Personnel directors handouts

295 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
295
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Personnel directors handouts

  1. 1. Current Topics of a Legal Nature Kelley Baker and Karen Haase Harding & Shultz (402) 434-3000 kbaker@hslegalfirm.com khaase@hslegalfirm.com
  2. 2. Recent Legal Trends: Not So Good for Boards
  3. 3. Recent Cases  Manning -- pay for a “long-term” substitute teacher  Harvard – what constitutes a “change in circumstances” for a RIF  Central City -- duration clause and pay for unused sick and personal leave
  4. 4. Manning Case  South Sioux City Ed. Ass’n. v. School District, (2009)  School hired Manning as a “long-term substitute”  1st semester 2007-08  Clear agreement  Multiple correspondence
  5. 5. Union’s Position Manning was not a substitute  A substitute must take the place of a teacher on some kind of leave  Medical, attend conference, sabbatical, military, etc.  Manning should be paid on salary schedule with full fringe benefits
  6. 6. District’s Position  Used long-term subs sparingly  Association never negotiated comp  Manning employed less than half- time, not a certificated employee  Contract case, not an unfair labor practice case  CIR had no jurisdiction
  7. 7. CIR / Supreme Court  District unilaterally deviated from negotiated agreement  Prohibited practice  Manning was not a substitute  She was a probationary teacher  [Entitled to all statutory rights of probationary teachers]
  8. 8. Recommendations  Don’t use “long-term substitute” except for actual substitutes  Use a replacement contract for teachers who replace others on long-term leave  Confer with district attorney about special circumstances
  9. 9. Harvard Case  Miller v. School District No. 18-0011 of Clay County • Plaintiff RIFfed when school contracted with neighboring district for art instruction • NSEA: no RIF if program remains • District Court: ruled for plaintiff • District appealed to Ne. Supreme Court
  10. 10. Supreme Court  Chance to share programs did not constitute a change in circumstances  No RIF because still have art teacher on staff  Seemed to be trying to limit to these facts?? • Probie vs. Tenured • Communication to neighboring board by their superintendent
  11. 11. Recommendations  Start the RIF process EARLY  Control EVERYTHING  Eliminate all stray talk  Use multiple data to prove change in circumstances  Distance learning, staff sharing now questionable
  12. 12. Central City  Standard wage / fringe benefit case  Except for continuation clause • 3 years after prior wage case • Previously litigated in Clarkson case
  13. 13. CIR Holdings – Delete:  Number of contract days  Negotiated agreement “part of all teachers’ contracts”  Board discretion to: • Terminate pay after absent 60 days • Grant emergency sick days  Make up days when fewer than 175 days of attendance
  14. 14. CIR’s (BAD) Holdings  Add contract continuation provision  Such provisions in 10 of 14 districts This agreement shall continue in full force and effect until a successor agreement is adopted which is then retroactive to the beginning of that school year. Pay for unused sick & personal leave
  15. 15. Central City  District appealed bad holdings  Supreme Court granted petition to bypass  Supreme Court heard the case Dec. 1  Decision published last Friday
  16. 16. Supreme Court: Duration  Duration Clause is mandatory subject of bargaining  Duration Clause doesn’t violate right of unilateral implementation: “neither orders District to enter into a contract nor acts as a contract for an indefinite term. [T]he … clause set[s] forth the terms of the parties’ agreement until a new agreement can be reached.”
  17. 17. Supreme Court: Unused Leave  Payment for unused leave is prevalent: 10 of 14 schools  Terms of the provision ordered by the CIR not supported  Remanded to CIR to determine appropriate terms of pay for leave
  18. 18. Supreme Court: Dissent  Chief Justice Heavican and Justice Connolly  Agree on Sick Leave  Disagree on Duration • Extends CIR authority into future contract years • Violates CIR’s limited authority
  19. 19. Recommendations  Do not agree to a continuation or duration clause voluntarily, but check for prevalence  Hold the line on other issues: NSEA has long-term plan, we should, too!  Keep your fringe benefits in line with other school districts – the CIR is very willing to ignore your excesses
  20. 20. The future of negotiations?
  21. 21. Current Topics of a Legal Nature Kelley Baker and Karen Haase Harding & Shultz (402) 434-3000 kbaker@hslegalfirm.com khaase@hslegalfirm.com

×