Sacramento teachers could get back pay from strike as labor agency takes up complaint

California’s state labor agency is taking up a complaint alleging that the Sacramento City Unified School District engaged in bad-faith bargaining during and after the eight-day teacher strike that shut schools this spring.

Based on past precedent, the complaint could allow teachers to see pay for the eight days of work they missed in March and April.

Sacramento’s teacher strike, which began over disagreements about COVID-19 pay and leave policies, lasted from March 23 to April 3 and ended with a raise in teacher pay, one-time stipends for all three school years affected by the pandemic, rate increases for substitute teachers and more sick days for substitute teachers who test positive for COVID-19.

After the strike, the district and union failed to reach an agreement on making up for lost class time.

The district is facing serious financial penalties of up to $47 million from the state for falling short of California’s minimum number of teaching days. The administration has put forward a plan to make up for lost time over the next two years, but it’s unclear whether state officials will accept the proposal and waive strike-related penalties.

The Sacramento City Teachers Association in May filed a charge against the district to the California Public Employment Relations Board, the agency that gives independent opinions on labor disputes in government agencies.

After an initial investigation, PERB took up the union’s charge and issued a formal complaint on July 6.

The union and district will first attempt to resolve the complaint in an informal settlement conference, and should they be unable to, the complaint will go to a hearing before an administrative law judge.

According to Sacramento City Teachers Association President David Fisher, PERB has taken up over 20 complaints filed against the Sacramento district in the last five years.

Although the latest charge filed is “unusual,” the closest example is the 2019 charge the union filed in the wake of a 2019 one-day teacher walkout, Fisher said.

PERB ultimately found that the district engaged in bad-faith bargaining by giving incentives to substitute teachers to step in during the strike, and ordered the district to pay all teachers who took part in the strike at the rate the substitute teachers were paid.

A ruling against the district could complicate the administration’s efforts to avoid state penalties related to the strike, Fisher said, because it could suggest administrators did not seriously try to add class time after the strike.

Fisher said that the union filed the new complaint in hopes of getting the district to “change their behavior” when it comes to bargaining, rather than as a means to secure teacher pay for the eight days of the strike. He acknowledged that back-pay could be an outcome should a judge find in the union’s favor.

Where did the school district go wrong?

The July 6 PERB complaint alleges that the Sacramento district engaged in illegal bargaining practices during the teacher strike and while negotiating about adding days back into the school year.

As the strike began, the complaint alleges, the district informed employees that schools would be closing, but simultaneously said that “employees are expected to report to their regular assignment.”

“By simultaneously informing unit members both that there would be no work during the strike and that they were expected to report to work during the strike, [the district] promised unit members who did not strike that they would be paid for not working during the strike,” the complaint said.

The district ultimately paid employees who reported to work during the strike, the complaint says.

The PERB complaint also alleged that the district engaged in “surface bargaining” during the May discussion about adding days to the school year.

During talks, district officials added a number of significant provisions such as capping leaves of absences during the extended school year, making the agreement contingent on the union securing full teacher coverage for the added days and “insulating [the district] from all tax or retirement liability or consequences relating to the agreement.”

According to the complaint, representatives from the district then told union negotiators that the parties were “far apart” on a number of issues but declined to explain why, the complaint says. Negotiations fell apart.

Sac City offered five strike makeup plans

In a news release following the union’s initial May allegation of unfair bargaining practices, the district denied accusations that it engaged in misconduct.

The district engaged in “good faith efforts” to recover the days lost to the strike, the release said, and made requests of the union such as limiting teacher leave during the added days as a means to “properly plan and appropriately staff classrooms.”

The district also pointed out that it proposed five different plans to union negotiators during school year extension negotiations, “each one offering more concessions to SCTA than the last.”

“This filing by SCTA is particularly disappointing given that SCTA previously dismissed several pending grievances and unfair practice charges as part of the agreements reached to end the strike,” the district said in the news release. “Sac City Unified remains committed to working with SCTA to achieve a student-centered plan for recovering the valuable learning time students lost to the strike.”

The school district has issued no further statement on PERB’s decision to take up the union’s charge. The school district has until July 26 to file a formal response to PERB’s complaint. The timeline following the district’s response is unclear.

This story was originally published July 13, 2022 at 5:25 AM.