UFT WINS ARBITRATION AFFIRMING RIGHT OF NON-SHORTAGE AREA TEACHERS TO GET SIXTH PERIOD PAY INSTEAD OF COVERAGE PAY FOR TEACHING A SIXTH CLASS

We have followed the case all year of the Aviation High School shop teachers standing up for special per session sixth-period pay of $7,278 per semester for teaching an extra class each day instead of settling for cut-rate coverage pay of $45.38 per class multiplied by 85 days for a semester which comes to $3,857.30. The math clearly shows that many teachers have been getting cheated out of over $3,400 per semester because principals refuse to follow the contractual rules and pay teachers what they are entitled to for teaching a sixth class in secondary schools. We believed it was a no-brainer grievance as the right to receive sixth-period teaching pay for agreeing to teach a sixth class in secondary schools has been in the Contract since 1998, whether it was for a shortage area or non-shortage area class.

Nonetheless, this turned into a tough case because the UFT waited so long to challenge the improper policy so the DOE argued to arbitrator Melissa H. Biren recently that the UFT accepted without grieving a practice allowing the DOE to pay the lower coverage rate for over 20 years so the issue was moot now. The grievance procedure only allows teachers thirty school days from when a teacher knows there is a contractual violation to grieve. The DOE claimed the UFT was basically permitting the DOE to ignore the Contract for over 20 years which made the grievance completely untimely now since the UFT never challenged the Department of Education's policy of improperly paying coverage pay rather than the higher sixth-period rate. The DOE reasoned that they had established a policy that the Union had accepted.

The arbitrator rejected the DOE position. Instead, she ruled that only individual teachers at the school in question knew about the policy that violated the Contract but the Union had no knowledge that the violation was occurring. That claim requires about as much suspension of disbelief as when watching Superman fly but the DOE didn't prove that the Union had challenged them before so the UFT's unwillingness to stop an open violation of the Contract for decades didn't cost us here. My guess is the arbitrator probably knew the Union was aware of what was up but the DOE was so blatantly wrong in cheating teachers out of their proper pay that she was willing to suspend disbelief a bit.

The arbitrator may have been persuaded the UFT was right because of the testimony of UFT Academic High School Vice President Janella Hinds. Janella's involvement hinted to the arbitrator that this was an important case for the Union. Janella testified to Arbitrator Biren on what the difference is between Article 7N (Coverages) and 7O (teaching a sixth class for a special higher per session rate). She gave details on how coverages are for an emergency absence but the sixth class provision is for the entire semester so the teacher becomes the teacher of record for the class and so he/she plans the lessons, teaches the lessons, and assesses the class while in a coverage the teacher only teaches a lesson left to them by the regular teacher for an emergency for the day.

Ever since 1998, teachers by contract in non-shortage areas have been able to use their professional period in secondary schools to teach an extra class and receive shortage area pay. Principals, however, have wrongfully used the coverage provision to cheat teachers by paying the coverage rate instead of the higher special per session rate. At Aviation High School, principals were shortchanging teachers in shop for over 20 years.

The situation changed this year because of the election of my former Jamaica High School and Middle College High School colleague Ibeth Mejia as Chapter Leader at Aviation. Ibeth knew we didn't stand for anything like ripping off teachers at Jamaica. She asked me to help with this and we did research that the UFT had been ignoring for years. We also publicized this issue in several of our blog postings to highlight how teachers were being cheated out of money when they took on an extra class in a non-shortage area. Ibeth was persistent in pressuring the UFT Grievance Department.

Arbitrator Biren sided with the teacher and the UFT. The DOE has to adhere to the Contract and can't ignore it to save money on the backs of teachers who don't happen to be in a shortage area. A DOE memo gives instructions for principals to ask for special per session pay for shortage areas as well as non-shortage areas. If the DOE doesn't allow it to be paid at the higher special per session rate, then the schools need to hire more teachers but they can't just assign coverages as that is not what coverages are for. If a teacher teaches an extra class for a semester or a chunk of a term as their class, they have to be compensated at the special per session rate. The shop teacher who filed this grievance will receive back pay.

In addition to the teacher who filed the grievance, my understanding is there are over 20 others at Aviation who have basically the same case and have filed separate grievances to receive the proper sixth-period rate.  The arbitrator has retained jurisdiction so hopefully, everyone at Aviation who grieved will be made whole. Unfortunately, nobody else who has been shortchanged over the last two decades will receive back pay. Thank you UFT for ignoring this for twenty years (oh yeah they didn't know).

If the teachers are retaliated against because they filed the grievance so now the DOE has to pay them what they are entitled to, I would hope the UFT will fight back. I know Ibeth and her team will stand up for each other and their school.

In addition, I really hope to see this be about more than one school. If a principal tells any secondary school teacher they can't pay you the special per session rate and can only give you the lower coverage rate if you teach an extra class, the precedent is here in this arbitration. Just say you want your proper money and get in touch with the Union. 

An important lesson to be learned here is the UFT will back chapters that stand up collectively as Ibeth's group did. This case, including the involvement of UFT Vice President Janella Hinds which I didn't know about until I read the arbitration decision, is further proof that a strong chapter is an enormous resource to collectively uphold our rights. It took over 20 years, but a new activist Chapter Leader woke up the UFT and has made a difference at Aviation High School. Those teachers are better represented because of her advocacy. 

Now it's your school's turn to collectively stand up for yourselves.

Finally, I am a bit more optimistic because this past spring Ibeth and six others from United for Change were elected to represent the high schools on the UFT Executive Board.