Court decision shifts balance in teacher contract talks

By John Howell
Posted 2/14/17

By JOHN HOWELL A Superior Court ruling by Justice Bennett Gallo on Feb. 2 has shifted the balance of teacher contract talks to the School Committee by casting aside the long-held argument that the terms of an expired contract remained in place until a

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Court decision shifts balance in teacher contract talks

Posted

A Superior Court ruling by Justice Bennett Gallo on Feb. 2 has shifted the balance of teacher contract talks to the School Committee by casting aside the long-held argument that the terms of an expired contract remained in place until a new agreement is reached.

The decision not only upheld the committee’s argument that it had the authority to exceed the maximum allowable layoffs as set by the expired contract in response to declining student enrollment, but vacated a decision by the State Labor Relations Board that the committee had committed an unfair labor practice. The board had found in favor of the union and ordered the committee to cease from refusing to arbitrate certain grievances and abide by the terms of the expired collective bargaining agreement.

While this may not be the end of a legal battle – the union will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court – it is a headwind for the union that has consistently argued the committee is wasting time and money on lawyers when efforts should be directed to negotiating an agreement.

In a telephone call Monday, Warwick Teachers Union President Darlene Netcoh questioned the extent of Gallo’s ruling, saying from her information it applies narrowly.

“Mediation/negotiation is the only way we’re going to reach a successor agreement,” she said.

So far, although mediation has resumed, the parties appear to be no closer to a contract.

Soon after the contract expired in August 2015, the union filed grievances relating to homeroom assignments and a teacher’s suspension. When the parties failed to reach a resolution and the committee refused to participate in grievance arbitration as set forth by the expired contract, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the state Labor Relations Board. Last June, the board found in favor of the union and ordered the committee to participate in the processing of grievances.

It didn’t end there, as the union filed a motion with the board to which the committee objected, to extend its finding to all provisions of the former contract. Without additional hearings, the board approved the union’s request.

That set the stage for the committee’s appeal to the Superior Court on Aug. 3. On Aug. 16 Justice Gallo granted a stay to the extent that the committee had the power to layoff teachers in response to declining enrollment.

The committee argued the board did not have the authority to rule on whether a grievance should be arbitrated and it has no obligation to arbitrate after a contract has expired. The union countered that the terms of the expired contract remain in place and that the committee’s action violated the Labor Relations Act as interpreted by the board in prior decisions. One of the cases cited in the union’s argument goes back to a 1992 ruling in which the board found in favor of the union’s contention that terms of the prior contract applied until a new agreement is reached.

That ruling became the touchstone for the union and has persistently been held up by the union as the game rules during those periods where a contract has expired, yet schools open and teachers are prohibited from striking.

How the court’s ruling will affect efforts to reach a contract remains to be seen.

Last year, the union turned down an offer that would have given teachers a 3 percent raise for each year of a three-year contract. The offer would have put 10th step teachers, who make up 90 percent of the city’s 879 teachers, at more than $79,000 in the first year. The committee was looking to do away with student weighting in determining class size. Students with individual education programs (IEPs) are counted as more than one student. The committee was also looking to increase maximums of layoffs and to eliminate the co-op formula. The union refused the offer on the basis the agreement would have resulted in larger class sizes and hurt the student.

It’s not that the sides have been idle, however. For the past year, the parties have been in interest arbitration with both sides presenting arguments concerning specifics of a contract. Interest arbitration concluded on Jan. 24 and now the parties are waiting for a decision from the arbitrator.

The parties were also engaged in mediation with attorney Vincent Ragosta as mediator until last October when School Committee Chair Bethany Furtado deemed the process a waste of money. Ragosta agreed that the parties were so locked in their positions that it made sense to cease talks until there was change. Those talks resumed when Mayor Scott Avedisian intervened for the first time and attended mediation sessions.

Three sessions have been held and the next is scheduled for March 22.

Netcoh accuses the school administration of failing to tell the full story of court proceedings and releasing information only beneficial to their argument.

She said that in chambers last Wednesday, Justice Gallo “clarified” his decision, saying it applied only to the two grievances the committee refused to process in August 2015. She also reported that Justice Jeffrey Lanphear refused an earlier committee request to invalidate interest arbitration because the process exceeded the 20 days set forth in the law. Netcoh said the court found the 20-day requirement, “directory, not mandatory.”

Further, Netcoh said that the court found that layoff could be a part of contract language. She said that in open court, Justice Gallo advised, “the School Committee is not to view his ruling ‘as a green light to run amuck.’”

Asked for his read on Justice Gallo’s ruling, Superintendent Philip Thornton said Monday, “The decision speaks for itself.”

As of press time, efforts to verify what was said in chambers and in the courtroom were not successful.

Comments

6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • richardcorrente

    Damn it.

    We don't need more taxpayer-funded litigation. We need a teachers contract. In the sixties then-Mayor Walsh locked both sides in a room and refused to let them out until they had a contract. Although that idea sounds a little extreme, maybe we should consider something "extreme". Pointing the finger of blame doesn't accomplish a thing.

    Sit at the negotiating table and talk. Even if you are unsuccessful everyone will see that you are trying.

    Don't let the attorneys collect any more of the taxpayers money. Lock yourself in a room. Increase the effort. Accomplish SOMETHING. This has gone on way too long.

    Please.

    Happy Spring everyone.

    Rick Corrente

    The Taxpayers Mayor

    Tuesday, February 14, 2017 Report this

  • Thecaptain

    Rick is right. We need something extreme. Extreme duct tape to shut his incompetent mouth. Thank you Justice Gallo for understanding that a contract is a contract for the terms of the contract. PERIOD!. This BS that after a contract, the contract provisions stay in place is what is bankrupting communities, handcuffing education, and burdening the taxpayer. When I say taxpayer, I mean all of you except for Mr. Corrente who doesn't pay his taxes. The Non-Taxpayer Mayor. Can you even imagine if this man had any position of authority in making financial decisions? As of this date he is unable to pay his $40 car tax bill. What an example of total disregard for his community.

    Tuesday, February 14, 2017 Report this

  • ThatGuyInRI

    I TOLD YOU SO.

    I told you your expired contract wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

    I told you this had been proven before with the East Providence situation.

    I told you you would lose this case. Yeah, yeah, you can appeal, whatever, you'll lose. Write that down, February 15, 2017 I said it, check back when you lose in the state S.C. if they even hear your case.

    A three year contract expires after three years, it's not even law 101, it's common sense 101.

    And no, I"m not a "teacher hater," I just hate stupid people...like people who think an expired contract is valid.

    Wednesday, February 15, 2017 Report this

  • davebarry109

    'The offer would have put 10th step teachers, who make up 90 percent of the city’s 879 teachers, at more than $79,000 in the first year.'

    Herein lies the problem. Most teachers are making great money. They only work 180 days a year, minus vacation time, personal days, sick days, and professional days. They already have weekends, long holiday weekends, and the best weeks of the year off. They can be paid through the summer or work it or take it off.

    While I know teaching is not as easy as it once was, it's never been more lucrative.

    If there are any misspelled words in my comments...blame a Warwick teacher.

    Wednesday, February 15, 2017 Report this

  • VoWarwick2017

    I feel like we have done this dance before...

    On Teachers -- It is unfair to characterize their jobs as "only" 180 days a year - I am speaking of the good teachers, you know the ones that actually care about their students and truly enjoy their jobs, which sadly is not the majority of them - they are constantly, year round trying to improve on their craft via classes, planning and continued study at a level most other "jobs" don't even come close to replicating, also during their "180" day year they are not punching the 8 hour a day clock, they are putting in on average 11 to 13 hours per day + hours on the weekends (tacks on a few more days to that calendar).

    Here is a little math:

    Average "white collar" (8 hr days) job with 10 vacation days (average) and 2 weeks vacation (actually below average) puts in an average of 1,920 hours per year.

    A Good/Great Teacher puts in an average of 1,980 hours per year - albeit in a compressed time frame.

    As I said before there are not as many of the Good/Great teachers as there used to be...

    That said, the courts did the right thing. Both the Teacher's Union and the School Committee are playing games with the quality of education in Warwick for the students in the system right now and parents have the right to be very angry about that.

    Both parties need to put on their big boy pants and accept that neither side is going to get what they want, get a deal done and move on with the rest of our lives.

    Thursday, February 16, 2017 Report this

  • ThatGuyInRI

    "Both parties need to put on their big boy pants and accept that neither side is going to get what they want, get a deal done and move on with the rest of our lives."

    ^ It really can't be said any better than that.

    Kudos to you VoWarwick2017

    Thursday, February 16, 2017 Report this