May 11 Bargaining Session - For CDHY & WSSB
The parties met for bargaining regarding the Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Youth (CDHY) and the Washington School for the Blind (WSSB), with discussions focusing primarily on Article 45, prior memorandum of understanding (MOU) language, parity issues with local school districts, and the timing of economic discussions.
Article 45 Proposals
WPEA opened discussion by presenting proposals related to Article 45. The union proposed increasing mandatory preservice duty days as well as increasing annual in-service days from four to eight days per service year under Section 45.2.
The union also raised language in Section 45.11, stating its understanding that the parties had previously agreed to move certain language from an MOU into the collective bargaining agreement during prior negotiations. WPEA characterized its proposal as implementing what it believed had already been agreed upon by the parties.
OFM responded that current representatives were not necessarily involved in the prior negotiations and indicated they would need to review the bargaining history and underlying MOU before confirming whether such an agreement had been reached. WPEA questioned whether the Employer had reviewed the MOU in preparation for the meeting and expressed concern about the level of preparation and familiarity with prior agreements.
The parties then discussed parity issues with the Vancouver School District. WPEA proposed seven workdays of personal leave per fiscal year, explaining that the proposal was intended to establish parity with benefits available in the Vancouver School District. The union stated its position that the state had already recognized the importance of maintaining parity between CDHY/WSSB employees and Vancouver School District employees. WPEA clarified that the proposed leave would be in addition to existing personal leave provisions rather than replacing them.
OFM requested additional information regarding Vancouver School District leave provisions, and WPEA offered to provide a copy or link to the district’s contract for reference.
MOU and Lump Sum Proposal Discussion
WPEA then introduced additional proposals connected to a prior lump sum MOU. The discussion became more detailed and at times unclear as the parties attempted to identify which portions of the MOU were intended to be incorporated into Article 45, other contract sections, or appendices.
The union explained that only certain provisions from the MOU were intended for inclusion in Article 45, while others may more appropriately belong in different sections such as licensure and certification provisions or appendices. WPEA emphasized that the current proposal was not intended to directly mirror the MOU language in all respects and that some modifications had been made, including updates to dates and dollar amounts.
WPEA also noted that the original MOU contained non-precedent-setting language that was intentionally omitted from the current proposal. The union framed the proposal as part of a broader effort to address recruitment, retention, and compensation concerns within the schools.
The union repeatedly emphasized its belief that employees at CDHY and WSSB face significant recruitment and retention challenges because employees can leave for other school districts and earn substantially higher wages while holding fewer required certifications.
OFM indicated that much of the discussion involved economic issues and stated that the Employer was not prepared to substantively discuss economic proposals until after the state revenue forecast and budget process. WPEA acknowledged awareness of the Employer’s typical timeline for economic bargaining but clarified that the union was seeking discussion regarding shared operational concerns and priorities rather than immediate bargaining over specific economic counters.
Discussion Regarding Economic Bargaining Process
A significant portion of the session focused on disagreement regarding the characterization of the bargaining process for economic proposals.
OFM reiterated several times that economic discussions traditionally occur after the state revenue forecast process and maintained that this remained the Employer’s anticipated timeline. WPEA pushed back on language suggesting the union agreed with that process, clarifying that while the union recognizes this has historically occurred, it does not necessarily agree with or endorse the practice.
The discussion became increasingly focused on communication and wording regarding whether the parties “agreed” on the economic bargaining timeline versus simply acknowledging that it has historically occurred that way.
WPEA repeatedly stated that the union’s primary request was to establish a concrete date for future discussions specifically focused on economics related to CDHY and WSSB proposals. OFM responded that economic discussions would occur after the forecast process and eventually proposed scheduling a dedicated future bargaining session focused on economics.
The parties discussed potential meeting dates, including July 15 and July 22, and WPEA indicated it would caucus internally regarding scheduling.
Bargaining Dynamics and Clarification Issues
Throughout the session, the parties spent substantial time clarifying proposal structure, identifying where specific language was intended to appear, and discussing how proposals should be interpreted. OFM at times expressed confusion regarding which proposals corresponded to Article 45, the MOU, or separate economic proposals.
WPEA expressed frustration regarding what it viewed as misunderstandings or repeated requests for clarification on issues it believed had already been explained. OFM maintained that it was attempting to accurately understand the structure and scope of the proposals before responding substantively.
Despite moments of tension, the parties ultimately moved toward scheduling future economic discussions and continuing review of the proposals.
The parties met for bargaining regarding the Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Youth (CDHY) and the Washington School for the Blind (WSSB), with discussions focusing primarily on Article 45, prior memorandum of understanding (MOU) language, parity issues with local school districts, and the timing of economic discussions.
Article 45 Proposals
WPEA opened discussion by presenting proposals related to Article 45. The union proposed increasing mandatory preservice duty days as well as increasing annual in-service days from four to eight days per service year under Section 45.2.
The union also raised language in Section 45.11, stating its understanding that the parties had previously agreed to move certain language from an MOU into the collective bargaining agreement during prior negotiations. WPEA characterized its proposal as implementing what it believed had already been agreed upon by the parties.
OFM responded that current representatives were not necessarily involved in the prior negotiations and indicated they would need to review the bargaining history and underlying MOU before confirming whether such an agreement had been reached. WPEA questioned whether the Employer had reviewed the MOU in preparation for the meeting and expressed concern about the level of preparation and familiarity with prior agreements.
The parties then discussed parity issues with the Vancouver School District. WPEA proposed seven workdays of personal leave per fiscal year, explaining that the proposal was intended to establish parity with benefits available in the Vancouver School District. The union stated its position that the state had already recognized the importance of maintaining parity between CDHY/WSSB employees and Vancouver School District employees. WPEA clarified that the proposed leave would be in addition to existing personal leave provisions rather than replacing them.
OFM requested additional information regarding Vancouver School District leave provisions, and WPEA offered to provide a copy or link to the district’s contract for reference.
MOU and Lump Sum Proposal Discussion
WPEA then introduced additional proposals connected to a prior lump sum MOU. The discussion became more detailed and at times unclear as the parties attempted to identify which portions of the MOU were intended to be incorporated into Article 45, other contract sections, or appendices.
The union explained that only certain provisions from the MOU were intended for inclusion in Article 45, while others may more appropriately belong in different sections such as licensure and certification provisions or appendices. WPEA emphasized that the current proposal was not intended to directly mirror the MOU language in all respects and that some modifications had been made, including updates to dates and dollar amounts.
WPEA also noted that the original MOU contained non-precedent-setting language that was intentionally omitted from the current proposal. The union framed the proposal as part of a broader effort to address recruitment, retention, and compensation concerns within the schools.
The union repeatedly emphasized its belief that employees at CDHY and WSSB face significant recruitment and retention challenges because employees can leave for other school districts and earn substantially higher wages while holding fewer required certifications.
OFM indicated that much of the discussion involved economic issues and stated that the Employer was not prepared to substantively discuss economic proposals until after the state revenue forecast and budget process. WPEA acknowledged awareness of the Employer’s typical timeline for economic bargaining but clarified that the union was seeking discussion regarding shared operational concerns and priorities rather than immediate bargaining over specific economic counters.
Discussion Regarding Economic Bargaining Process
A significant portion of the session focused on disagreement regarding the characterization of the bargaining process for economic proposals.
OFM reiterated several times that economic discussions traditionally occur after the state revenue forecast process and maintained that this remained the Employer’s anticipated timeline. WPEA pushed back on language suggesting the union agreed with that process, clarifying that while the union recognizes this has historically occurred, it does not necessarily agree with or endorse the practice.
The discussion became increasingly focused on communication and wording regarding whether the parties “agreed” on the economic bargaining timeline versus simply acknowledging that it has historically occurred that way.
WPEA repeatedly stated that the union’s primary request was to establish a concrete date for future discussions specifically focused on economics related to CDHY and WSSB proposals. OFM responded that economic discussions would occur after the forecast process and eventually proposed scheduling a dedicated future bargaining session focused on economics.
The parties discussed potential meeting dates, including July 15 and July 22, and WPEA indicated it would caucus internally regarding scheduling.
Bargaining Dynamics and Clarification Issues
Throughout the session, the parties spent substantial time clarifying proposal structure, identifying where specific language was intended to appear, and discussing how proposals should be interpreted. OFM at times expressed confusion regarding which proposals corresponded to Article 45, the MOU, or separate economic proposals.
WPEA expressed frustration regarding what it viewed as misunderstandings or repeated requests for clarification on issues it believed had already been explained. OFM maintained that it was attempting to accurately understand the structure and scope of the proposals before responding substantively.
Despite moments of tension, the parties ultimately moved toward scheduling future economic discussions and continuing review of the proposals.
May 4th Bargaining Session
The parties continued bargaining discussions by reviewing Employer counterproposals, clarifying bargaining positions, and discussing operational impacts and contract language interpretations across several articles.
Article 4
WPEA introduced a proposal described as a minor correction to Article 4.5. The discussion on this item was brief, with the proposal characterized as a technical or housekeeping adjustment rather than a substantive policy change.
Article 25 (Off-Duty Conduct)
The Employer presented a compromise proposal related to Article 25, acknowledging the union’s concerns regarding the difficulty employees may face in reporting arrests within the existing 24-hour timeline. OFM stated it was willing to provide additional time for employees to report arrests while maintaining the existing 24-hour reporting requirement for court-imposed sanctions, which the Employer views as more predictable and manageable.
The discussion then shifted to language specific to the Washington State Patrol (WSP). WPEA questioned why WSP employees were subject to additional reporting requirements and sought clarification on whether those requirements stemmed from regulation or internal policy. OFM explained that WSP employees are subject to immediate notification requirements due to criminal justice certification standards and law enforcement-related obligations.
WPEA raised concerns regarding inconsistencies between the proposed contract language, current contract language, and the Employer’s description of current practice. The union questioned whether the proposed language represented a substantive change and whether there was sufficient operational justification or documented harm to support the proposal. OFM maintained that the proposal was intended to reflect and preserve current practice within WSP operations.
The parties also discussed the relationship between agency regulations, Employer policies, and contract language. WPEA expressed concern that conflicting standards could create confusion and noted its view that contract language would supersede conflicting policy provisions. OFM responded that the union had previously been given the opportunity to bargain the underlying policy and that the proposed language was intended to formalize existing expectations.
Article 29 (Presumption of Resignation)
OFM responded to the union’s proposal to eliminate Article 29 by presenting a compromise proposal. Rather than removing the article entirely, the Employer proposed revisions to Article 29.4 intended to provide employees with additional information and opportunity to present their case in situations involving presumed resignation or separation.
The discussion on this article was limited primarily to the Employer’s presentation of the compromise framework.
Article 38 (Union Access and Communication)
OFM discussed concerns related to union access to employees, particularly balancing union communication rights with privacy and security considerations. The Employer explained that its primary concern involved unmonitored access to employees by union representatives or stewards.
As an alternative approach, OFM proposed revisions to Article 38.6 that would allow the union to distribute QR codes employees could voluntarily access for union information and communication purposes. The Employer characterized this as a way to achieve similar communication goals while addressing operational and security concerns.
At this point, formal note taking temporarily ceased while the parties focused directly on negotiating the proposal language.
Appendix J (Data Proposal Extension)
OFM briefly raised a proposed extension related to Appendix J and asked whether the union had any questions regarding the change. WPEA indicated that it did not have questions at that time.
Article 28 (Discipline)
WPEA introduced proposals related to oral reprimands and disciplinary records. The union stated that it viewed the proposed changes primarily as clarifications rather than substantive policy changes.
One proposal specified that oral reprimands should be maintained only in supervisory files and not elsewhere. Another proposal removed language stating that oral reprimands are not subject to the grievance procedure. WPEA reiterated its broader position that contractual provisions should remain enforceable through the grievance and arbitration process under RCW 41.80.
OFM questioned whether the proposed clarification would only matter if oral reprimands were currently being maintained outside supervisory files. WPEA responded that its concern was ensuring clarity and enforceability of the language regardless of current practice.
The Employer indicated it would consider the proposal and invited further clarification regarding existing practices if oral reprimands were already being maintained as described by the union.
Article 32 (Personnel Files)
WPEA proposed revisions intended to create greater specificity regarding the types of employee files maintained by the Employer. The union expressed concern with the existing “including but not limited to” language and stated a preference for clearly identifying all categories of files maintained.
WPEA clarified that the goal was not to limit legitimate Employer recordkeeping needs but rather to improve transparency by explicitly listing the files that may exist. OFM asked whether the union anticipated a more comprehensive counterproposal identifying all possible file categories. WPEA indicated openness to a broader list so long as the file categories were clearly defined.
The parties also discussed associated language regarding removal of documents and oral reprimands, with WPEA again emphasizing that the changes were intended as clarifications and organizational improvements rather than substantive operational changes.
OFM indicated it would review and consider the proposal.
Article 33
WPEA introduced a housekeeping proposal related to Article 33. The union explained that it intentionally provided only the specific section being modified rather than the full article to streamline review.
The proposal would remove the word “steward” from a provision that the union believed could unintentionally imply employees should communicate only through stewards. WPEA characterized the change as clarifying the intended meaning rather than altering substantive rights or responsibilities.
The Employer asked whether there were questions from its team but did not otherwise substantively respond during the discussion.
Article 36 (Management Rights)
WPEA proposed changing the title of Article 36 from “Management Rights” to “Management Rights and Responsibilities.” The union explained that it viewed rights and responsibilities as inherently connected and believed the revised title would reinforce accountability and educational understanding for both management and employees.
OFM questioned whether the union’s broader position regarding grievance rights would apply to Article 36. WPEA responded that management rights grievances are already regularly filed and noted that the union had previously prevailed in arbitration involving management rights issues. The union stated that the title change was primarily educational and symbolic rather than intended to alter substantive rights.
OFM indicated it would consider the proposal.
Savings Clause Discussion
The parties also discussed language in the Savings Clause article that WPEA believed required correction. WPEA referenced prior email communication on the issue and noted concern that the current language was inaccurate or incomplete.
OFM indicated willingness to address the issue immediately and proposed drafting the necessary memorandum or language correction directly for simplicity and efficiency. WPEA noted that historically OFM has generally prepared such documents due to reporting and procedural requirements.
The parties tentatively agreed that OFM would draft the corrective language for further review and discussion.
The parties continued bargaining discussions by reviewing Employer counterproposals, clarifying bargaining positions, and discussing operational impacts and contract language interpretations across several articles.
Article 4
WPEA introduced a proposal described as a minor correction to Article 4.5. The discussion on this item was brief, with the proposal characterized as a technical or housekeeping adjustment rather than a substantive policy change.
Article 25 (Off-Duty Conduct)
The Employer presented a compromise proposal related to Article 25, acknowledging the union’s concerns regarding the difficulty employees may face in reporting arrests within the existing 24-hour timeline. OFM stated it was willing to provide additional time for employees to report arrests while maintaining the existing 24-hour reporting requirement for court-imposed sanctions, which the Employer views as more predictable and manageable.
The discussion then shifted to language specific to the Washington State Patrol (WSP). WPEA questioned why WSP employees were subject to additional reporting requirements and sought clarification on whether those requirements stemmed from regulation or internal policy. OFM explained that WSP employees are subject to immediate notification requirements due to criminal justice certification standards and law enforcement-related obligations.
WPEA raised concerns regarding inconsistencies between the proposed contract language, current contract language, and the Employer’s description of current practice. The union questioned whether the proposed language represented a substantive change and whether there was sufficient operational justification or documented harm to support the proposal. OFM maintained that the proposal was intended to reflect and preserve current practice within WSP operations.
The parties also discussed the relationship between agency regulations, Employer policies, and contract language. WPEA expressed concern that conflicting standards could create confusion and noted its view that contract language would supersede conflicting policy provisions. OFM responded that the union had previously been given the opportunity to bargain the underlying policy and that the proposed language was intended to formalize existing expectations.
Article 29 (Presumption of Resignation)
OFM responded to the union’s proposal to eliminate Article 29 by presenting a compromise proposal. Rather than removing the article entirely, the Employer proposed revisions to Article 29.4 intended to provide employees with additional information and opportunity to present their case in situations involving presumed resignation or separation.
The discussion on this article was limited primarily to the Employer’s presentation of the compromise framework.
Article 38 (Union Access and Communication)
OFM discussed concerns related to union access to employees, particularly balancing union communication rights with privacy and security considerations. The Employer explained that its primary concern involved unmonitored access to employees by union representatives or stewards.
As an alternative approach, OFM proposed revisions to Article 38.6 that would allow the union to distribute QR codes employees could voluntarily access for union information and communication purposes. The Employer characterized this as a way to achieve similar communication goals while addressing operational and security concerns.
At this point, formal note taking temporarily ceased while the parties focused directly on negotiating the proposal language.
Appendix J (Data Proposal Extension)
OFM briefly raised a proposed extension related to Appendix J and asked whether the union had any questions regarding the change. WPEA indicated that it did not have questions at that time.
Article 28 (Discipline)
WPEA introduced proposals related to oral reprimands and disciplinary records. The union stated that it viewed the proposed changes primarily as clarifications rather than substantive policy changes.
One proposal specified that oral reprimands should be maintained only in supervisory files and not elsewhere. Another proposal removed language stating that oral reprimands are not subject to the grievance procedure. WPEA reiterated its broader position that contractual provisions should remain enforceable through the grievance and arbitration process under RCW 41.80.
OFM questioned whether the proposed clarification would only matter if oral reprimands were currently being maintained outside supervisory files. WPEA responded that its concern was ensuring clarity and enforceability of the language regardless of current practice.
The Employer indicated it would consider the proposal and invited further clarification regarding existing practices if oral reprimands were already being maintained as described by the union.
Article 32 (Personnel Files)
WPEA proposed revisions intended to create greater specificity regarding the types of employee files maintained by the Employer. The union expressed concern with the existing “including but not limited to” language and stated a preference for clearly identifying all categories of files maintained.
WPEA clarified that the goal was not to limit legitimate Employer recordkeeping needs but rather to improve transparency by explicitly listing the files that may exist. OFM asked whether the union anticipated a more comprehensive counterproposal identifying all possible file categories. WPEA indicated openness to a broader list so long as the file categories were clearly defined.
The parties also discussed associated language regarding removal of documents and oral reprimands, with WPEA again emphasizing that the changes were intended as clarifications and organizational improvements rather than substantive operational changes.
OFM indicated it would review and consider the proposal.
Article 33
WPEA introduced a housekeeping proposal related to Article 33. The union explained that it intentionally provided only the specific section being modified rather than the full article to streamline review.
The proposal would remove the word “steward” from a provision that the union believed could unintentionally imply employees should communicate only through stewards. WPEA characterized the change as clarifying the intended meaning rather than altering substantive rights or responsibilities.
The Employer asked whether there were questions from its team but did not otherwise substantively respond during the discussion.
Article 36 (Management Rights)
WPEA proposed changing the title of Article 36 from “Management Rights” to “Management Rights and Responsibilities.” The union explained that it viewed rights and responsibilities as inherently connected and believed the revised title would reinforce accountability and educational understanding for both management and employees.
OFM questioned whether the union’s broader position regarding grievance rights would apply to Article 36. WPEA responded that management rights grievances are already regularly filed and noted that the union had previously prevailed in arbitration involving management rights issues. The union stated that the title change was primarily educational and symbolic rather than intended to alter substantive rights.
OFM indicated it would consider the proposal.
Savings Clause Discussion
The parties also discussed language in the Savings Clause article that WPEA believed required correction. WPEA referenced prior email communication on the issue and noted concern that the current language was inaccurate or incomplete.
OFM indicated willingness to address the issue immediately and proposed drafting the necessary memorandum or language correction directly for simplicity and efficiency. WPEA noted that historically OFM has generally prepared such documents due to reporting and procedural requirements.
The parties tentatively agreed that OFM would draft the corrective language for further review and discussion.
April 27 Bargaining Session
The parties convened for an initial bargaining session with representatives from multiple state agencies and the union present. The meeting began with introductions, where participants identified their roles, including lead negotiators, agency representatives, labor relations and HR staff, and note takers. This established the composition of both bargaining teams and the structure for participation moving forward.
Initial Process and LogisticsEarly discussion focused on procedural expectations and logistics for bargaining. The parties clarified norms around participation, including the use of state equipment. The Employer indicated that bargaining is generally expected to occur on release time rather than through state resources, while acknowledging that limited use of state equipment may occur with appropriate parameters.
The parties also discussed proposal formatting preferences, including whether to use strikethroughs or track changes, as part of establishing consistent processes for exchanging and reviewing proposals.
Preamble and Grievance ProcedureWPEA introduced a proposal to remove language in the Preamble that limits access to the grievance procedure, asserting that state law requires all issues to be subject to binding arbitration. The Employer questioned how the union would apply this change and expressed disagreement with the union’s interpretation of the law, stating that while a grievance procedure is required, the scope of what is grievable is determined by the parties.
This led to a broader discussion about arbitrability, past grievances (including those related to COVID), and how contract provisions are interpreted in disputes. The Employer maintained that preambles are generally non-binding and not subject to grievance, while WPEA emphasized its position that limitations on grievances are inappropriate.
Article 5 (Grievance Procedure)WPEA proposed removing grievance limitations within the article, reiterating its position that such limitations are not meaningful if they cannot be enforced and may conflict with state law. The Employer questioned the legal basis for this claim and raised hypothetical scenarios about how grievance scope is determined, emphasizing that not all issues are inherently grievable.
WPEA clarified that this position reflects a broader, consistent approach to grievance rights under state law and indicated this would be the primary area where such changes are proposed.
Article 7 (Overtime)WPEA proposed modifying overtime provisions to ensure overtime is accrued after scheduled shifts and to revise language stating that employees cannot be compensated for overtime not worked. WPEA provided examples where employees had been compensated in such circumstances, arguing that the current language is overly absolute and does not reflect actual practice.
The Employer asked for clarification on those examples, and WPEA indicated openness to revising the language to allow for limited or “normal” exceptions rather than maintaining an absolute prohibition.
Article 25 (Off-Duty Conduct)WPEA proposed extending the reporting requirement for off-duty incidents from 24 hours to 72 hours, citing practical challenges employees face in meeting the current requirement, particularly in cases such as arrests where immediate communication may not be possible.
The Employer raised concerns that extending the timeline could leave the Employer unaware of employee absences for multiple days. WPEA clarified that the proposal is focused on reporting sanctions or incidents rather than attendance itself and provided real-world examples where employees were unable to report within 24 hours due to circumstances beyond their control.
The Employer expressed skepticism about modifying this provision and indicated limited flexibility.
Article 29 (Presumption of Resignation)WPEA proposed eliminating the article entirely, arguing that the Employer already has the ability to address attendance issues through just cause standards and does not need an additional presumption of resignation provision.
The Employer asked whether there were examples of successful challenges to separations under this article. WPEA indicated that such cases have not been taken to arbitration but maintained its position based on principle and overall contract structure.
Article 46 (Right to Strike)WPEA proposed removing the article, arguing that it is unnecessary because the subject is already governed by law and that its inclusion may create confusion or send the wrong message.
The Employer strongly opposed the proposal, stating that the language reflects existing law and is consistent across agreements. The Employer indicated this proposal is a nonstarter and that it does not intend to pursue changes to this provision.
This section involved extended discussion regarding interpretation of the language and whether it implies or restricts the right to strike. The parties did not reach alignment and ultimately moved to caucus.
Bargaining Dynamics and Process DiscussionIn the afternoon session, the Employer revisited earlier proposals and provided additional explanation of its positions, particularly regarding the Preamble and grievance limitations. The Employer emphasized a preference for ongoing discussion alongside proposal exchange rather than relying solely on written counters.
WPEA expressed a preference for receiving formal counterproposals before engaging in detailed discussion, noting that it is difficult to respond without seeing the Employer’s proposed language. This led to some disagreement about bargaining approach and structure, though both parties acknowledged the importance of communication.
Article 6 (Schedules)WPEA raised concerns about schedule changes and requested the Employer’s position on related issues. The union provided multiple examples of frequent and disruptive schedule changes, particularly within certain agencies, and expressed concern about the administrative burden and impact on employees. The Employer asked clarifying questions but did not take a definitive position during this discussion.
Economic Proposals and Budget TimelineThe parties discussed how economic proposals will be handled. The Employer explained that proposals with financial impact typically cannot be fully evaluated or responded to until after the state budget process and economic forecast, likely in mid-to-late summer.
The Employer noted that a policy analyst determines whether a proposal has economic impact. WPEA raised concerns about ambiguity in this process and the potential for delays if proposals are broadly categorized as economic. The union emphasized the importance of transparency and clarity in identifying which proposals are considered economic and how impacts are assessed.
Classification Increases and Data RequestsWPEA raised questions about timelines and data requirements for individual classification increases, noting past challenges with late information exchange. The Employer indicated that meaningful discussion would likely occur after the budget timeline and that proposals should identify specific job classifications and requested increases.
WPEA requested access to underlying data used by the Employer to evaluate classification changes, including vacancy-related information. The Employer directed the union to submit formal information requests and acknowledged that additional subject matter expertise may be needed to fully respond.
Article 41 (Geographic Pay)The parties discussed King County premium pay and its basis. The Employer stated that the premium has historically been tied to cost of living, though this rationale is not explicitly stated in the contract but rather reflected in bargaining history.
WPEA questioned the lack of clarity in the agreement and explored whether geographic pay could be tied more broadly to cost-of-living metrics in other counties. The Employer indicated that such proposals could be made but would need to be supported by appropriate data.
Appendix E (Assignment Pay)WPEA raised questions about the origin of referenced materials in Appendix E, noting gaps in reference numbering. The Employer indicated uncertainty but committed to researching the issue and providing additional information at a future meeting.
Overall and Next StepsThis session primarily focused on establishing bargaining positions, clarifying interpretations of contract language, and identifying key procedural and substantive issues. Several areas of disagreement were identified, particularly around grievance rights, strike language, and reporting requirements.
The parties convened for an initial bargaining session with representatives from multiple state agencies and the union present. The meeting began with introductions, where participants identified their roles, including lead negotiators, agency representatives, labor relations and HR staff, and note takers. This established the composition of both bargaining teams and the structure for participation moving forward.
Initial Process and LogisticsEarly discussion focused on procedural expectations and logistics for bargaining. The parties clarified norms around participation, including the use of state equipment. The Employer indicated that bargaining is generally expected to occur on release time rather than through state resources, while acknowledging that limited use of state equipment may occur with appropriate parameters.
The parties also discussed proposal formatting preferences, including whether to use strikethroughs or track changes, as part of establishing consistent processes for exchanging and reviewing proposals.
Preamble and Grievance ProcedureWPEA introduced a proposal to remove language in the Preamble that limits access to the grievance procedure, asserting that state law requires all issues to be subject to binding arbitration. The Employer questioned how the union would apply this change and expressed disagreement with the union’s interpretation of the law, stating that while a grievance procedure is required, the scope of what is grievable is determined by the parties.
This led to a broader discussion about arbitrability, past grievances (including those related to COVID), and how contract provisions are interpreted in disputes. The Employer maintained that preambles are generally non-binding and not subject to grievance, while WPEA emphasized its position that limitations on grievances are inappropriate.
Article 5 (Grievance Procedure)WPEA proposed removing grievance limitations within the article, reiterating its position that such limitations are not meaningful if they cannot be enforced and may conflict with state law. The Employer questioned the legal basis for this claim and raised hypothetical scenarios about how grievance scope is determined, emphasizing that not all issues are inherently grievable.
WPEA clarified that this position reflects a broader, consistent approach to grievance rights under state law and indicated this would be the primary area where such changes are proposed.
Article 7 (Overtime)WPEA proposed modifying overtime provisions to ensure overtime is accrued after scheduled shifts and to revise language stating that employees cannot be compensated for overtime not worked. WPEA provided examples where employees had been compensated in such circumstances, arguing that the current language is overly absolute and does not reflect actual practice.
The Employer asked for clarification on those examples, and WPEA indicated openness to revising the language to allow for limited or “normal” exceptions rather than maintaining an absolute prohibition.
Article 25 (Off-Duty Conduct)WPEA proposed extending the reporting requirement for off-duty incidents from 24 hours to 72 hours, citing practical challenges employees face in meeting the current requirement, particularly in cases such as arrests where immediate communication may not be possible.
The Employer raised concerns that extending the timeline could leave the Employer unaware of employee absences for multiple days. WPEA clarified that the proposal is focused on reporting sanctions or incidents rather than attendance itself and provided real-world examples where employees were unable to report within 24 hours due to circumstances beyond their control.
The Employer expressed skepticism about modifying this provision and indicated limited flexibility.
Article 29 (Presumption of Resignation)WPEA proposed eliminating the article entirely, arguing that the Employer already has the ability to address attendance issues through just cause standards and does not need an additional presumption of resignation provision.
The Employer asked whether there were examples of successful challenges to separations under this article. WPEA indicated that such cases have not been taken to arbitration but maintained its position based on principle and overall contract structure.
Article 46 (Right to Strike)WPEA proposed removing the article, arguing that it is unnecessary because the subject is already governed by law and that its inclusion may create confusion or send the wrong message.
The Employer strongly opposed the proposal, stating that the language reflects existing law and is consistent across agreements. The Employer indicated this proposal is a nonstarter and that it does not intend to pursue changes to this provision.
This section involved extended discussion regarding interpretation of the language and whether it implies or restricts the right to strike. The parties did not reach alignment and ultimately moved to caucus.
Bargaining Dynamics and Process DiscussionIn the afternoon session, the Employer revisited earlier proposals and provided additional explanation of its positions, particularly regarding the Preamble and grievance limitations. The Employer emphasized a preference for ongoing discussion alongside proposal exchange rather than relying solely on written counters.
WPEA expressed a preference for receiving formal counterproposals before engaging in detailed discussion, noting that it is difficult to respond without seeing the Employer’s proposed language. This led to some disagreement about bargaining approach and structure, though both parties acknowledged the importance of communication.
Article 6 (Schedules)WPEA raised concerns about schedule changes and requested the Employer’s position on related issues. The union provided multiple examples of frequent and disruptive schedule changes, particularly within certain agencies, and expressed concern about the administrative burden and impact on employees. The Employer asked clarifying questions but did not take a definitive position during this discussion.
Economic Proposals and Budget TimelineThe parties discussed how economic proposals will be handled. The Employer explained that proposals with financial impact typically cannot be fully evaluated or responded to until after the state budget process and economic forecast, likely in mid-to-late summer.
The Employer noted that a policy analyst determines whether a proposal has economic impact. WPEA raised concerns about ambiguity in this process and the potential for delays if proposals are broadly categorized as economic. The union emphasized the importance of transparency and clarity in identifying which proposals are considered economic and how impacts are assessed.
Classification Increases and Data RequestsWPEA raised questions about timelines and data requirements for individual classification increases, noting past challenges with late information exchange. The Employer indicated that meaningful discussion would likely occur after the budget timeline and that proposals should identify specific job classifications and requested increases.
WPEA requested access to underlying data used by the Employer to evaluate classification changes, including vacancy-related information. The Employer directed the union to submit formal information requests and acknowledged that additional subject matter expertise may be needed to fully respond.
Article 41 (Geographic Pay)The parties discussed King County premium pay and its basis. The Employer stated that the premium has historically been tied to cost of living, though this rationale is not explicitly stated in the contract but rather reflected in bargaining history.
WPEA questioned the lack of clarity in the agreement and explored whether geographic pay could be tied more broadly to cost-of-living metrics in other counties. The Employer indicated that such proposals could be made but would need to be supported by appropriate data.
Appendix E (Assignment Pay)WPEA raised questions about the origin of referenced materials in Appendix E, noting gaps in reference numbering. The Employer indicated uncertainty but committed to researching the issue and providing additional information at a future meeting.
Overall and Next StepsThis session primarily focused on establishing bargaining positions, clarifying interpretations of contract language, and identifying key procedural and substantive issues. Several areas of disagreement were identified, particularly around grievance rights, strike language, and reporting requirements.
Location |
|
Contact Us |