RSS Feed
 |
|
|||||
ATA wins grievance decision; school board considers appeal A New York State Arbitor has ruled that the Amityville School District must compensate the district’s sixth-grade teachers for an additional class of instruction they taught since the 2002-03 school year when the district and the Amityville Teachers Association (ATA) signed an agreement establishing a 9-day period in Amityville’s secondary schools. The decision was handed down by Rosemary A.Townley, Esq., following hearings in June of 2005 and July of 2006. “The District violated the agreement when it assigned sixth grade teachers to teach a sixth instructional period without compensation,” Townley wrote. The school district, however, is considering an appeal, saying that it believes Townley overstepped her authority in defining what she recognized as ambiguous language in the contract, and did not provide a clear explanation on adequate recourse that the district could follow even if it accepted the decision. “She made some fundamental mistakes,” said Guercio “We believe she (the arbiter) is not entitled to revert to the practice in the old language (of the contract),” said Guercio. The history of the case is that prior to 1995, sixth grade teachers had a five-period instructional day, a lunch and prep period and duty assignment. In 1995, the District assigned sixth grade teachers to six instructional periods per day rather than five. The teachers also had a duty assignment, and the ATA filed the grievance. A settlement was reached and sixth grade teachers, together with teachers in the 7th and 8th grades were assigned five teaching periods, one lunch period, one prep period and a period referred to as team time. Eight grade teachers were assigned the same 8-period day except that an academic enrichment period replaced the team time period. In March 2003, the ATA and district entered into a contract that ran from July 2002 to June 2005 and established a nine-period day for “secondary” teachers. At the same time, teachers in grades 7 through 12 were assigned five teaching periods, one duty period, one lunch and a prep and service period. Effective, September, 2003, sixth grade teachers at the Middle School were assigned a sixth period in instruction in lieu of team time. The ATA again filed a grievance, which the district denied, alleging that the addition of the sixth teaching period for sixth grade teachers violated the 1996 agreement, and past practice in the district that considered sixth grade as part of secondary education. That, according to ATA officials, meant that the 6th grade teachers should only be teaching five periods a day, not six. But school officials maintained that the language in the contract establishing the 9-period day, clearly applied only to grades 7-12, and that the arbiter should limit her decision strictly to the interpretation of the agreement rather than making a decision “contrary to or inconsistent with or varying in any way from the terms of the agreement.” In the two hearings on the case, testimony was provided by both sides. Sixth grade teacher Linda Deasy said that from 1968 through 2003, with only a minor exception, sixth grade teachers were assigned a daily schedule that included five instruction periods, the same as teachers in grades 7-12. And ATAPresident William Oquendo testified that the district never told the ATA that the nine-period day would only be available to grades 7-12. If such had been the case, he said, the ATA would have negotiated a collective bargaining agreement to alter the sixth grade teachers’ day. Under cross examination, however, Deasy acknowledged that despite teaching in the Middle School, she has only elementary certification and is not certified to teach 7th and 8th grade, nor can she teach the other secondary level classes, 9-12. Thus, said the district, the term secondary can only be applied to grades 7-12. In her decision however, Townley stated that the wording in the contract “is susceptible to more than one meaning...without defining the generic term secondary” and what grades it is intended to apply to. “While the District relies on the argument that the parties’ mutual understanding of what defines secondary, the fact is that these two parties have operated in a manner that is contrary to that understanding for more than 30 years,” said Townley, adding that “it is hard to fathom that a fundamental alteration to such a longstanding practice could occur without comprehensive negotiations, including back and forth offers and that the ATA would agree to a change of this magnitude without receiving something in return for this concession.” If that were her finding, said Guercio, the arbiter should have sent both sides back to the negotiation table so they could resolve their misunderstanding, not made the determination for them. In addition, the district said that the decision awarded compensation based on the pay-period rate in the contract, when in fact there is none. “As a result the issue of remedy has not been resolved, and we will be going back to the arbiter to clarify that,” said Guercio.
Several calls to the ATA office were not returned.
|
for larger version       |
||||
