Association seeks more release time, live new‑hire roster and payroll protections in Article 5 proposal

Union negotiators and district staff met to review proposed edits to Article 5 of the collective bargaining agreement, centering on compliance with House Bill 2016 and administrative changes to how the district shares personnel and payroll information.

An association representative said the union wants a shared, live spreadsheet — a model already used in Salem — that would let the union see new‑hire details as they are entered rather than receiving batched lists. The association argued the live feed helps welcome new hires promptly and reduces the administrative lag that leaves members without timely contacts.

Negotiators also focused on dues‑deduction language. The association described past payroll errors that led to multi‑month retroactive dues being taken from employees’ paychecks, creating financial hardship. The proposed language would require the district to provide remittance details (who was deducted and how much) and add protections when an error is the employer’s responsibility.

A central budget issue in the discussion was release time for association leaders. The association requested an increase to the current pool of association leave hours (an example cited in discussion: a proposed change from 150 to 300 hours) and a clarified cost‑sharing approach in which the district pays for a portion of that time while the association covers the remainder. Negotiators tied the request to duties defined under House Bill 2016 — including new‑hire orientation, contract enforcement, investigatory meetings and bargaining — and stressed that the existing release allotment is insufficient to meet those obligations.

District representatives asked clarifying questions about which portions of release time are the employer’s responsibility under state law and which are subject to association reimbursement. The parties discussed examples and implementation mechanics but did not reach a final agreement. The session ended with the district indicating it will respond to the Article 5 proposals in a subsequent meeting.

The parties agreed to exchange formal counterproposals and continue work on release‑time cost‑sharing and the proposed live new‑hire roster at the next bargaining session.