MDUSD update regarding negotiations with MDEA Teachers Union

The following Negotiations Update was sent by Superintendent Dr. Adam Clark to all MDUSD staff and parents/guardians on June 20, 2025:

MDUSD FILES UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE AGAINST MDEA
FOR BAD FAITH BARGAINING AND ILLEGAL/IMPERMISSIBLE PROPOSALS

MDUSD AND MDEA BEGIN IMPASSE PROCESS WITH FIRST TWO MEDIATION SESSIONS ON JUNE 24 & 25

MDUSD PREVAILS IN ARBITRATION OVER MDEA GRIEVANCE ON ADDITION OF DEI 
TRAINING DURING THREE HOURS OF TRAINING TIME PROVIDED IN CONTRACT 

The Mt. Diablo Unified School District remains steadfast in its commitment to transparency and to reaching a fair and lawful agreement with the Mt. Diablo Education Association (MDEA). While we deeply value and respect our dedicated educators, we must distinguish between our appreciation for teachers and our concerns about the conduct of MDEA leadership during negotiations. Recent actions have led the District to file an Unfair Practice Charge due to what we believe to be bad faith bargaining. We want to ensure our community is fully informed of these developments and our ongoing efforts to resolve these issues through the appropriate legal and contractual processes.

Although the student instructional year has ended, there are important recent developments related to negotiations between the District and MDEA for a 2025-2026 contract and interpretation of the contract currently in effect. A summary follows.

MDUSD Files Unfair Practice Charge Against MDEA For Bad Faith Bargaining and Illegal/Impermissible Proposals

On Friday June 20, the District filed an unfair practice charge (UPC) against MDEA with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) asserting that MDEA has engaged in bad faith bargaining by making and maintaining proposals into the impasse process that are illegal subjects of bargaining or matters that are not within the scope of topics required to be negotiated under our collective bargaining law.

PERB has ruled that a party which insists on maintaining illegal or non-negotiable proposals to impasse commits a “per se” (automatic) violation of the Educational Employment Relations Act and that this conduct amounts to a failure to bargain in good faith as required by law. As summarized in past updates, MDEA’s declaration of impasse listed 18 articles/proposals. Of these, the District alleges at least seven contain illegal or non-negotiable subjects that MDEA is prohibited from insisting to impasse.

The District’s UPC will be reviewed by a PERB attorney to determine if it serves as the basis for PERB to issue a formal complaint against MDEA. If this occurs, the UPC will first go to an informal conference and, in the absence of resolution, to a formal hearing before a PERB administrative law judge who will issue a written decision.

MDUSD and MDEA Begin Impasse Process with First Two Mediation Sessions on June 24 & 25

State law requires the parties to participate in the impasse process when they cannot reach an agreement. The first step is mediation, which can last for however long the mediator believes is productive. The first two mediation sessions are on June 24 and 25. If mediation is unsuccessful, the mediator – and only the mediator – can “release” the parties to the next required stage of the impasse process: fact finding. 

In fact finding, a three person panel – one member appointed by the District, one by the union and a neutral selected by these two members from a list provided by PERB – holds a hearing where each party submits facts, arguments and evidence supporting its position on unresolved issues. The panel then issues an advisory report with recommended terms for settlement. If the fact finding report does not lead to a settlement, the negotiations process is terminated and each party is permitted to act unilaterally. The District may impose terms within its last best offer, and the union may withhold service through a strike.

MDUSD Prevails in Arbitration Over MDEA Grievance on Addition Of DEI 
Training During Three Hours of Training Time Provided in Contract 

The current negotiated contract between MDUSD and MDEA states: 

“[A] three (3) hour block of uninterrupted time…shall be provided to all bargaining unit members…during the first three (3) work days to complete the annual online mandatory trainings… Principals…may not assign any duties to unit members who complete the mandatory trainings in less than the three (3) hour block of time that has been allocated.”

For the 2019-2020 through 2022-2023 school years, three mandatory trainings occurred within the three hour block of time. In 2023-2024, the District added a fourth training on Cultural Competency, to which MDEA objected (not based on the subject matter, but to the addition of a fourth training). Even though the four trainings could still be completed within three hours, since the addition occurred so close to the start of the 2023-2024 school year and MDEA objected, the District agreed to provide one-half hour of hourly pay to unit members.

MDEA filed a grievance when the District included the four mandatory trainings for the 2024-2025 school year during the three hour block of time without additional pay, which included a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training replacing the Cultural Competency training from 2023-2024. Ruling that the District did not violate the contract, the arbitrator held:

• The clear and unambiguous language of the agreement does not limit the District to the specific subjects which they can mandate within the three hour block.
• The fact that the District paid an extra half hour once to avoid an ongoing dispute at the beginning of school did not create an unequivocal, clearly understood and longstanding past practice that was binding on the parties.
• The plain meaning of the contract language does not limit the District to the three trainings that were provided in the past. The District must pay for three hours even if there are four subjects taught during that time.
• The Union did not present any evidence that three hours is not enough time to complete the training, or that the four trainings resulted in an increase to unit members’ workload, workday or work hours. No employee lost pay and no employee used time beyond their scheduled training time to complete the trainings.

Under the contract, the arbitrator’s decision is binding on the parties and is a legal precedent for interpreting the meaning of the disputed contract section.

Next Steps: The District will continue to negotiate in good faith through the impasse process in an effort to reach a settlement that will serve the interests of students and the greater District community.