Both Sides Give Tentative OK for Torrance Teachers Pact

Torrance district schools and teachers reached a tentative contract agreement that calls for a 1% raise retroactive to July, 1990, and another 2% raise effective Feb. 1, said David Sargent, school board president.

Torrance teachers will vote next Thursday and Friday on the proposal, which could end months of tension in the Torrance Unified School District.

William A. Franchini, executive director of the Torrance Teachers Assn., said the union is not releasing information until teachers are notified of details today.

No further information about the settlement or the cost of the package was available. Also at issue are the district’s contributions toward health and life insurance programs, sabbaticals, as well as district efforts to lengthen the middle-school day. The proposed contract covers three years and allows for an annual salary review.

The tentative settlement was reached by negotiators Monday evening and adopted by the teachers associations’ board of directors Wednesday afternoon.

Also on Thursday, the district offered the California School Employees Assn., which represents 168 clerical and technical workers, the same wage increase offered to the teachers, said First Vice President James W. Durham. The union last week had reached a tentative agreement for a 1% wage increase and a 1% bonus, and that was to be voted on by the membership Tuesday.

The union leadership will discuss the additional wage offer today, Durham said.

Both sides in the teachers negotiations expressed relief at the prospect of a settlement. The teachers contract expired June 30, 1990, and union leaders have warned for weeks that talks were on the brink of impasse. An estimated 430 teachers and other employees staged a Jan. 28 “sickout,” forcing the district’s four high schools to close for the day at lunchtime.

Union President Bert Ladre warned that approval from the teachers is not assured.

“It’s probably the best we can get out of a bad situation,” Ladre said of the contract terms. Nonetheless, he said, “A lot of people are unhappy.”

Teachers had requested an 8% raise, but the district said it could afford only 1% and a bonus. In the last week, district negotiators improved that offer by substituting the bonus with a 2% raise.

In a letter to teachers handed out Thursday, Ladre wrote: “We . . . know that many teachers are concerned with issues beyond salary and fringe benefits. This agreement also addresses a number of non-money items which are extremely important--please take the time to consider the total package before casting your vote.”

Sargent said he hopes teachers will approve the agreement.

“It would be nice to put an end to what has been a very difficult year of negotiations because of a paucity of funding from Sacramento,” Sargent said.

Two tasks remain to make the tentative settlement a reality, Sargent added. The union must convince its members “that this is a reasonable offer, considering the circumstances,” and the district must make further cuts in its budget, he said.

The district later this month must cut at least $2.5 million from its planned budget for 1991-92, Sargent said, that would include the settlement and other necessary savings.

The district is at an impasse with the Service Employees International Union, Local 99, which represents maintenance and operations workers.

He said he hopes the district can avoid layoffs through attrition. A new early retirement plan could generate as much as $600,000 to offset cuts in positions, he said.

Union negotiators could not persuade the district to drop its plan to withhold a day’s pay from teachers who were absent Feb. 28 for the sickout and who failed to provide notes from their doctors.

“That is absolutely not negotiable,” Sargent said.

Franchini said the teachers’ union will file grievances on behalf of teachers who are docked pay, and that the issue is subject to binding arbitration. Hundreds of grievances may be filed, he said.