School Board Refuses to Negotiate With Teachers Union
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 24, 2017
Other Education Employment Employment Contracts Employment Labor Law
Summary: Blog post about a conflict in Connecticut about negotiations over teachers' contracts.
If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .
In the case of Seymour Board of Education v. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, an education association filed a prohibitive practice complaint with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations (Labor Board). The Labor Board decided that the assignment of summer duty to a school psychologist was an established past practice and concerned a mandatory subject of bargaining by the board of education. The board of education petitioned for judicial review under Connecticut law and policy, in hopes to avoid negotiating with the education association.
The education association was the exclusive bargaining agent for teachers employed by the board of education. A bargaining agent is a term for a union that possesses the sole authority to act on behalf of all participating employees. Such agents can negotiate and act on behalf of the union member’s best interests. The Labor Board decided that the board of education had engaged in a prohibited practice under the Connecticut Teacher Negotiation Act by refusing to negotiate with the education association concerning the practice of assigning additional days of summer work to a school psychologist. When the education association demanded to bargain over the elimination of the work days, the board of education declined to bargain over the issue. The court found that the basic premise of the Teacher Negotiation Act, the statutory duty to bargain in good faith, was an obligation of the board of education and the education association as set forth in both state and federal law. Additionally, there was substantial evidence that the assignment of the days of summer duty to the school psychologist was a past practice. Moreover, the practice of summer work by the school psychologist did not fall within any of the exceptions set forth in the Act’s specific duties to negotiate. Thus, the issue was a mandatory subject of negotiation.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was affirmed. “There can be no doubt that the Board of Education alone is empowered to determine whether there shall be [additional summer] activities and what such activities shall be” said the court. “[Yet, there are additional issues] involving assignment of teachers to such activities and the question of compensation for such [summer] activities affect salaries and other conditions of employment are . . . mandatory subjects of negotiation.”
If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
Source: Seymour Bd. of Educ. v. Conn. State Bd. of Labor Rels., 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 978 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 12, 2007)
