An informal conference about an anti-retaliation complaint that the teachers union has filed against the school district ended after only five minutes — when more than 20 New Haven educators showed up to participate, and the Board of Education raised an objection.
That brief hearing took place on July 9. The next one is scheduled to take place on July 23.
New Haven Federation of Teachers (NHFT) leadership provided that update to union membership in a July 10 email about the latest with a complaint filed with the State Board of Labor Relations (SBLR) on June 8.
The complaint accuses New Haven Public Schools (NHPS) of anti-union activity and illegal retaliation for trying to move the union’s vice president — and, potentially, the union’s president — back into the classroom this fall despite annual agreements since 2012 to allow the two positions to be released from teaching duties so that they can support the 1,800-member union. The teachers union has said that the district’s proposal came “partly in response to the Union’s actions and advocacy during [contract] negotiations.”
Union President Leslie Blatteau and Vice President Jenny Graves told members in that July 10 email that the recent hearing lasted only around five minutes.
Prepared with signs reading “Say ‘no’ to B.O.E Union Busting” and “Stop Anti-Union Action of B.O.E,” around 20 union members, an NHFT intern, 12 retirees, and 3 community supporters joined the hearing.
“We assembled outside of 54 Meadow Street and headed up to the board room – united!,” Blatteau and Graves wrote. “Once we signed in, we took our seats and waited for Attorney Chester to begin his opening statement. Within a few minutes of his presentation, we received notice that the BOE lawyer who was attending the hearing via Zoom had raised a procedural objection to our members and retirees being in attendance.”
Graves and Blatteau said that the assistant agent from the state Department of Labor asked if NHFT would consider presenting their case without its members present.
“We declined – knowing that our members are the ones who make our union – and our schools – work,” they wrote.
The union’s decision, Blatteau told the Independent in a Tuesday phone call, was because those in attendance caused no disruption and are a part of the conversation impacting them.
However, as a result, the informal hearing ended early. “We were in no way disruptive to the operations of management,” Blatteau said.
She noted that none of the union members who showed up to the hearing were assigned to be working at that time; they were not being paid to be present. She said NHPS made a “procedural objection” and claimed to be worried about “precedent.”
“They believe that decisions about our union and our public schools should be made behind closed doors with only lawyers at the table,” Blatteau and Graves wrote. “We believe that the decisions that impact our working conditions should be made in view of the hardworking people who make our schools work. We are not willing to compromise on that.”
Blatteau described the district’s actions during the first hearing as alarming. “It’s alarming that the board lawyer, attending virtually, wants to lock people out of something that has a direct impact on their own job and working conditions.”
NHPS declined to confirm why the meeting objection was made by legal counsel at the first hearing.
District spokesperson Justin Harmon did, however, offer an explanation of the meeting from NHPS’ perspective.
“During last week’s informal conference, the New Haven Board of Education, through legal counsel, raised an objection, which the SBLR sustained,” Harmon wrote. “We regret that the Union did not wish to continue the informal conference following the labor SBLR decision, and look forward to the opportunity to continue the dialogue through the formal process set out in the statutes. As always, the Board remains committed to the process set out by the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations (SBLR) and to work collaboratively with the NHFT.”
Another informal hearing has been scheduled for the parties to meet on July 23 at 3 p.m. Blatteau said the union members interested in testifying during the formal hearing will join.
She said she learned on Wednesday that all parties are going to have to participate in-person at the next informal hearing. “We were eager for it to be investigated because members who it impacts can and should be in the room,” she said. “It was the [school] board who obstructed meeting. We are looking forward to a second attempt to this hearing where our members who will be impacted can be there.”
Teachers union members and supporters after the July 9 hearing.