Contract, Rights, & Salary Schedules
2025
| sped_caseload___class_size_mou_07.23.25__1_.pdf |
| sped_minutes_tracking_mou_03.19.25__1_.pdf |
| gvhs_collaboration_mou_04.17.25.pdf |
| ycea_president_release_time_mou_03.19.25__1_.pdf |
| yhs_period_two_side_letter_03.19.25__4_.pdf |
| yhs_collaboration_mou_03.19.25.pdf |
| elementary_collaboration_mou_04.17.25__1_.pdf |
| school_nurse_service_credit___compensation_mou_03.31.25__1_.pdf |
| ceca_mou_04.17.25.pdf |
| middle_school_collaboration_mou_04.17.25.pdf |
| dual_enrollment_mou_07.23.25.pdf |
2024
| Special Education Minutes Tracking MOU | March 13th, 2024 |
| Green Valley HS Collaboration MOU | April 25th, 2024 |
| Middle School Collaboration MOU | April 25th, 2024 |
| YHS Period 2 Side Letter | April 15th, 2024 |
| YHS Collaboration MOU | April 25th, 2024 |
| PEP+ Hours & Class Size MOU | May 31st, 2024 |
| Elementary Collaboration MOU w/ Jamie Anderson | June 10th, 2024 |
| Elementary Collaboration MOU | June 10th, 2024 |
| Special Education Caseload & Class Size MOU | June 26th, 2024 |
| yhs_period_two_side_letter_04.25.24.pdf |
| gvhs_collab_mou_04.25.24.pdf |
| middle_school_collab_mou_04.25.24.pdf |
| yhs_collab_mou_04.25.24.pdf |
| sped_minutes_tracking_mou_2024-25.pdf |
| sped_mou.pdf |
| ycea-ycjusd_2022-25.pdf |
2023
| ycea_elementary_collaboration_mou_05.24.23.pdf |
| ycea_middle_school_collaboration_mou_05.24.23.pdf |
| ycea_gvhs_collaboration_mou_06.04.23.pdf |
| ycea_yhs_collaboration_mou_05.23.23.pdf |
| ycea_standing_rules_draft_1_28_2019.pdf |
| 2018-2019_ycea_bylaws.pdf |
| certificated_salary_-_appendix_a-1.pdf |
| psychologist_salary_schedule_-_appendix_a-3.pdf |
| speech_language_pathologist_salary_-_appendix_a-4__draft.pdf |
Weingarten Rights
Employee’s Right to Union Representation
The right of employees to have union representation at meetings with supervisors that could lead to discipline was announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1975 case (NLRB vs. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251, 88 LRRM 2689). These rights have become known as the Weingarten rights.
Employees have Weingarten rights during investigatory interviews and other meetings with supervisors that could lead to discipline. An investigatory interview occurs when a supervisor questions an employee to obtain information which could be used as a basis for discipline or asks an employee to defend his or her conduct.
“If an employee has a reasonable belief that discipline or other adverse consequences may result from what he or she says, the employee has the right to request union representation.
When the employee makes the request for a union representative to be present management has three options:
it can stop questioning until the representative arrives,
it can call off the interview or,
it can tell the employee that it will call off the interview unless the employee voluntarily gives up his/her rights to union representation (an option the employee should always refuse).
Employers will often assert that the only role of a union representative in an investigatory interview is to observe the discussion. The Supreme Court, however, clearly acknowledges a representative’s right to assist and counsel workers during the interview.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that before an investigatory interview management must inform the union representative of the subject of the interrogation. The representative must also be allowed to speak privately with the employee before the interview and at any time during the interview. During the questioning, the representative can interrupt to clarify a question or to object to confusing or intimidating tactics.
While the interview is in progress the representative can not tell the employee what to say but he or she may advise them on how to answer a question or to not answer the question. At the end of the interview the union representative can add information to support the employee’s case.
The right of employees to have union representation at meetings with supervisors that could lead to discipline was announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1975 case (NLRB vs. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251, 88 LRRM 2689). These rights have become known as the Weingarten rights.
Employees have Weingarten rights during investigatory interviews and other meetings with supervisors that could lead to discipline. An investigatory interview occurs when a supervisor questions an employee to obtain information which could be used as a basis for discipline or asks an employee to defend his or her conduct.
“If an employee has a reasonable belief that discipline or other adverse consequences may result from what he or she says, the employee has the right to request union representation.
When the employee makes the request for a union representative to be present management has three options:
it can stop questioning until the representative arrives,
it can call off the interview or,
it can tell the employee that it will call off the interview unless the employee voluntarily gives up his/her rights to union representation (an option the employee should always refuse).
Employers will often assert that the only role of a union representative in an investigatory interview is to observe the discussion. The Supreme Court, however, clearly acknowledges a representative’s right to assist and counsel workers during the interview.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that before an investigatory interview management must inform the union representative of the subject of the interrogation. The representative must also be allowed to speak privately with the employee before the interview and at any time during the interview. During the questioning, the representative can interrupt to clarify a question or to object to confusing or intimidating tactics.
While the interview is in progress the representative can not tell the employee what to say but he or she may advise them on how to answer a question or to not answer the question. At the end of the interview the union representative can add information to support the employee’s case.
