School board rejects grievance

The Sisters School Board has concurred with its superintendent’s denial of a grievance filed by the district bus mechanic, Gene O’Brien.

O’Brien claimed that Superintendent Ted Thonstad had begun an inquiry into the possibility of “contracting out” O’Brien’s job “in retaliation” for O’Brien’s involvement in “multiple grievances over the last few years.”

Four members of the school board rejected that claim based on evidence presented at a hearing in executive session November 9. The fifth member, Board Chairman Jeff Smith, excused himself from participation, explaining that he had a personal relationship with O’Brien stemming from mutual involvement with the Sisters High School wrestling team.

The grievance on O’Brien’s behalf was formally filed in August by his union, Chapter 92 of the Oregon School Employees Association. It was first denied by the superintendent. That led to an appeal to the board and to the November 9 hearing.

In a November 18 letter to the union, Board Vice Chairman Glen Lasken wrote on behalf of his colleagues: “This grievance…asserts that the district’s interest in studying and talking to the (union) about contracting out is based on a desire to retaliate against Mr. O’Brien for past grievance activity.

“We have seen no evidence to support that claim and we believe that any reasonable person in the position of the district and knowing what was known would want to at least further investigate the advisability of contracting for bus mechanic services.

“For eight-plus months in Mr. O’Brien’s absence (on leave because of an injury) a contractor provided bus mechanic services charging the district for less than one-third of the hours previously worked by Mr. O’Brien with a cost of less than one-half of what would have been Mr. O’Brien’s cost.”

Chuck Forward, Redmond-based OSEA field representative for this region, has argued that any proposal to contract out union work is “a mandatory subject of bargaining” and the bus mechanic proposal could not be considered in the fall because the union and the district were involved in negotiations on the reopener of the final year of a four-year contract for which this topic was not a legitimate subject.

Thonstad contends that the existing contract allows the district to look into the possibility of contracting out services performed by members of the bargaining unit. He says he has been following the procedure outlined in the contract, including notifying the union of the intent to study and inviting it to participate in discussion of possible alternatives. He emphasizes that no final decision has been made.

Forward replied to the notices on August 18 by demanding: “Please stop immediately any processes you have begun related to contacting out of any bargaining unit work. If you continue on your current path, we will have no choice but to seek to stop you by using every legal method available to us.” A week later, the grievance was filed on O’Brien’s behalf.

Given the board’s rejection, the next step, if the union chooses to pursue the matter, would be the filing of an unfair labor practice complaint, which could lead to arbitration.

Summing up the board’s view, Lasken told The Nugget Monday: “The long and short of it from the board’s standpoint is that one of Ted Thonstad’s primary jobs is to mind the store, if you will. And if he is presented with the possibility of saving enough money to pay for an entire teacher he has a duty to at least look at that and we as a board would be unhappy with him if he didn’t even look at it and that’s pretty much all he’s done.

“He has sent a couple letters to the union saying we want to explore this and we could not conclude from that that there was evidence of discrimination. We just thought he was doing his job.”