High Court Upholds Arbitration Award for New Milford Teachers' Union in Pay Dispute
The state's high court has ruled unanimously in favor of the New Milford teachers' union, ruling that the town's Board of Education improperly tacked on six unpaid days to the 2015-16 school calendar year.
May 02, 2019 at 01:40 PM
4 minute read
The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the union representing New Milford teachers, who alleged the town's Board of Education improperly tacked on six unpaid days for teachers outside the scope of the union contact.
A grievance arbitrator sided with the New Milford Education Association, the local teachers' union, in saying teachers should be compensated for those days during the 2015-16 school calendar year. But the school board appealed the arbitrator's ruling, saying exceptions should be made.
Its appeal failed before the Superior Court, which sided with the union, prompting the school board to appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
Then another twist: The Connecticut Supreme Court, to the surprise of some, took the case from the Appellate Court and ruled 7-0 April 26 in the union's favor.
At issue: The union's claim that the six after-school professional days the local school board added to the 2015-16 school calendar extended the teachers' days beyond a “reasonable amount of time.” For its part, the school board asserted, among other things, the trial court incorrectly concluded that the union's grievance was arbitrable.
But the state's high court disagreed. Writing for the state Supreme Court, Justice Raheem Mullins said: “Although the arbitrator did not have the authority to determine arbitrability, the grievance, nevertheless, was arbitrable.”
There were two arbitrators: an interest arbitrator and a grievance arbitrator. The interest arbitrator comes into play in teacher union-school board disputes, which if they remain unresolved, move to a grievance arbitrator.
The school board maintained it had the green light to add after-school events to the teachers' calendar. The courts disagreed.
“The school board wanted to change the contract without union approval. They claimed the interest arbitrator gave them the right to do so. Our position is that was not so,” said Martin Gould, one of two attorneys representing the union.
“This ruling is important for the teachers involved and it's important in the sense that if you have an agreement to the workday for teachers, you can't simply just change it,” said Gould, a partner with Hartford-based Gould Killian.
Gould, who said the union “was very pleased” with the ruling, said he was surprised the Connecticut Supreme Court took the case.
“I did not see any grounds for vacating the arbitration award,” Gould said Thursday. “I wasn't surprised it was unanimous but I was surprised it went to the Supreme Court. I am somewhat surprised that the board took it up as high as they did. But that was their choice.”
Gould continued: “When an arbitrator hands down a decision, the ruling should be upheld, unless with certain narrow exceptions. In this case, none of those exceptions existed.”
It's not clear how many teachers this affects and how much back pay they could receive, but Gould said, “The amount will be substantial.”
Representing the school board are Pullman & Comley attorneys William Connon and Zachary Schurin.
On Friday, Connon issued a press release on behalf of the school board. It states, in part: “The authority the Board of Education won in the 2014 interest arbitration is ongoing. Today's court decision is limited to confirmation of an arbitration decision concerning the 2015-16 school year. The 2016 arbitration award has no precedential value. Any arbitrator is free to rule differently should additional grievances be filed in the future, after the Memorandum of Understanding expires in 2021.”
Assisting Gould for the union was Adrienne DeLucca, legal counsel for the Connecticut Education Association.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Awards $48.6 Million to Frontier Airlines in COVID-19 Breach of Contract Suit
With Employment Law in National Spotlight, Contractor Scores in Trade Secrets Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Nicholas M. DePalma and Christian R. Schreiber of Venable have stepped in to represent CP Management Services, CRS RB4 Holdings and other defendants in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The suit was filed Aug. 30 in Virginia Eastern District Court by Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Daito Kentaku USA. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton, is 1:24-cv-01538, Daito Kentaku USA, LLC v. Comstock Partners, LC.
Who Got The Work
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs partner Andrew J. Pulliam has entered an appearance for Steve Jensen in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The action, filed Aug. 30 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the Law Office of Perry A. Craft on behalf of Timothy Robins, accuses the defendant of writing a worthless check for over $94,000 for the sale of auctioned goods. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Eli J. Richardson, is 3:24-cv-01064, Robins v. Jensen et al.
Who Got The Work
Lane Powell shareholder Pilar C. French has entered an appearance for Penney OpCo LLC in a pending consumer class action. The complaint, filed Aug. 26 in Oregon District Court by Hattis & Lukacs, alleges that the company markets fictional discounts for certain products. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, is 6:24-cv-01414, Gamble v. Penney OpCo LLC.
Who Got The Work
Donald L. Carmelite and Coryn D. Hubbert of Marshall Dennehey have stepped in to defend the City of York, Detective Roland Comacho and Detective Lisa Daniels in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Middle District Court by Levin & Zeiger on behalf of Noel Matos Montalvo, seeks damages for the amount of time that Montalvo was incarcerated over five years for the exonerated killing of his common law wife. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson, is 1:24-cv-01459, Montalvo v. City of York, et al.
Who Got The Work
Joseph M. Englert, Brian E. Pumphrey and M. Laughlin Allen of McGuireWoods have entered appearances for Bank of America NA in a pending class action. The action was filed Aug. 26 in Georgia Northern District Court by Podhurst Orseck; Webb, Klase & Lemond; Crabtree & Auslander; and Morrison + Associates on behalf of the representative of the beneficiaries of the Arthur N. Weinraub Trust, a trust which contains residential real property. The suit accuses the defendant of overcharging the trust by selecting unnecessary and/or excessively priced insurance for the property. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr., is 1:24-cv-03780, Weinraub v. Bank of America, N.A.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250