by Ira Goldfine
The depth of analysis of ICE people on the fact-finders report being sent across the "wires" has been really great. I would like to deal with one issue in the report that has been mostly ignored. The report calls for a change in the contract that the UFT suggested and that is the elimination of step 2 from the grievance procedure. Although in the current environment this seems off the top of ones head a no-brainer, this has major long-term negative implications and is nothing more than a total gutting of the grievance procedure and the irony is it was suggested by the UFT.1) I think we all can agree that step 1 is nothing more than "going through the motions" since the person hearing the grievance is usually the person (or a subordinate) who took the action that caused the grievance in the first place. 2) Since only the UFT has the right to decide which grievances will go to Step 3 and Arbitration, the elimination of step 2 in essence takes the power of grievance totally away from union members! All they will be able to do is file a step 1 and lose and then the UFT will have sole power to decide if their grievance has merit. What a disaster!3) It was the UFT back in the 70's that "won" from the BOE the right to be the sole decider of which grievances went to step 3. Remember it was the ACLU in a step 3 grievance that won the right of members to distribute literature in mailboxes of colleagues. Luckily that was before we lost the right to go to step 3.4) Many cases at step 2 have been won with and without the UFT's support because of internal politics in the districts. The very first mailbox case was won in District 16 at step 2.5) It is unacceptable to say that because the current mayor/chancellor have twisted the step 2 process so much as to make it useless that it follows that we should discard the step 2 grievance altogether. They will be around for at most 4 years -- you don't change contracts on the basis of a what the current mayor is doing. UNITY has allowed the grievance procedure to be decimated and now has "won" the capability of controlling the entire grievance procedure and leaving the membership with NO rights at all.
17 comments:
If a note in the file has not been used...for 36 months...Can it be used by the DOE after that?
Under what circumstances an a letter in the file...that was never signed by the Teacher be utilized in a disciplinary action?
No it comes out of file. If they try to use it after 3 years, cry foul. If you never signed a letter, it should not be in file unless admin witnessed and documented your refusal to sign.
What does the following mean:
"...should not be in file unless admin witnessed and documented your refusal to sign."
How is this more than a "he said/she said?"
Rating Officer will claim Grievant refused to sign...
Grievant will say...it's a lie!!!
Who has to witness??
Administration has to have a witness that you refused to sign.
And who does this witness have to be? Can it be a Clerical worker? Can Teacher demand union representation? Can Teacher state he will sign...if he has opportunity to confer with union Representative? Can Teacher say, that because union delegate refused to furnish representation.....further time is required?
Witness is usually another administrator.
Thanks.
Exact articles are required. Where in the contract is this addressed? Can the person who witnesses the refusal....be a substitute Clerical worker?
Is it then incumbent upon the Rating Officer to assert Insubordination in a subsequent letter? If Rating Officer fails to do this....can initial letter be used in disciplinary proceedings?
Please reference that part of the contract which addresses these technical points. It's important!!
21A is procedures for letters. Part on refusal to sign is Board procedures.
In the event that the Rating Officer does not follow up...with a letter asserting Insubordination....can the former letter be used?
Teacher asserts he was denied union representation.....discriminated against....object of a hostile work environment...
Is the claim of denial of union representation.....meritorious grounds for refusal to sign?
Teacher asserts Rating Officer is a liar....retaliating for reporting him for Misconduct.
Again, it is asked.....who can witness this alleged refusal? Must it be a member of the Administration? Does Grievant have right to review identification of these persons? (Is this addressed in the contract...where?)
(These matters are going to the map....definitive answers are required!!
I am not a lawyer. Some of this is not covered in contract but would be better to ask a lawyer specializing in labor/education law.
You are probably right. However, a lot of money has already been spent---on a lawyer who went out to lunch with Susan Jalowski, ATU.
Is any of this covered in the contract? Is there any way to put these queries to the union --without payment of further money?
The union is liable for these type of difficult, technical questions...dues...and what not....
Additionally: Proof of Orientation….Burden of the DOE and the union to prove Orientation.
Devil is in the details...and details are requisite to these matters!!
Help is nectar from the gods!!!
Where are the "board procedures" on the refusal to sign? What are these "board procedures?"
Cite the Article of the contract, please!
Burden to prove Orientation? DOE...or union...or Both??
has this gone toO arbitration?
S.O.S
Page 32 of the Office of Labor Relations Frequently Asked Questions says for Delivery on page 32:
"Recommended Method of Delivery: provide a copy of the letter to the employee with a witness (your secretary or another supervisor) and request that the employee sign acknowledging receipt. If employee refuses to sign, mark the letter 'refused to sign' and you and a witness should sign and date the letters."
1. Does such a witness have to be produced at a Disciplinary Hearing? i.e. Grievant alleges Rating Officer is lying? Can the union delegate witness Grievant's refusal to sign a letter?
2. Is it incumbent upon the Rating Officer to follow up with a subsequent letter asserting Insubordination...related to the Grievant's refusal to sign?
3. Does the Grievant have the right to union representation prior to being requested to sign a hostile personnel letter? Is denial of union representation contractual grounds for Grievant's refusal or delay in signing?
Proof of Orientation....
a. Any Record of this going to Arbitration?
b. What constitutes proof of Orientation?
c. If the school is in a state of gross educational emergency...does the Teacher have to be Oriented to this? (On a list to be closed)
d. Are there cases of disputes regarding Arbitration in which it has been held...that even in instances where the Grievant has signed a piece of paper that he was Oriented...the Orientation has been inadequate?
e. Charles Flisser, Bronx UFT, has stated that in at least two instances, disputes regarding Orientation have gone to Arbitration. In these two instances, he states the Orientation was found to be inadequate---event though the Grievant signed an acknowledgement of sorts!!!
f. When pressed to go further in this regard...Flisser reneged......because he had been told that the Teacher was placed on the ultimate s### list....and therefore is permanently excommunicated from the DOE----until the day the Pope makes love to Barbara Striesand.
1. What license does a Rating Officer who is an IA (Interim Acting) Principal hold?
2. Is such a person empowered to Recommend Discontinuance of a Teacher?
3. Is such a licensed Rating Officer powered empowered to conduct a corporal punishment hearing?
4. What is Grievant's right to review/verify license of said Rating Officer?
I think you need a lawyer.
Subsequent to a Formal Observation rated Unsatisfactory....
1. Must a post-conference be held?
2. In what time frame?
3. Where in the Collective Bargaining Agreement? Page #__.
Post a Comment