ASD 6th grade teachers win another round in lawsuit

The Amityville School District is appealing a ruling by the State Supreme Court that upheld an arbitrator's decision that the district's 6th grade teachers were entitled to $800,000 in back pay for working an extra instructional period during the 2002-03 school year.

The ruling, handed down in late October by Justice Peter H. Mayer, found that the decision by Arbitrator Rosemary A. Townley, Esq., in 2006, was based in the law and within her realm of jurisdiction.

The district had argued, through its attorney Gregory Guercio, that the arbitrator had made "fundamental mistakes," in her decision and did not outline a clear explanation on adequate recourse the district could follow if it had accepted the decision.

"I don't find that the arbitrator acted irrationally in finding that the regulations were not dispositive," said Justice Mayer. "Where there is a rational basis for the arbitrator's award and no demonstration that the award violated public policy, such award should not be set aside."

The issue began in 1995 when sixth grade teachers were told they had to work a six-period instructional day, while the district's secondary 7th and 8th grade teachers worked a five-period instruc- tional day. At the time, the Amityville Teachers Association (ATA) filed a grievance saying that the decision violated a past-practices agreement that the 6th grade was part of the secondary education program.

A settlement in that dispute was reached in 1996, 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.

Then, 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, including five instructional periods, one duty period, one lunch and a prep and service period. Effective, September, 2003, 6th grade teachers at the Edmund Miles Middle School were assigned a sixth period of instruction, in lieu the previous team time period.

The ATA again filed a grievance, alleging that the additional instructional period violated the 1996 agreement and a past practice in the district that considered 6th grade as part of the district's secondary educational program. The district maintained that the language of the contract that established the 9-period day clearly applied only to grades 7-12.

The case went to arbitration with Townley's ruling in favor of the teachers and the district appealed.

"There are issues that we believe have not been addressed and we will be discussing those with our attorney as we move forward," said School Board President Michelle Sikhranghur.

"The district now has two very strong decisions against it, one from a well respected arbitrator and the other from the courts, and it is continuing to fight this," said Carolyn Dodd, a teacher and ATA official. "What distresses me is that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the interest and legal costs of dragging this case on."

Enrique Catalan, the district's Assistant Superintendent of Finances and Operations, said the district has already set aside most of the $800,000 in the event it loses the case, but not the estimated $70,000 in interest and the cost of legal fees. The district estimates that in its effort to "clarify the arbitor's decision, the district has spent between $18,000 and $20,000 in legal fees.