Seven arbitration rulings released by Port Angeles School District

The Port Angeles School District provided seven arbitration decisions to The Real Olympic Herald, fulfilling a public-records request.

One decision mandates that a Stevens Middle School secretary, dismissed after nearly a decade of service and zero prior discipline, be reinstated with back pay and benefits. Officials had not met their burden of proving misconduct.

Two additional rulings determined the district breached collective bargaining agreements by tardily supplying documentation unions needed to support employee representation—delays reaching nearly nine months and over three months, respectively.

Longtime secretary reinstated after termination

Janeva Maneval joined the district in September 2015 and worked continuously until her dismissal in late 2024. A colleague’s complaint alleging inappropriate physical contact triggered an internal probe in early 2024, though Maneval consistently disputed the account.

The school board voted on November 14, 2024, to terminate her, acting on then-Superintendent Martin Brewer’s recommendation. Her employment ended effective November 22.

District officials contended that an external investigator had validated the complaint and that the nature of the conduct warranted immediate dismissal, bypassing lesser corrective steps. They also asked arbitrator Marsha Saylor to adopt the investigator’s assessment of witness credibility.

Saylor declined, noting the labor contract required her to independently evaluate the evidence presented during the hearing.

In her February 26, 2026, decision, Saylor highlighted Maneval’s consistent denials across the investigation, pretermination hearing, and arbitration. She labeled Maneval a “forthright witness,” assigning greater weight to her testimony than to the complainant’s.

Saylor identified discrepancies between the coworker’s initial statements and his later testimony. She noted no other witness corroborated his version at arbitration.

She also dismissed the district’s assertion that Maneval’s early remark—about not recalling the incident—conflicted with her ultimate rejection of the allegations.

“The District has pointed to a credibility mountain with a linguistic molehill,” Saylor observed.

Saylor further criticized the district for dedicating hearing time and sections of its written submission to criticizing union representative Kristi Taylor, despite her testimony playing a peripheral role.

“The district’s needless complaining about her served no purpose,” she wrote.

With no just cause established for termination, Saylor directed Maneval’s reinstatement, including compensation for lost wages and benefits—offset by income earned during her interim employment. All notations concerning her firing were to be expunged from her personnel file.

Records delays drew arbitration scrutiny

In a separate document-access ruling issued June 5, 2025, Saylor determined that the office professionals’ union endured an approximately nine-month wait for a key complaint that initiated an employee investigation.

By the time the union obtained the complaint in January 2025, the employee in question had already been placed on leave and terminated.

“There was no possible excuse for this kind of delay on such an important document,” Saylor noted.

The district based its termination decision solely on the external investigation, yet shared only the final report with the union while withholding the investigator’s notes, instructions, and correspondence, citing attorney-client privilege. It also claimed certain requested items fell under the protection of an ongoing investigation.

Saylor ruled the union was entitled to the full complement of investigative materials and ordered the district to produce all outstanding records promptly.

She referenced two prior arbitration awards to emphasize that district leadership had been previously warned about its misstep in handling record disclosures—once by each of two different arbitrators.

Arbitrator Saylor Rejects Timeliness Objection

An arbitration demand filed by the Port Angeles Education Association was submitted ten business days beyond the deadline, a fact the school district raised in seeking to dismiss the matter. Arbitrator Saylor declined the request, noting the union had provided prompt notification, that the district suffered no prejudice, and that both sides had not consistently adhered to filing schedules. Saylor further highlighted the district's own delays, remarking, "The District cannot now come in and say gotcha."

Records Release Delayed

In a March 3, 2026, award, arbitrator Sally A. LaJoie found the district at fault for delaying the release of records by more than three months. The Port Angeles Education Association had requested the materials to represent an employee who alleged a hostile work environment, submitting the request prior to a scheduled meeting with an investigator. LaJoie determined the district was already aware of its obligations regarding the matter but treated the inquiry as a routine public records request despite knowing an investigation into an employee complaint was underway. She noted the information could have been provided earlier, potentially in stages, and that the district offered no justification for the delay. While acknowledging staffing limitations and accepting that a delivery issue was accidental, LaJoie found insufficient proof that the district intentionally obstructed union representation. She mandated a response within 10 calendar days to discuss concerns or negotiate with the union, followed by the production of records within a reasonable timeframe. Alleged violations of the Public Records Act were explicitly excluded from this arbitration.

Disciplinary Letter Was “Vague and Threatening”

A May 24, 2024, award from arbitrator Sylvia P. Skratek determined that a letter issued during an employee's six-month paid leave violated the labor agreement's just-cause protections. The March 17, 2023, correspondence introduced a new allegation without detailing when or how the conduct occurred, a description Skratek labeled as "vague and threatening." Skratek stated the employee was entitled to understand the accusations leveled against them and that the district's letter compromised that fundamental fairness. She ordered the letter and supporting documents regarding the added allegation purged from district files, along with other directive letters removed from the personnel file. Skratek also found the district was justified in placing the employee on leave and attempting to advance the investigation. She attributed the prolonged inquiry to the external investigator. The decision noted the investigation found insufficient evidence regarding the underlying boundary-violation allegations.

Transfers, Safety Procedures and Bargaining

An August 15, 2023, ruling by Skratek found the district improperly delayed the transfer of two paraeducators. The award ordered compensation for any wages and benefits one employee forfeited due to this delay. In her July 14, 2023, decision, Skratek found the district had not implemented its formal school-based threat-assessment procedure during a specific incident, though a policy and assessment system existed. The district enacted the procedure prior to the ruling, satisfying the remedy sought by the union. She also rejected a claim that the district violated a school psychologist’s due-process rights by requesting her attendance at a meeting concerning alleged neglect of duty.

The release included the July 11, 2026, award regarding office-staff reductions, previously reported by the Real Olympic Herald in July. Arbitrator Kenneth James Latsch determined the district had not engaged in meaningful bargaining before removing bargaining-unit work.

The publication has requested that journalists adhere to specific guidelines when utilizing their content. Editors are permitted to adjust the narrative’s tone, modify its length, or refresh temporal references, provided the core story remains intact. For digital distribution, writers are encouraged to link directly to the original canonical URL to ensure search engines properly attribute the source material. Additionally, the outlet asks that its reporting not be used as a primary mechanism for selling the article itself or driving advertising revenue. For further inquiries, interested parties may reach out to the editorial team directly.