School Board members put in awkward role as contract arbitrators

The board's attorney repeatedly told members how they could and couldn't act during a more than four-hour meeting that was conducted in courtroom fashion.

The School Board members, who often seemed confused in their role as judges, were deciding the contract dispute between district management and the Collier Support Personnel Union, which represents about 850 bus drivers, maintenance and custodial crews, as well as cafeteria and other workers. School and union leaders failed to determine a salary package and must meet again before Friday.

Observers couldn't remember the School Board acting in such a capacity before now. The usual route would have been for a paid arbitrator to come down to decide the contract impasse.

But this time, Jim Vickaryous, the union's chief negotiator, and his team decided to take a gamble, even though their advisers were against the move.

District management also had to agree to have the board decide the issue.

Hiring an arbitrator, Vickaryous noted, would have been more expensive and more formal than going before the School Board.

"We decided we'll just go to the School Board and see how well we do," he said.

It's strange because board members originally instructed their bargaining team to offer a little more than a 1 percent raise to the union, which was rejected.

But in their role as judges, they seemed to be telling management to offer more than the 1 percent salary increase.

"What I'm saying," member Dick Bruce said, "... is management go and see if 1.28 percent is the best we can do, and to the support personnel, maybe you can come closer."

So, why didn't the board simply tell district management to offer more money?

Board members weren't involved that deeply in the negotiations, Bruce said, so they didn't know negotiations had broken down to the point of arbitration.

Some members found it a weird experience acting as judge in a salary dispute they helped create.

"As a School Board, it's kind of like having two family interests," board member Pat Carroll said. "We work for the same cause, yet we have to look at the big picture and try to make it fit."

Board member Kathleen Curatolo agreed.

"It's very difficult to separate the judiciary hat from the School Board hat," she said.

The gamble paid off from the union's point of view.

"I was disappointed we didn't get all the marbles," Vickaryous said. "(But) I think we did rather well."

Union reps brought seven points of contract contention before board members, who had only three options: agree, disagree or throw them back for more discussion between the union and management.

On the first item, union officials wanted eight paid holidays of their choosing, instead of the six current ones. Board members said no.

The second item involved how much accumulated leave employees could receive after so many years of working. The board told the two sides to write in the contract whatever Florida law allows.

"We won this," Vickaryous said. "The school administration wasn't giving us what's in the law."

The board rejected the idea of assigning "utility drivers" to a specific pay schedule. Union leaders, however, see them gaining ground on the issue since some members said they'd like to see the issue go before a position review committee.

On the fourth item, an incentive plan for perfect attendance, both sides agreed to work out a proposal.

The board rejected a "step schedule" proposal, however, which would have given employees an automatic 1 percent to 3 percent increase based on years of experience.

Still, two of the five board members, Linda Abbott and Steve Donovan, voted for the proposal.

Another item, which involved an employee's hiring date and when they could advance to the next salary increase, the union got put into the contract.

The last item involved what kind of salary increase employees would receive. Board members authorized a 1.2 percent salary increase costing about $210,000, while union officials pushed for a 3.5 percent increase at a cost of about $745,000.

"I consider that a win," Vickaryous said. "We get back to the table, so they have to offer more money. That's the implication."

In their role as judges, board members told the two sides to go back to the bargaining table and try to work out the salary dispute, which covers the time period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003.

Union leaders point out they still need to decide this year's salary, from July 2003 to June 2004.

Because they are sitting as judges, the board members aren't involved in any of the salary negotiations.

"We haven't had any communication with the board since that meeting," said Schools Superintendent Ben Marlin, who's helping with the negotiations.

In the end, Bruce said he was disappointed by some of the union's acrimony about past disputes, and he hoped that would change.

"This is a new day and it's time to move on," Bruce said.