Springfield’s midyear teacher layoffs violated labor law, union says

A previous version of this story failed to account for licensed staff who did not participate in the no-confidence vote. The story has also been updated to clarify that the administrators named in the letter sent to board members were not named during the public comment period at the March 9 meeting. A copy of the letter has also been included in the story.

Springfield Public Schools has seemingly turned a corner toward stability with the installment of new leadership after a chaotic two months. A sense of grievance remains, however, about midyear layoffs.

Springfield Education Association, the teachers union, filed an unfair labor practice complaint Feb. 23 with Oregon’s Employee Relations Board. In it, the union says the district violated Oregon laws that govern collective bargaining. The union also presented a vote of no confidence at the March 9 board meeting aimed at top district leadership.

Union president Jonathan Gault said the purpose of the two actions is to push for a better union-district relationship in Springfield Public Schools and send a broader message.

“It sets a precedent for not only Springfield, but for other districts to protect bargaining rights,” Gault said.

Acting superintendent Jodi O’Mara, appointed following Todd Hamilton’s resignation, acknowledged the union’s actions in a statement to Lookout Eugene-Springfield.

“We respect the perspectives of our educators and recognize that this has been a difficult period for our school community,” O’Mara said. “Decisions related to staffing and budgets impact people and classrooms, and we understand the concerns that have been raised.”

O’Mara is making efforts toward the budget transparency requested in staff’s vote of no confidence. She presented several new opportunities for the public and staff to hear 2026-27 budget information and give input at a budget committee hearing Thursday, March 12.

What the complaint alleges and requests

During the last phase of bargaining with the union in January, the district decided to lay off 27 teachers in the middle of the school year.

District leaders reasoned that because Springfield hadn’t budgeted for teacher raises in its 2025-26 budget, cutting teachers was the only way to give teachers a raise in their new contract.

The teachers union’s complaint said that the district tying the layoffs to the union’s requests for teacher pay increases during bargaining was intentionally done to undermine the union’s bargaining efforts and sow discontent and anxiety among union members. 

The complaint also said that the district broke the law by bypassing the union and communicating directly to union members about how the result of bargaining would take away jobs.

The district had a consistent message throughout bargaining that layoffs would be necessary with any salary increase. Brett Yancey, the district’s chief operations officer, spoke about it in a public bargaining session in August, and the district included the message in a public blog post about bargaining in November. 

This caused union members to worry about their jobs.

“With increasing frequency, members approached the Association’s bargaining team members, officers, and/or representatives with questions along the lines of: ‘So are you telling me I’m going to have to lose my job to get a raise?’” the complaint states.

If the district were to be found guilty of breaking one of the labor law subsections the union names, the penalty is “an amount equal to three times the amount of the public funds that the employer used to promote, assist or deter union organizing.” The union is also requesting that the district be required to pay a civil penalty of $1,000 and reinstate all teachers who were laid off, with back pay.

A vote of no confidence

Springfield teacher Katie Ryan presented the union’s vote of no confidence for Springfield Public Schools leaders during public comment in the March 9 school board meeting. The leaders named in the letter sent to board members were former superintendent Todd Hamilton, former assistant superintendent David Collins (who also left the district Feb. 28), Yancey, and human resources director Dustin Reese.

The union’s letter detailed members’ complaints and demands. According to the letter, 94% of 403 licensed staff who participated in the vote voted in support, while 190 did not vote or did not have the opportunity to vote. This means 64% of the 593 licensed staff members in the district voted in approval of the letter. Licensed staff includes teachers, school psychologists, speech therapists and other education professionals.

In the letter, union members assert that the district failed to communicate clearly and transparently with families, staff and students about the need for midyear layoffs until weeks before they happened. The letter also alleges the district did not consider or publicly explain why it was not choosing cost-saving measures other than cutting classroom positions. This included not publicly explaining why the district could not use its reserves.

O’Mara told Lookout that the district uses reserves to fill unforeseen needs, not ongoing budget gaps.

“Using reserves to cover recurring costs only creates larger financial challenges in future years,” she said.

The union’s final complaint says the district’s climate has prevented employees from speaking openly about their concerns for fear of professional or social consequences.

Demands included the reinstatement of laid-off teachers and reconsideration of future staff reductions, better explanations of budget impacts and opportunities for the public to weigh in before the board votes on cuts. The letter also asked for an evaluation done by the union and the board of district leaders’ ability to “rebuild trust, communicate honestly, and lead collaboratively.”

“This decision is not made lightly, nor is it rooted in anger,” the letter states. “It is rooted in a profound loss of trust, trust that has been eroded through unclear communication, lack of transparency, and decision-making processes that have caused real harm to our school communities.”

O’Mara said in a statement she is committed to rebuilding trust through communicating and collaborating with staff and being transparent about the district’s budget realities.

The district’s meetings for staff and the community to learn more about the 2026-27 budget and provide input are scheduled for the following dates:

• For staff: March 16, 17 and 18 (Staff will receive internal information about times.)
• For families and the public:
  • 10-11 a.m., March 30, Springfield Public Schools district office
  • 6-7 p.m., March 31, Thurston High School
  • 1-2 p.m., April 1, Springfield Public Schools district office
  • 6-7 p.m., April 2, Springfield High School