Picketing a school board member’s home or business: Unfair labor practice or standard operating procedure?

South Burlington High School.

Labor board begins trial proceedings in the South Burlington School District case against the Vermont NEA

Though the South Burlington School District settled with the local teacher’s union last March, and the two parties managed to come to an agreement without a strike, the bitter strife over the collective bargaining negotiations has lingered on in hard feelings between the board and some members of the union.

Last winter, the South Burlington board imposed a one-year wage and benefit contract on teachers without “automatic” step increases, or incremental financial rewards for levels of education and years of experience that accumulate over time. For decades, step increases have kicked in automatically without board approval when contracts expire. The board’s attempt to suspend step increases was unsuccessful and it agreed to a three-year contract with the union that sets up a strict negotiating schedule.

All was not forgotten. The acrimony between the two parties continued, long after they settled, and the South Burlington School Board filed a formal complaint with the Vermont Labor Relations Board in May, and the quasi-judicial body listened to testimony in the case on Thursday.
At the center of the dispute is a time-honored tradition in the world of unionized labor – picketing. The problem revolves around how that tool was used in negotiations.

The focus of the rancor? A single email from the executive director of the Vermont NEA, Joel Cook.
Cook sent what he calls a “personal” note to Richard Cassidy, a labor lawyer and the former chair of the board of the South Burlington School District, suggesting that his law firm, Hoff and Curtis, could be picketed by the local teachers’ union and other labor organizations if Cassidy didn’t lift the imposition of wages and benefits the school board put in effect when negotiations stalled last winter.

“To me, sitting atop one of the other ‘law firms’ that represents labor unions, the immediate future appears to be one that includes labor unions picketing the offices of Phil Hoff and Dave Curtis, and frankly I don’t want that to happen,” Cook wrote in the email.

Cassidy and the school board say Cook’s “threat” of picketing Cassidy’s law firm created a conflict of interest – the email forced Cassidy to choose between his livelihood and his role as chief negotiator on the South Burlington School Board. Cassidy stepped down from the negotiations team shortly after he received Cook’s email and recused himself from decisions and discussions related to the collective bargaining process.

The South Burlington School District’s complaint alleges that by sending the email, Cook “interjected himself into negotiations” and attempted to “coerce” Cassidy by issuing “threats directed at him personally.”

Read Exhibits presented by the South Burlington School Board

The Vermont School Board Association filed a motion to intervene in the case, which was partially granted, in support of the South Burlington School District. The association argues that the Vermont’s NEA’s “threat” has broad implications and could undermine local school board negotiation teams and the integrity of the collective bargaining process.

“School board members must be allowed to serve without fear of retaliation,” the motion asserts.

In addition, the lawyer for the association, John Hollar, of Downs Rachlin Martin, writes that the board is concerned that the union justified this “threat” in a news release as a “legitimate bargaining tactic” in negotiations with other school boards. The press release from Vermont NEA stated: “It is not uncommon for board members’ businesses to be picketed during a strike” and Cook “merely pointed that out to Cassidy.”

Read the VSBA motion to intervene

In testimony before the Labor Board, Cook said he sent the email to help the South Burlington board avoid a strike.

Under examination by an attorney from Dinse Knapp McAndrew, representing the school district, Cook told the labor board that in retrospect, he wished he hadn’t written the email in the first place.

“I never would have wasted time way from my grandchild to write this on a Friday if I’d known the reaction was going to be so blasted out of proportion,” Cook said.

The attorney for the Vermont-NEA, Alan Biederman, told the Labor Board that he would show that there was no evidence of a threat in Cook’s email and Cassidy was not coerced into leaving the position of chair on the school board, but he “decided to conflict himself out” – even though there was “no conflict of interest that required Mr. Cassidy to recuse himself.” Though picketing is lawful and proper, it never occurred in South Burlington and the local union had no interest in pursuing such an action, Beiderman said. He concluded his opening remarks by declaring that the entire case, for the aforementioned reasons, was moot.

In an email to union colleagues last spring, Cook reiterated that point: “We disagree that the prospect of being picketed at one’s place of business constitutes a conflict of interest. If that were true, it would be far too easy to create a conflict of interest for every school board member.”

Witnesses for the union, including Richard Wise, the co-president of the South Burlington Education Association, described a very difficult negotiation. Wise said Cassidy was an “impediment” to a successful resolution of the collective bargaining process who went out of his way to be “condescending” and to “lecture” union members. Most worrying was his immovable stance on the step advancement. Cassidy refused to budge on the issue.

In email correspondence, members of the local union communicated with the Vermont NEA about “targeting” Cassidy. In one memo from October of 2010, Wise alluded to picketing Cassidy’s office.
Wise, who serves on the Vermont NEA board, then later approved the email written by Cook with the picketing reference.

Wise said South Burlington Education Association has the right to picket in front of businesses and homes.

Nolan, the attorney for the South Burlington School Board, pointed out that Kathy Buley, a union member, had refused to consider a picket before Cassidy’s business or home on two occasions – once in October, long before Cook sent his email to Cassidy, and once in March, after Cook’s email went public in press reports. Nolan argued that the union never intended to conduct such a picket, and therefore Cook knew it was an empty threat.

In testimony before the Labor Board, Richard Cassidy said he served on the school board even though he was aware that his volunteer work could have an impact on his labor practice, but he served anyway. Cassidy, who has represented unions, said he was aware of the possibility of a picket, but he felt it would be unlikely. He also said he recognized that his role on the board could “damage his relationships with clients.”

“I was naïve about it,” Cassidy said. “I thought unions would want someone who understood their issue.”

The Labor Board will take up the case again on Nov. 21.

Correction: We originally and incorrectly reported that Cassidy stepped down as chair. He remained chair but dropped out of the negotiations team and recused himself from the collective bargaining process. His term as chair ends on Town Meeting Day; Cassidy has not decided whether he will run again.