Sean C. Morgan
The Oregon School Employees Association has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Sweet Home School District 55, accusing an administrator of unlawful surveillance of union activity, interfering with the administration of the association and leading to fear of retaliation for engaging in protected union activity, causing the cancellation of a union meeting and chilling union activity.
In the complaint, which was filed Dec. 4 and obtained by The New Era on Jan. 2, the union is asking the Employment Relations Board to order the district to cease and desist from its unlawful activity, post notice that the district has been found in violation of the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act in noticeable places and via email, to reimburse the complaint filing fee of $300, pay a $1,000 civil penalty, pay representation and attorney fees and any other relief deemed just by the board.
According to the complaint, on Nov. 17, Dave Goetz, the district’s human resources manager and bus garage supervisor, contacted three bus drivers who had attended a Nov. 5 union meeting and told them they needed to come to his office for a meeting because they had violated the collective bargaining agreement.
Sweet Home Chapter President Velma Canfield learned about the directive and immediately went to Goetz’s office and informed him that if his reason for calling the drivers to his office was to discuss the Nov. 5 meeting, that would be inappropriate because the meeting was protected union activity, according to the complaint.
The complaint claims Goetz responded that he was investigating what was discussed at the meeting because he believed the meeting violated the collective bargaining agreement.
Despite Canfield’s objections, the complaint alleges, Goetz interrogated three drivers present at the Nov. 5 meeting, asking whether they were present at the meeting, whether there were other meetings they had attended, whether they had been asked to take notes regarding claims of a hostile work environment at the district and whether he or other coworkers were discussed during any meetings.
On Nov. 17, the complaint claims that Goetz called another driver into his office for questioning even though the employee did not attend the Nov. 5 meeting. He asked whether the employee had been invited or asked to take notes regarding the employee’s work environment.
Following the interrogation of the bus drivers, the complaint claims that Goetz told Canfield he “would be taking this to the next step.”
The complaint says that the drivers questioned by Goetz felt intimidated by the interrogation, and they were afraid to discuss workplace concerns.
On Nov. 17, the union had a meeting scheduled to speak with the three drivers who had also reported concerns regarding the work environment, according to the complaint. In light of the interrogations and concerns from union members, union leaders canceled the meeting because they were afraid members who attended would be subjected to interrogation and possible discipline by Goetz.
“Right now, they’ve turned that over to our lawyers,” said Keith Winslow, who began serving as interim superintendent on Monday. “I think both sides have their lawyers involved, and they’re just talking about it now. It sounds like there was at least miscommunication there on both sides, possibly.”
Representatives for the union and the district will be talking “to see if they can’t come to some kind of agreement or understanding,” Winslow said. “If there’s any issue at transportation that deals with Mr. Goetz, then I’ll be the one to handle that.”
Goetz is the transportation supervisor, and he will continue to handle transportation issues, Winslow said.
Goetz pointed out that the complaint is unproven.
“It is allegations. It’s a huge misunderstanding. The allegation is that I was questioning them about what happened at a union meeting. Did I ask questions? Yes, I did.”
But, he said, it wasn’t about a union meeting. It was about a non-union meeting.
The collective bargaining contract, Article 6H, prohibits staff from criticizing each other in public places, Goetz said. He began looking into it when another employee told him about the meeting in a public place.
“I was just asking, ‘did you criticize anybody in a public gathering?’” Goetz said. “I made it very clear I didn’t want to hear about a union meeting. Interrogate? Pretty strong words. I was following the contract. Another employee brought this to me, and I was doing my job. It says it in the contract.”
He asked employees if they met in a public gathering, Goetz said. He asked if they criticized district employees, and he asked if they had read Article 6H in the contract.
Regarding fear of retaliation, Goetz said then-Supt. Don Schrader went to a meeting with 11 employees at transportation on Nov. 18. According to an e-mail from the superintendent to Canfield, the theme of the meeting was to show support for Goetz and what he has been able to accomplish.
According to the email, no names were mentioned, but the employees claimed there is a negative atmosphere but not because of Goetz. Schrader asked the employees if they were afraid to talk with Goetz about issues because of retaliation, and everyone told Schrader they were not and that Goetz was “too nice” sometimes.
Schrader informed Goetz about the meeting afterward to let him know about the “climate issue” and talk about a plan.
This isn’t the first time the department has had this kind of issue, Goetz said. An Oregon School Boards Association attorney recommended to district officials that they contact the OSEA for in-service training for transportation on mutual respect, according to a June 17, 2011 e-mail among district administrators prior to Goetz working there. A note on the email said that the Oregon Department of Education presented an in-service, and the root problem seemed to be one or two unhappy employees.
Rick Schidaker, OSEA executive director, said he could not confirm whether the union was in communication with district lawyers.
“The process will run its course,” he said. “It’s an internal union matter. It’s not something we’ll discuss.”