#6 Finding: The Chicago Teachers Union Dilutes Educator Misconduct with its Collective Bargaining Agreement
From our objective assessment, it appears that one big factor that dilutes consequences for educator misconduct is through the terms included in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CTU contract).
To comprehend the process of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, we must first understand how this contract came to be and the important role of unions in it.
What It Is
The Chicago Public Schools have a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Chicago Teachers Union that was last negotiated in 2019 and requires sign off by the Mayor of Chicago. The collective bargaining agreement is to be applied to resolve misconduct, and union representatives can bargain with the CPS Board to mitigate punishments for their members (CPS employees) that are accused of misconduct, such as sexual misconduct. The first step that is taken to discipline employees is through progressive discipline. The Collective Bargaining Agreement includes a section about how Educator Misconduct is handled by the Administration. This is designed to be the most effective and optimal for the Educator because the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) is a Labor union - designed to represent its members, provide member perks (i.e. legal representation) and protect job security for their members.
Progressive Discipline Creates Phases that Protects the Educator’s Employment
According to CPS, the Board must follow the “Employee Discipline and Due Process Policy for Union Employees (Except CTU)” in which the Board embraces the concept of progressive and corrective discipline for Employees. In addition, sexual misconduct falls into Group 4 Acts of Misconduct where progressive discipline can be applied. The Board encourages its managers and supervisors (CPS employers) to use progressive discipline when they believe that an Employee is amenable to correcting his/her misconduct. The CTU contract also states, both parties, the CPS School Board and Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), have to embrace the concept of progressive and corrective discipline for employees.
CPS defines progressive discipline as a systematic approach to correct unwanted behavior and deter its occurrence by administering disciplinary actions based upon various factors, including but not limited to: (a) the seriousness of the misconduct; (b) the number of times it has occurred; (c) prior acts of misconduct; (d) the attitude and cooperation of the employee; (e) the employee’s work history; and (f) the totality of the circumstances.
The Progressive Discipline process may seem straightforward and efficient, but the following are various factors that help protect the predatory educator versus the student victim:
1. Myriad of Steps: Progressive Discipline consists of disciplinary action steps that give the accused educator contingency of ongoing inappropriate behavior of sexual abuse that could have been prevented in the first place. These 4 steps are: First Warning Notice, Second Warning Notice, Final Warning in Lieu of Suspension, and Dismissal.
2. Peers in the Building Serve as Union Reps: One factor is that at any given step of the procedure, an employee (Educator) is allowed to bring on a union representative (CTU) to his/her defense due to Weingarten Rights. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees’ right to “self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection”. Immediately, the union representative will work in favor of protecting its member.
3. Tedious Documentation: An employee requesting UNION representation will be allowed a reasonable amount of time to secure representation before the disciplinary meeting begins. When this happens, the progressive discipline process can be rigorous and tedious which can delay cases of misconduct, such as sexual misconduct, due to the extensive timeframe it gets to resolve the case with the given time an employee is given to seek union representation.
CPS acknowledges being fully aware that Progressive Discipline cannot be a solution, and can, in fact, fail to correct various acts of misconduct, such as sexual misconduct as stated “while the Board encourages the use of progressive discipline, circumstances dictate that it cannot be used for every act of misconduct. Therefore, the Board uses progressive discipline at its discretion and does not solely rely on this concept in every instance when taking disciplinary action”.
The disclosure raises the concern of whether progressive discipline has ever been utilized to correct behaviors, such as inappropriate touching, verbal harassment, and others that eventually led to educator sexual abuse, and could have been prevented if not for progressive discipline. If so, is progressive discipline a barrier/halt in the case of conducting an investigation for educator sexual abuse? With difficulty knowing of investigating such cases that may indicate that progressive discipline is an inference in preventing educator sexual abuse, it is certain, in accordance with CPS, that progressive discipline can and may not be effective in resolving such misconducts (i.e. educator sexual misconduct).
The Ability to File a Grievance Extends the Timeline of the Allegation and Proper Discipline
In the case where Progressive Discipline does not help to resolve the issue of continuous inappropriate behavior/sexual misconduct, the CPS employee (educator) being accused can file a grievance. According to the CTU contract, a grievance is a complaint involving a work situation; a complaint that there has been a deviation from, misinterpretation of or misapplication of a practice or policy; or a complaint that there has been a violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of any provisions of this Agreement.
A grievance may be filed by an individual employee, a group of employees or the UNION on behalf of an employee or group of employees. In addition, any bargaining unit employee who is not a member of the UNION or who has not expressed a desire to be represented by it shall have the right to present grievances and appeals on his or her own behalf as an individual through the Chief Executive Officer’s Review set forth in Article 3-7 and submit suggestions to the BOARD as an individual, provided that the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of the Agreement and that the UNION has been given an opportunity to be present at such adjustment.
The Union’s Role in Grievance Investigations Burdens School Administrators Even More
1.lThe CTU contract further explains that during an investigation of grievances, a principal or head administrator shall allow the UNION delegate or his/her designee a reasonable period of time during the school day to investigate grievances. Furthermore, in the event clarification is necessary as to what constitutes reasonable time, the Director of Employee Engagement, after consultation with the union, shall make the final determination. Prior to the initial conference and upon the request of the union delegate or his or her designee, the principal or head administrator shall provide the union with access to and copies of all existing and available documents that are relevant to the allegations in the grievance, including all documents supporting the board’s actions, and shall timely supplement this production if additional documents become available. The union President or his or her designee shall be accorded all the rights of the union delegate in any school or unit. Time allowed shall be confined to investigating grievances that have been brought to the principal’s or head administrator’s attention.
2. Throughout the investigation of grievances, negotiations between the UNION and CPS board will be discussed and determined in conferences for however long they may last until a mutual agreement is reached. The allowed extended timeframe for a union representative to investigate grievances is a significant hindrance in the prevention of further sexual behaviors/abuse and the process of immediately convicting the educator. This creates fatigue, major paperwork, and loss of funds that negatively impact the CPS Board, and create further trauma to the victim. Throughout the investigation of grievances, negotiations between the UNION and CPS board will be discussed and determined in conferences for however long they may last until a mutual agreement is reached.
3. When mutual agreement cannot be reached between both parties, a grievance mediation panel will be established by assigning neutral grievance mediators. Grievance mediation is a voluntary, non-binding process using a professional labor mediator to assist the parties in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution to a grievance dispute, when there is an alleged violation of a contract. In the process of a mediation panel, either the union or the board may request that a grievance be submitted to mediation. Grievances submitted to mediation shall be submitted to a five-person mediation panel consisting of a mediator selected by the parties and two permanent representatives designated by each party. One of the board’s representatives shall be a current or former principal. The parties shall establish regular meeting dates for the mediation panel, occurring no less often than twice per month or more frequently as is necessary to ensure that all grievances submitted to mediation are heard within six months of the grievance filing date.
In summary, this extensive process, driven when both parties cannot reach a mutual agreement, delays any immediate action convicting the educator accused of sexual misconduct.
