News and Notes | Minnesota School Employees Association

PARAPROFESSIONALS • SECRETARIES • FOOD SERVICE • CUSTODIANS • BUS DRIVERS • TECHNICIANS

Front Page News & Notes

There is nothing new about opposition to public-sector unionism. It has been a feature of American life for over one hundred years. But in some ways, the current wave of anti-unionism is a departure. Three different eras of opposition to public-sector unionism, including the current one, have been distinguished by distinct core arguments against collective bargaining for public employees. Read more.

What is Collective Bargaining?

For years, not many people talked about collective bargaining. But that changed when Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Republican politicians in a dozen other states decided to eliminate the right to bargain collectively from public employees. Learn more

A new international comparison makes it clear just how weak protections are for working people in the United States. Learn more about this trend.

LITTLE FALLS – MSEA members are facing another subcontracting threat, this time to our food service unit in Little Falls. More than 20 members will lose their district jobs if the private vendor from North Carolina – Chartwells - gets the contract from the district. The impact on the local Little Falls economy will be drastic because every single food service employee is a resident and taxpayer in Little Falls. The Little Falls school board will vote next month on the contract. If the vote is “yes”, then the district will layoff all of its food service employees.

Chartwells promises comparable wage rates and certain benefits to its employees. However, Chartwells makes no promise that it will hire our folks in Little Falls or that the employees will have any job security if and when they do. In fact, Chartwells says it will review staff needs on a monthly basis and make cuts or additions as necessary.

Chartwells says it will save the district $133,000 out of a food service budget that is about $1.2 million. According to our review of the numbers, $38,700 of this “savings” will come directly from paying Chartwells employees lower wages and/or benefits or from hiring fewer employees to do the same work. Ironically, Chartwells acknowledged that our MSEA members in Little Falls have “meals served per hour” rates that are above average!

FIRST, remember that this could happen in YOUR district. Chartwells already has food service management contracts in six Minnesota school districts, including two where MSEA food service units. NEXT, please take a moment to support your MSEA colleagues with a call or email to any or all of the Little Falls board members listed below. Please tell the board members to keep Little Falls jobs in Little Falls and to continue to invest in their community rather than paying a non-Minnesota company to get a small savings. Use your OWN story to tell them why it matters. Thank you!

Little Falls School Board Members
Mark Gerbi	mag@rarandallins.com	320-632-5425
Sharon Ballou	sharonballou@yahoo.com	320-749-2771
Jay Spillum	jispillum@gmail.com	320-632-8514
Robert Stoltman	robert@stoltman.net	320-632-4347
Brad Laager	bdlaager@q.com	320-632-5327
Cathy Adamek	cdadamek@hotmail.com	320-749-2367

ST PAUL – Hundreds of Minnesotans gathered at the state Capitol on Thursday (6/30) to urge Legislators to protect public investments crucial to the state’s ability to recover from the recession. As reported by Chris Shields from Minnesota AFL-CIO, a government shutdown is a symptom of a larger problem – the absence of a balanced approach that includes fairly raised revenue.

Invest in Minnesota coalition members are prompting lawmakers to balance a mix of revenue and spending cuts to reach a realistic budget.

“We know just how much is at stake,” said Brian Rusche of the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition. “A state budget that contains all cuts would lead to dire consequences for thousands of Minnesotans. People would lose their jobs and critical services. Many would lose their ability to make ends meet, jeopardizing everything from housing stability to family well-being.”
Attendees heard from people who would be severely harmed by an all-cuts budget.

“I never want to make the choice between health care and housing,” said Cherise Payton of Duluth, who was formerly homeless. “Affordable health care coverage keeps me above water. Because of secure health care, I am stable.”

Josh Keller, an employment specialist at Project for Pride in Living, said reductions in job training programs would inflict unimaginable damage to Minnesota’s economic recovery.

“We see first-hand how much it pays to invest in people experiencing tough times and how much state-funded services do to build the types of communities we all want to live in, “ he said. “And we can solve the budget shortfall by raising revenues in a way that asks all of us to pay our fair share.”

Attendees delivered signs with personal stories about the impact of the budget to legislators’ offices. They stressed that while a shutdown would have an immediate and negative short-term impact, an all-cuts budget would harm state residents for years to come.

Many of you know we lost our youngest daughter Grace at 5-½ years old on June 22, 2008. She was a special needs kiddo who had severe and profound disabilities. She attended the Minneapolis Public Schools. Grace was in a wheelchair, she could not walk or talk (although she could and did vocalize), was tube-fed, and had a variety of complex medical issues. One thing in her very short life that she absolutely loved was going to school. Grace would giggle and be full of big smiles when she knew it was time for school. It was frankly scary for us as her parents to send off our fragile daughter to the care of others while at school. All of the “bad” things that could happen flooded our minds, but what we didn’t expect was all of the “good and wondrous” things that did happen.

Grace was able to experience the joy of a story, of waiting her turn, of classmates helping to push her wheelchair or share toys with her, listening to music and playing instruments, finger painting or working with clay. They were interactions we could not give her at home and ones she could only have in the classroom.

It wasn’t one person who made a difference in Grace’s life at school. It was many. It was the custodian who always had an umbrella sitting next to the door when it was raining awaiting Grace’s bus or who made a special stop to shovel the newly fallen snow so her wheelchair was easier to get in and out of the building. It was the bus driver who had to carefully strap her wheelchair in the bus every day and who had to take emergency procedures if she started seizing on the bus. It was the cooks who brought down snacks for the rest of the kids (that Grace could not eat) who would bring a treat of cream cheese frosting that they would put on her tongue and she would enjoy her own special treat. It was the school secretary who had to personally bring down the mail for the classroom just to make sure she could come by and say “Hi” to Grace. It was the technology assistants who helped provide a broader educational experience with creating light boards and sound machines. It was the LPNs and RNs who helped with medications and constantly monitoring Grace’s condition. It was the paras who changed her diaper, tube-fed her, held her, rode her bus and even on a few occasions started her breathing again when she had stopped…

The people who worked with Grace do the same work and provide the same services as our very own MSEA members. It is what MSEA members do every day. When I walk into a school and see a child in a wheelchair I am constantly reminded of the heroic work each member does every day and what a difference it makes! MSEA members give hope to not only special needs children but also to all the kids that walk though the doors of our schools. We were told Grace would probably not see her 1st birthday. I hope our MSEA members know that efforts like theirs gave us 3-½ to 4 years longer with our daughter than medical experts advised. Each one of you is my HERO! Thank you for what you do!

There is an expression used when crafting or negotiating contract language. The term clear and concise language is often used and is always the goal dealing with contract language at the negotiating table. It can be dangerous to use contract language that is susceptible to multiple interpretations, especially if the language lies dormant in your Labor Agreement for a number of years. Both management and the union might raise questions concerning the intent of that dusty old clause in the Agreement. Who put this in the contract? Has it ever been applied? Do the parties agree on how the language is interpreted and applied? In order to avoid questions about meanings or application, the parties should craft the language so that it is clear and unambiguous. The application of the clause should be obvious to the reader.

Recently I had experience with one of these dusty old clauses which had been in the Labor Agreement for six years.
The clause itself read:
If a health insurance eligible employee resigns or retires with at least 20 years of service and is at least 60 years of age or meets the rule of 90 (age plus years of experience) and prior to age 65 the District shall contribute $3500 per year for those retirees who had single coverage at the time of retirement, or $7500 per year for those retirees who had family coverage at the time of retirement, to a health savings account or similar plan. Contributions will cease when the employee attains the age of 65.

Now for the rest of the story:
We will call the employee Georgina. Georgina was a 20-year plus employee of the district and is now age 62. For most of her career, Georgina carried single insurance through the district. A few months prior to her retirement, she added her husband to her district plan so she had family coverage. Georgina then retired from the school district thinking that she was eligible for the full $7500 per year contribution to her health care savings account.

The district refused to pay the $7500 into her health care savings account, and instead contributed only $3500. A series of conversations ensued. The district offered a variety of explanations in the grievance process.

***That is not how we do it with the teachers.
***We had a “gentleman’s agreement” that the employee had to have family insurance for one full insurance year to be eligible.

The district was reminded in the grievance process that the language in question had appeared unchanged for three full contract cycles. The district settled the grievance!

Analysis
As the author of the language in the first place, you might ask me if I put the phrase at the time of retirement in on purpose. The answer is a resounding yes!! Although there was discussion at the negotiating table about that exact phrase, the district did not ask that it be changed and eventually accepted the proposal. Therefore the district knew what it was getting into - or at least it should have known. Did Georgina take advantage of the system? Judge for yourself, she was on the negotiating committee when the language was first added to the Agreement.

If you are questioned in any way about your conduct or work activities, you need to be aware of your rights to representation and know the answers you give may be used against you. download pdf

Are You Ready to Play: Grievance or Gripe? Scenario #10 - Retaliation or Reassignment?

This is the last “Grievance or Gripe” in the series. We hope you have enjoyed the questions and have learned from the answers. If you would like additional support or training with handling grievances, please call your field representative and he or she will be happy to visit with you about it. It’s all part of the job.

Back to Gary Grievance from the first “Grievance or Gripe” story. As chief steward, you worked with your field representative to file a grievance challenging the written warning that Gary had received. The district dug in its heels about the issue and the case went all the way to arbitration. Fortunately, the arbitrator sustained the grievance and ordered the district to remove Gary’s written warning from his record and file. Unfortunately, the very next day, Gary’s supervisor called him into her office and told him that the district was transferring him because she just couldn’t work with him after this “whole grievance thing.”

A: Probably a grievance. But as is true for most “grievance or gripe” questions, the answer depends on what your contract says. Many contracts include a “no retaliation” clause to protect members, but a few do not. The “Rights to Views” clause in most contracts states that nothing in the contract limits an employee’s right to grieve any matter related to his/her employment. On the other hand, districts generally retain the right to transfer employees for any reason other than an unlawful reason. Is this transfer unlawful? The supervisor’s statement might to be interpreted as violation of Gary’s PELRA rights, which could give rise to a lawsuit in addition to or instead of a grievance. Again, as with several of other “Grievance or Gripe” situations in this series, you and Gary probably need to write down all the questions you have about what happened, and then contact your field representative to decide what steps to do next.

A long-term employee has a doctor’s restriction that prevents her from working in temperatures below freezing. The district has accommodated this restriction informally for a number of years. This year, the employee’s supervisor assigned her to bus duty, which includes at least 20 minutes of outside time in the morning and another 20 minutes after school. In the fall, the assignment wasn’t a problem, but as winter approached, the employee told her supervisor that she needed someone else to substitute for her because of her health restriction. The supervisor agreed to release her from the assignment, but said she would need to take the time as either sick leave or unpaid time.

A: Call your field rep! If you ever face a scenario like this, the first thing your should do is call your field rep or talk to your chief steward and have the steward call the field rep. A question like this could involve not only a grievance but a statutory disability claim. It also involves a long-standing past practice of accommodating the restriction. It could affect other members who would be substituted in the outdoor assignment and who might wonder if they have to accept the reassignment. Etc. etc. So, sometimes it’s absolutely okay not to tackle the problem yourself. MSEA field representatives are there for you – so make the call!

Are You Ready to Play: Grievance or Gripe? Scenario #8 - A Fighting Chance

The last “Grievance or Gripe” told of Gary Grievance and Terry Trouble both being fired for fighting. Both Gary and Terry have been telling you what happened, and their stories are so different you wonder if they were at the same fight. The co-worker who saw part of what happened doesn’t want to talk about it because Gary is her cousin and Terry is her brother-in-law. The only thing she will say is that neither one should probably be fired because the fight occurred after work and so it’s none of the school district’s business. What do you do now?

A: The key to the Gary Grievance and Terry Trouble fight is a good investigation into what really happened. The district will investigate, but will have its own interests and bias. In addition, here you have two members whose versions of what happened are so different that you wonder whether either of them is telling the truth. After all, the truth is in the eye of the beholder. This is a classic example of when you should be calling your MSEA field representative to assist you. The conflicting stories between Mr. Grievance and Mr. Trouble may mean you need the assistance of two MSEA field representatives. And then there is the question raised by the witness about how the fight occurred when both Gary and Terry were off duty. These are all red flags that signal: CALL YOUR REP!

What’s happening in your unit? Please let the MSEA know about activities, meetings and actions taking place in your unit. We love to share your stories and photos; and what you do might inspire other units to do the same. Here’s a short summary of a recent meeting of the Austin Paraprofessional unit:

Chief steward Heidi Kaercher called the meeting to order and distributed a detailed agenda. Secretary Tina Laury read the minutes of the previous meeting and Treasurer Pat Smidt gave the Treasurer’s Report. Old Business included discussion of efforts to increase the number of full members (eight conversions so far this year!), reports from various committees, and discussions about the seniority list and job description updates. New Business issues included the need for more building reps and selecting negotiations committee members. Both topics led to some quality debate and dialogue, aptly facilitated by the chief steward. Kudos!

The meeting ended with a question and answer period with MSEA Executive Director Christina Clark. Field Representative John Rostad also “fielded” some questions. Does this sound like one of your meetings? Tell us what you are doing, and we’ll be happy to share.

Gary Grievance has been fired! He and Terry Trouble got into a fight in the parking lot after work. The district terminated both of them even though another unit member who saw most of what happened says Gary acted in self-defense. Both Gary and Terry want the union to file a grievance and get their jobs back.

A: Yes. Being fired is the “capital punishment” of employment law, and it is a rare case where the employee doesn’t have a defense or a valid basis for arguing that termination was too harsh a penalty for what occurred. This is true even when the termination is based on a dischargeable offense such as fighting. HOWEVER- there are many questions to ask and investigate. From the recent core training on “Who You Gonna Call?”, you know that you need to call your Field Rep to handle this with you and for you. In addition, the Field Rep is probably going to need to call the Executive Director, who will assign a different Field Rep to be the advocate for one of the two members so the interests of both Gary and Terry are adequately protected. Fighting is a dischargeable offense. You would have to carry out an investigation to determine what your argument would be and you would probably want your Field Rep involved because a rep. may need to be assigned to both parties to protect both of their interests.

12.7.10 - Unit leaders often ask how to increase interest and participation in unit meetings. A recent meeting of the MSEA/Windom Custodians, Food Service, and Paraprofessional/Secretarial Units might inspire you! Special guests Mike Foley and Cliff Crowell of the Windom bus drivers and MSEA Executive Director Christina Clark joined 30+ members, Field Representative John Rostad and Chief Steward/MSEA Board member Mary Schaufenbuel for an evening of good food, learning and discussion.

• Document, Document, Document. Write down, keep track of anything that happens with students regarding physical or verbal abuse. Take pictures if necessary.

• Discipline. If ever asked to attend a meeting and you feel it is turning into a discipline meeting, stop the meeting and ask for union representation to be with you. Document this meeting and be sure your chief steward is aware of this meeting.

• School Email Accounts / Social Networking. Facebook, Twitter, etc. Be extremely careful whom you add as a friend, information that you post, pictures you add. Be extremely careful about what you send via school email.

• Respect & Honesty. Respect one another, regardless. Be honest with yourself, work as a team.

This review led the group to talk about ways to be proactive as a union. Grab any or all of these ideas for your unit meetings and unit actions. Questions or ideas? Contact your field rep!

• School Board. Attend monthly board meetings wearing MSEA apparel.

• “Did You Know?” School Board Meetings. Get on the monthly school board agenda for 5-10 minutes to discuss some aspect of what unit does daily. Examples:

       1) Paras identifying how they assisted in the completion of classroom projects.
       2) Custodians discussing upcoming district projects.
       3) Food Service personnel sharing the relevance of a monthly food nutrition program for

students.

• Unit Newsletters. Spotlight individuals who make a difference, tell what is happening in your unit.

• School Board Member Invitations. Invite school board members to lunch in the cafeteria or to sit in a classroom to see what we do daily.

• Open Houses / Parent Teacher Conferences. Set up a booth/billboard to “brag” about what we do within the district. Unit visibility with the public is important.

12.7.10 - When the Remer (Northland) school district decided to move to a 4-day school week for the 2010-11 school year, MSEA’s unit stood up and said “No.” A leader is a person or thing that leads; directing, commanding, or guiding, as of a group or activity. In challenging the district’s decision, Remer’s negotiating team learned the different roles a leader needs to play and that the union’s voice can have just as much influence as any CEO or administrator.

MSEA members may think that your “little voice” will not be valued. This year, the Remer team proved this to be wrong. They took chances, pulled together, took the lead and prevailed. Your voice can be heard, just like theirs was.

When negotiations began, Remer members were facing the same uphill battle facing units in districts all around the state. The district filed a request with the state to go to a 4-day week that would cut the pay of many members by 20%. At the same time, the district’s negotiation proposal included the loss of personal days for 12-month employees, changes in the vacation schedule and absolutely no increase in wages or insurance reimbursement.

Remer’s leadership brought the group together to discuss what language changes they wanted to propose. They agreed to stand firm against the 4-day week, the loss of personal days and the vacation schedule changes. To be absolutely sure about their stance, the leadership conducted an interest vote on the 4-day week issue. A solid 87% of the membership voted against moving to a 4-day week.

MSEA Field Rep Lori Carlson and Exec. Director Christina Clark filed an objection to the district’s application for a 4-day week. After considering the objection, the Minnesota Dept of Education denied the application, providing the leverage the unit needed to fight the district on the other contract issues. The Remer unit strengthened its personal day language, made several other language improvements and gained soft money improvements.

Thanks to the Remer team for their hard work and efforts in this success: Carla Hopkins, Lori Sizenbach, Bev Gains, Terri Brustads and Mary Lou Lutz!

Last week you went to the supervisor about a pay grievance for Ole Overtime. In your opinion, it is a justified grievance that should be settled in the union's favor. Today Ole comes over to you and asks you to drop the grievance. He states that he is not being pressured or anything -- he just doesn’t want to spend the time on it because he got a 2nd job working evenings at Lena’s store, which also means that the overtime pay he was fighting for isn’t as important to him as it was before.

A: Yes. “The union owns the grievance” is part of the basic union code. Part of the union’s job is to protect the integrity of the contract. If the union doesn’t pursue the grievance, it takes the risk that the next time the district denies overtime pay to Ole or someone else in a similar situation, the district will say that the union has waived its right to file grievances over that issue because it failed to challenge the district’s interpretation of the contract’s overtime language in Ole’s current situation.

Even so, the union can choose among various approaches to the grievance. It could follow through for the win and a “make whole” remedy. It could inform the district that it is dropping the grievance BUT is maintaining its claim that the district violated the contract language and retains its right to file a grievance should a same or similar situation arise in the future. It could attempt to settle the grievance by getting the district to agree (in writing!) that it violated the contract language but that the union agrees to waive the claim for Ole’s overtime pay in this instance. It could ask the district to review its overtime procedures and work with the union to clarify/modify these procedures so this issue does not arise again. Grievances provide opportunities to solve problems!

Three secretaries who work in the district office come to you angry claiming that management is not following the contract’s job posting procedures. The contract says that notices of vacancies or new positions in the bargaining unit shall be posted for three working days on bulletin boards in each building. The members claim that job postings for the unit are never posted in their building. In addition, their so-called “bulletin board” is in the storage room at the back of the main office. The district office and the high school are in the same building.

Although technically the building that houses both the district offices and the high school are one building, the high school has its own office and should be considered a different “building.” District offices are often housed in the same buildings with schools – and yet in every way are treated as different entities. In this case, some problem-solving conversations would be in order – the chief steward and/or the field rep should meet with administration to talk about the ambiguities of the contract language and work towards a solution to make sure that all members have adequate notice of job opportunities, and to address what constitutes a “building” and a “bulletin board.” If this approach doesn’t work, then a grievance is probably in order. In the next round of bargaining, the union might want to propose revisions to the contract language that allowed this issue to arise.

Harriett Harassment tells you that she is being harassed by one of the other special education paras in her building. She says this person complains about her work to their supervisor, talks about her to other paras behind her back, and makes nasty comments to her when they are waiting for the buses with their students.

Grievances are based on actions taken by the district and district administrators, not co-workers, and certainly not other members of Harriet’s own MSEA bargaining unit. However, if you find that Harriet’s supervisor is violating some contractual obligation towards her, you might be able to put together a grievance using that information. Again, the grievance is filed against the district, not Harriet’s co-worker.

Union representatives act in the best interest of the group, not the individual. Here, two MSEA members appear to be in conflict. As the union representative, you must be careful not to “take sides.” You could suggest that Harriet talk to her supervisor or talk directly to the co-worker about her feelings. She could also ask the supervisor to facilitate a conversation between her and the co-worker.

Lyle Leave asked his supervisor for a day off for personal business. That day happened tobe the day before a paid holiday. Because he did not have any paid time left, he took the day unpaid. On payday, Lyle noticed that his check did not include any holiday pay. He came to you upset that the district had shorted him and wanting the union to do something immediately.

The answers to many grievance scenarios depend on the specific contract language. Some contracts say employees only receive holiday pay when they either work or are otherwise paid for the day before the holiday (or the day after, or both). Other contracts give the district discretion to deny leave for days that precede or follow a holiday. Many contracts are silent on the question, which means holiday pay is guaranteed.

What does your contract say? Remind your members to check the contract language before asking for a personal day or an unpaid leave day – what they learn might affect their choices.

Trudy Tardy cannot understand why her supervisor gave her an oral warning about repeated tardiness. She takes the bus to work. The 7:00 bus gets her to work in plenty of time for her 7:30 start time. The 7:15 bus gets her to work just in time if the bus is on time, but 1-2 times a week that bus is about 5 minutes late. Her supervisor has talked to her about this before and now gave her the oral warning.

Q: Does Trudy have a grievance?

A: Probably Not.

Trudy Tardy is arriving late to work at least once a week. The supervisor talked to her about it before. Trudy received one of the lowest levels of discipline possible – an oral warning. The district probably had just cause to issue the warning. It looks like Trudy has a gripe, not a grievance.

But wait! Although the answer might seem obvious, take a little extra time to be sure. The “just cause” standard referenced above is used to determine whether a situation is a grievance or a gripe. The test asks several questions, such as whether the employee had notice of the rule the employee is accused of violating, whether the rule is reasonable, whether the employer did a thorough and fair investigation into the situation, whether the investigation led to sufficient proof that the employee did violate the rule, whether the employer consistently enforces the rule, and whether the severity of the discipline fits the severity of the infraction.

In this case, Trudy had notice because the supervisor had already warned her. “Be on time” is generally accepted as a reasonable rule. Trudy isn’t challenging the fact that she is arriving late, so the questions about investigating the issue and proof are not relevant. However, what if you learn that Sally Smoothy sometimes takes the same bus as Trudy Tardy and is also arriving late to work from time to time, but she hasn’t been warned or disciplined. What if Trudy tells you that last year, the HR Director told Trudy and the other clerical staff that it’s okay to be late occasionally, as long as they make up the time at the end of day or later in the week? If so, the situation could fail the “consistent enforcement” part of the just cause test and a little more work is required before you decide whether Trudy has a grievance or just a gripe.

Has this happened to you? You are headed down the hall to pick up a student and Gary Grievance stops you to say that he has gotten a written warning and he doesn’t deserve it. He demands that the union file a grievance to get the warning off his record. What do you do?

Let’s start with some discussion on what exactly is a grievance. MSEA contracts include a definition of “grievance”, so make sure to read yours. Most contracts call a grievance a disagreement or dispute over the interpretation or application of a provision in the negotiated contract. Some also include disagreements over the provisions in a district’s personnel policies. Violations of longstanding past practices can also be the subject of a grievance, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Not all disagreements with management are grievances. Some management actions that are dumb, unfair or worse are still not grievable because whatever was dumb, unfair or worse didn’t also violate the contract. One of the most important skills of union advocates is to sort out what is a grievance from what is only a gripe. For example, if the union contract gives building principals the right of assignment within their buildings and the elementary principal assigns Jumpin’ Joe to a particular job even though everybody knows that Gary Grievance is a much better fit for that particular assignment, all Gary Grievance has is a gripe, not a grievance. The district has the right to make bad decisions. It just doesn’t have the right to make decisions that violate the terms of the negotiated contract.

In the example here, you learn from Gary that he called the district office on Tuesday morning to report he was going to be out sick. On Wednesday, his supervisor told him that he was required to call her directly. She issued him a written warning. Gary explained that there is no telephone in the building where he is and that everybody in that building has always called the main office in case of sickness or emergencies. You know this is true, or at least it was when you worked in that building a few years ago. You check the contract and see that it requires employees to notify the district before the workday begins, but does not specify how.

Let’s talk about why. As you will remember, the bargaining agreement for Gary’s unit requires employees who are calling in sick to notify the district before the workday begins, but does not specify how. Because Gary called the district, he satisfied this requirement. Accordingly, his supervisor did not have just cause to issue him a written warning for not calling her directly.

Additionally, there is no telephone in the building where Gary works and everybody in that building has always called the main office in case of sickness or emergencies. Although this might be additional support for an outcome in Gary’s favor, the focus should be on what the contract requires. Because the contract does not require employees to contact the supervisor, Gary’s grievance is solid.

Caution! There are a few things you will want to check before filing that grievance. Read the contract’s provisions on disciplinary actions. Are “written warnings” listed as a type of discipline? If not, the district might argue that you can’t grieve Gary’s written warning because only actions that are specifically listed can be grieved. Has the district issued “written warnings” in the past? If so, have we filed grievances to challenge them? If not, have we waived our right to challenge this one? And don’t forget to check your grievance timelines.

Reading these questions might motivate you to attend MSEA’s upcoming core training: “Who You Gonna Call?” The training will help you determine when to handle an issue yourself and when to call your field rep. In Gary’s case, if the supervisor tells you that “written warnings” are not disciplinary and cannot be grieved, it’s probably time to call the rep, if you haven’t done so already.

MN Para News & Updates

**Minnesota’s Rubric – Para Portfolios: The MN Dept. of Ed. (DOE) has developed Minnesota’s Rubric for the Evaluation of Para Portfolios, a system of evaluating portfolios is through a set of rubrics, which outlines the MN Core Competencies. This process allows an effective and efficient process for districts to assist the portfolio evaluation team to ensure that paras have the required knowledge and skills. Download the Rubric in pdf format.

**Consortium Members Needed: The MN Para Consortium has several vacant positions brought about by terms ending including: Parent (Spec. Ed.), Parent (Title), Principal, Spec. Ed. Para and Staff Development Coord. For more information about the open positions, you can check out the Consortium’s website or contact MSEA Field Rep Bob Schrank (cell phone: 651.260.3781).

**Planning to take the the ParaPro Assessment test? Check out MSEA's Links page for websites offering assistance in helping you prepare.

**The MN Dept. of Education has drafted Local Assessment Definitions to be used in determining if paras meet NCLB standards that have been adopted. Remember, the local assessment is different than the standards for the voluntary credential being developed under MN statute.

**Para eFolio: This online resource will provide a tool for paras to track completion of all core competencies, as well as an online resume. Click here to build a Para eFolio.

**Minnesota will use the ETS Para Pro Test as the assessment tool referenced in the Para Credential and Local Assessment. Information about this test can be found on the Consortium website.

return to top return to front page