LEGAL AND NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE. SAANYS 2015 Conference

Transcription

1 LEGAL AND NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE SAANYS 2015 Conference

2 LITIGATION

3 LITIGATION Tenure Lawsuit (A. Scheuermann and J. Carlson) Plaintiffs: Two groups of parents most with children in public schools in NYC, Albany and Rochester Defendants: New York State, Board of Regents, State Education Department, Commissioner, Chancellor, City of New York, SAANYS, NYSUT and UFT. Claim: There are ineffective teachers in public education that are depriving children of a sound basic education as guaranteed by the State Constitution because the Tenure Laws provide teachers permanent employment, you can t remove them because no one uses the disciplinary process because it is too expensive and long and no one is ever fired, so not used, and then in economic crisis can t get rid of them because must by LIFO get rid of the effective younger teachers and keep older senior teachers. Remedy Sought: Seeking to strike down the Tenure Laws, APPR Law 3012-c laws, Disciplinary Laws, and Seniority Laws on constitutional grounds based on the Article XI, of the NY Constitution. Update: Each Defendant s Motion to Dismiss the complaints, which were denied. Then the New York State Legislature enacted Education Law 3012-d. Each Defendant then filed a motion to renew/reargue the original motions to dismiss in light of the Legislature again amending the APPR laws, arguing that these matters should not be decided by the courts, but by the Legislature. Decision: Pending decision

4 LITIGATION (CONT.) NYSHIP Litigation Awaiting Decision from Appellate Division on a companion cased filed by NYSUT, which decided the case in favor of the unions on the merits. (J. Carlson handled appeal) Long Island Federal First Amendment Whistleblower case United States District Court issued a decision earlier this month denying the school district s motion to dismiss the case. The case will proceed to discovery now. (A. Scheuermann and J. Carlson)

5 ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW APPR

6 ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW APPR Completed three full years of APPR evaluations under 3012-c. Those with two consecutive years of ineffective ratings have been subject to expedited 3020-a hearings Less than a year ago the first teacher lost their job. No principals yet. Projecting out: SAANYS has one principal, who could have been subjected to an expedited 3020-a hearing, however, superintendent left and HEDI rating increased above ineffective. With introduction of 3012-d, many more to come: Identifying principals in urban, rural or non-saanys assisted districts as being particularly vulnerable.

7 ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW APPR (CONT.) 2015 New York Legislature Grievances continued over Principal APPR plans not being followed. Not our problem until we represent a principal with an ineffective or developing rating or one who lost out on money. Challenging non-compliance becomes tricky because of potential forfeiture of State Aid. Also SED seems non-pulsed by noncompliance. New nuance in collective bargaining is requirement that APPR plans be compliant with NYSED guidance. Reject any such provision it lacks the force and effect of law.

8 DISCIPLINE

9 DISCIPLINE Continued pattern within Districts attempting to use local criminal authorities on private conduct to leverage resignations of tenured administrators. Types of crimes, drunk driving, domestic violence, assaults, drugs, and the rare inappropriate relationship with a student, that ends up in a sex crime or endangering the welfare of a child. There has been a continued rise in disciplinary actions or settlements from both districts and SED relating to testing improprieties. SED is taking these matters very seriously, even over seemingly minor infractions. Also, paradigm shift in settlement offers, harsher penalties being imposed. Glen Cove settlements are a thing of the past.

10 DISCIPLINE (CONT.) Possible future trend? We have our first 3020-a against a principal for failing to faithfully implement the Teachers APPR. Third year of streamlined 3020-a process. Discovery production is ignored. Had one case this year where SAANYS had to file to two Discovery motions to compel discovery. 3 types of cases: Lack of certification within 7 days. APPR ineffectiveness within 60 days. Misconduct case had to be heard within 125 days of filing the charges. Data of results: 3020-a cases heard in NYC 190 days and 177 days for rest of state a cases settled 103 days NYC and 94 days rest of state.

11 DISCIPLINE (CONT.) Punishments: More severe punishments. Top Ten list: Don t have sex with subordinate employees. Don t go to work or attend school functions drunk. Don t seek retribution against people who engage in extra-marital affairs with your spouse. Don't use a business owned by a blood relative as a single source of supplies for the school district with outgoing through the competitive bidding process and/or letting the district know what the personal relationship. Don t backdate APPR evaluations. Don t take Confidential State Assessments and use to prepare curriculum improvements for following year/ don t take photos of assessments on your phone and then put them up on a screen for students to review after the fact. Don t get arrested for drunk driving when you have a last chance agreement. Don t take students to local hotels. Don t hold a high school graduation party for your son/daughter and serve alcohol Don t change your child s school grades in the PowerSchool system. BONUS: Don t bring prostitutes onto district property. Part 83 Referrals: Relatively quiet. Received a decision revoking an administrators certifications for inappropriate relationships with students, again confirming that is the red button issue. No hearings involving administrators in past year, several cases resulted in surrender agreements. Testing impropriety: Testing Security Unit [TSU] new vehicle for Part 83, as discussed above.

12 CONTRACT GRIEVANCES

13 CONTRACT GRIEVANCES 1. Failure to abide by contractual evaluation procedure in denying tenure to a probationary administrators. 6 day hearing conducted. 2. Continued litigation over retirement health care. Key to success in litigation is clear contract language. First case, an administrator submitted retirement paperwork even though only 48. District said can t retire because not 55 years old. Goal was retirement health insurance because administrator had already satisfied the only contractual requirement 10 year service requirement. Arbitrator ruled based on plain language of contract, administrator entitled to retirement health insurance. 3. A second case, contract provided retiring employee with same insurance plan in retirement until 65 years old when employee covered under Medicare. Retiring employee had family coverage for her and her husband. Husband, older, and reached Medicare within 9 months of retirement date. Insurance Company and District, said cannot continued to cover husband because of his enrollment in Medicare. Husband purchased Medi-Gap insurance and requested District pay, which it refused to pay. Arbitrator found, language only provided covered employee with health insurance until 65 years old. The contract language did not provide level of benefits or coverage, and thus did not require payment of husband s Medi-gap insurance premiums. 4. Reporting to work when school is closed as established practice. Arbitrator found on the facts that the administrators who reported exercised their own discretion and reported and were not directed to report to work.

14 IMPROPER PRACTICE CHARGES

15 IMPROPER PRACTICE CHARGES Transfer of Bargaining Unit: Promoting current union members to central office positions but still performing same job. Hiring year long interims for principal positions. Reducing administrative positions and giving work to central office administrators Reducing administrative positions or creating new titles and giving work to teachers to perform. Having central office administrators help with building level administrator duties after assigning new duties.

16 IMPROPER PRACTICE CHARGES (CONT.) Continued demands placed on administrators to attend additional evening or weekend school events. Such unilateral demands expand work hours and days. Not continuing past practice of providing disability insurance coverage for unit members. Commissioner Appeals. School district abolishes a position, lays off an administrator and then recreates a similar position, but does not give the job to laid off administrator. In several decisions, Commissioner has required the administrator to prove: (1) the newly created position must be in same tenure area; and (2) the new position has more than 50% similar duties as the position that was abolished.