Thursday, April 26, 2012

Closing Schools and Rule 10 Defense of 20+ Year Teachers

UPDATED: Fri, Apr. 27:
It doesn’t say EXCEPT in the event of a school closing
“Teachers at all levels who have served 20 years or longer on regular appointment shall not be excessed…”  ---Art. 17, Rule 10, UFT contract.
I filed a rule 10 grievance and won this year for three of my members --- Murry Bergtraum CL John Elfrank writing on ICE-Mail.
We won on this issue too last year ---- James Eterno, CL Jamaica HS   
Is this a winnable grievance? Or can it go to PERB? Can a teacher with over 20 years at, say,  John Dewey who is not hired actually win such a grievance? If so why hasn't the UFT raised it? Why not try it anyway?

James Eterno also won cases on these grounds.

Anyone with more info leave a comment or email me.

I know we won't be hearing from anyone in Unity Caucus who are shuffling in Buffalo.
I'm not going to go into the PEP and the schools pulled off the list or some of the changes affecting Moskowitz schools. Leonie and Gotham will do all of that. I will put up more links to the videos from last week's GEM forum.

And you should check out a follow-up from Leonie on a story we broke here about the HSA parent handbook. Here is a link to a google doc of the entire handbook. Really fun reading on what they make parents do.

according to a UFT Special Rep last night, it’s only bound to the school… So, Rule 10 doesn’t apply to protect teachers in closing schools.

Here’s the whole read of Rule 10:
“Teachers at all levels who have served 20 years or longer on regular appointment shall not be excessed except for those in neighboring schools who are excessed to staff a newly organized school.”

Does “except for those in neighboring schools who are excessed to staff a newly organized school.” mean rule 10 only applies if the school is not reorganized? What’s “neighboring schools”. That phrase “…who are excessed TO staff a newly organized school” means what? Does that mean staff excessed AWAY from their school so it can be newly organized, or, so that the excessed staff can staff the new school?

I think we need clarity on this.

1 comment:

  1. I have no faith whatsoever in the contract with regard to the rights of teachers in closing or reorganized schools. In 2007-10, when South Shore HS was closing, teachers couldn't even get interviews in the newly formed small schools and our grievances were all ruled against us, despite the wording in the contract that 50% of teachers would be retained. At the time I heard the same was true of other large closing schools, that the teachers were seen as damaged goods and were refused interviews, much less being hired. Some of our grievances went to arbitration where they were all ruled in favor of the DoE, the hearing officers claiming that the "needs" of the schools were paramount and the definition of "qualified" can be simply what the new principal thinks is a qualification. In my case, I had more qualifications than the principal to run the school but couldn't get an interview until I grieved. Won that grievance, didn't get the job despite a wonderful interview, grieved based on the 50% rule in the contract, and lost both the grievance and the arbitration. That was when I realized that, with a good DoE lawyer, nothing in the contract can be counted on for us.


Comments are welcome. Irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted, as will all commercial links. Comment moderation is on, so if your comment does not appear it is because I have not been at my computer (I do not do cell phone moderating). Or because your comment is irrelevant or idiotic.