School Board in rejecting the Arbitration Decision:
• The District’s March 1, 2011 salary proposal, although approved by the Arbitration Panel, was required to be submitted by Act 88 prior to adoption of the state budget.  Due to the drastic and significant cuts in the state budget allocations for education, the School District’s ability to sustain its proposed March 1, 2011 salary proposal was called into serious question.
• The Arbitration Decision was in favor of the Federation on health insurance coverage.  By refusing to permit the District to transfer coverage from the PPO to HMO, the District lost in excess of $250,000 in savings over the life of the contract.
• The Arbitration Decision also did not increase the teachers’ health insurance contributions to the District requested 13% of the premium amount.  By agreeing with the Federation’s proposal for lower contributions (in some years of the contract only 5% of the premium amount), there is an additional cost to the District over the life of the contract in excess of $500,000.
• The Arbitration Decision also ruled in favor of the Federation on additional economic items demanded by the Federation throughout the contract, including increased stipends for Department Facilitators, increased per credit tuition reimbursement for teachers’ continuing education with no cap on the amount that could be expended and increased payments to teachers for teaching six (6) instructional periods during the school day.  Although the total payout for these additional economic items could fluctuate based on a variety of factors in each year of the contract, it is estimated that they will well exceed an additional $300,000 over the life of the contract.  
Although the Arbitration Decision resulted in higher costs for education in the District, the Arbitration Panel did not increase the current 7.5 hour teacher work day or restore the District’s ability to direct how the teachers use their time throughout the school day beyond their five or six instructional periods.  When all of the economic factors are taken into consideration, the total additional cost to the School District over the life of the contract now exceeds $5 million.  Due to the significant cuts in the state education budget and state imposed limitations on the School District’s ability to generate local revenue, funding this financial burden could result in significant additional curtailment of the educational programs offered to the students.  The School Board considered all of these issues and determined that the Arbitration Decision did not reflect the economic realities facing the School District, and therefore, rejected the Arbitration Decision.
With the rejection of the Arbitration Decision, Act 88 permits the teachers to strike again.  The School District is hopeful that the teachers will be willing to return to the negotiation table and continue to work towards a negotiated resolution of the issues in dispute.  If the teachers return to a strike, Act 88 now permits the School District to hire substitutes to fulfill its educational obligations to the students.