|
|||
|
For the P.E.A. Nat Bailey (Silk City) Luis Del Gado (JFK) Denise Frullo (# 13) Toni Gennarelli (# 5) Mitch Izenberg (Comm. Rel. Off) Jim Joyner (P.E.A. Office) Charlotte Sanderson (#26) Pete Tirri (P.E.A. Office) Carol Pierce (NJEA) John Ropars (NJEA |
For the District management Michael Krause (Labor Relations Off.) Eileen Shafer (Personnel Director) Robert Murray, Esq. (Labor Counsel) |
After the October 28 session, Mediator Thomas Hartigan advised the Association that he felt it was best for the parties to meet with him, and not in joint session. P.E.A. observed his wish in this respect; WE HEARD NO OBJECTION FROM THE DISTRICT. As a result, whole days went by without any direct contact with the District.
While the District continues its position that "…the Newark numbers are not available to Paterson staff …" to this day they have not put any specific salary proposal on the table.
From the very beginning of negotiations, the parties have worked under the premise that three mutual goals were driving these salary negotiations. They are:
1. The need to keep the starting salary competitive with similar districts in order to recruit qualified staff.
2. The need to strengthen the middle steps of the salary guide to retain our younger staff members.
3. The need to provide our veteran staff with equitable salary increases to recognize them for their dedicated service to the children of Paterson.
These "three R's" - RECRUIT, RETAIN, RECOGNIZE - have guided the Association throughout these talks. At the November mediation session, the Association inquired, through the mediator, if they still ascribed to these goals. We were told their response was that they did. These goals -- all worthwhile, all necessary -- cost money.
While waiting for the mediator to return from discussions with the District representatives during the December 13 session, the Association developed a first year salary guide which addressed these "three R's". When the mediator returned from his lengthy conversation with the District representatives, P.E.A. presented our salary guide to him. After discussion and clarification, Mr. Hartigan presented this suggested guide to the District management. The management representatives did not respond to this guide. P.E.A. was told the management had received the guide and was attempting to determine the cost of the guide. TO THIS DAY, we have not received any formal response to our salary guide option.
At the end of the day, it was obvious that the mediation sessions had not been successful. After three mediation sessions, which lasted a total of approximately thirty-three and one half hours (10 a.m. - 4:00 a.m.; 10 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. - 11:30 p.m.), the parties have agreed to only four or five relatively minor issues.
The P.E.A. Negotiating Team discussed our frustration with the mediator and it was agreed that the additional mediation session would most likely be as unproductive as the first three. (It should be remembered that originally the Public Employee Relations Commission [PERC] only authorized three mediation sessions. When the DISTRICT CANCELED the November 30 session, two dates for rescheduling were offered. P.E.A. advised the mediator that either date was acceptable. Had the District shown some desire to settle the contract, we would have agreed to the fourth session).