Teachers to Vote on Strike; Fact-Finders Favor District

A spokesman for the United Teachers-Los Angeles said the union will proceed with a strike authorization vote this week despite a report issued Saturday by an impartial fact-finding panel that fully supports the district’s position in the acrimonious salary dispute.

The three-member panel, which was made up of an impartial chairperson and the chief negotiators for the district and the union, agreed with the district’s position that it cannot afford the 14% raise the teachers have demanded.

Essentially, the panel proposed an 8% raise, the same offer the district has made.

The panel also proposed an alternative two-year settlement that would provide a 10% raise this year and next year--contingent upon the availability of additional state financing.

Neither Proposal Acceptable

UTLA President Wayne Johnson said Saturday that neither proposal was acceptable to the union. A strike authorization vote planned to be held on Tuesday will proceed as scheduled, he said.

School board members were pleased by the report.

“I’m elated,” said board member John Greenwood. “The fact-finder’s report has supported precisely what the Board of Education has been saying all along--that we would divide up all the money we have and put in on the (salary) schedule. And that if any new money comes in, we will divide that” with the teachers as well.

According to state labor law, which established the fact-finding process, the report is non-binding and is the last step before a strike can legally be called. The teacher union has threatened to strike on June 1 unless its salary demands are met. The last formal union proposal called for a 14% raise.

The union has consistently argued that the district has enough money to offer a 14% raise this year. But district officials maintained that because of shortfalls in state financing and other pressing needs, the most it could afford was 8%.

The panel made two recommendations. The first recommends a 10% raise retroactive to November, which, because the school year began in September, amounts to an 8% raise.

The second suggests a two-year settlement based on the availability of extra state financing. The report proposes that if the district receives an additional $20 million from the state, which is considered likely, the extra dollars be used to make a retroactive payment to teachers. That would bring the 8% raise for this year to 10%.

The report recommends that the next $55 million in state funds the district receives be used to give higher raises to non-teaching school district employees and to restore programs the district may have to cut from its 1987-88 budget. The board currently is facing a $45-million deficit in the next fiscal year.

Once those needs have been met, the report recommends that 44% of any additional state funds that become available be used to give further salary increases to the teachers.

The union representative on the fact-finding team, UTLA negotiator John Britz, dissented from the report. Johnson said that he did not dispute the facts presented in the report but disagreed with its conclusions.

The report “substantiates the fact that the district has the money for a double-digit raise this year,” he said. “The district admitted it has $170 million for salaries this year, and it’s going to get another $18.8 million in urban impact aid. So we think it bore out our contention . . . but it went to the wrong conclusions.”

The school board will meet Tuesday to consider the report.