New York Law Review

Tag: Teacher Reassignment

  • Matter of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v. Arlington Teachers’ Ass’n, 79 N.Y.2d 33 (1991): Enforceability of Teacher Reassignment Remedies in Arbitration

    79 N.Y.2d 33 (1991)

    A school district can be compelled through arbitration to reassign teachers to their previous positions as a remedy for violating a collective bargaining agreement regarding involuntary transfers, provided the agreement doesn’t require placing unqualified individuals or creating new positions.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether an arbitrator can order a school district to reassign teachers to their former positions as a remedy for violating a collective bargaining agreement’s provisions on involuntary transfers. The Arlington Teachers’ Association filed a grievance when two special education teachers were reassigned to different grade levels, arguing the reassignments violated the agreement. The arbitrator sided with the Association, ordering the teachers be offered their old positions. The school district challenged this, arguing the remedy infringed on its non-delegable duty to assign teachers. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts, holding the arbitrator’s remedy was permissible because the legislature had explicitly allowed collective bargaining to modify a school superintendent’s power to transfer teachers.

    Facts

    Eileen Weber and Cheryl Gallagher were special education teachers in the Arlington Central School District, certified to teach any special education class. In the 1986-1987 school year, both taught language classes at the LaGrange Elementary School, with Weber teaching kindergarten and first-grade level students and Gallagher teaching first and second-grade students. For the 1987-1988 school year, Weber was assigned to teach second and third-grade level students, and Gallagher was assigned to teach intermediate skills development to third and fourth graders. The Teachers Association argued that these reassignments violated the collective bargaining agreement.

    Procedural History

    The Teachers Association filed a grievance, which proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Association and ordered the district to offer the teachers their previous positions. The school district then sought to vacate the arbitrator’s award in Supreme Court, which agreed the award exceeded the arbitrator’s authority. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s order, confirming the arbitration award.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an arbitrator exceeds their power by ordering a school district to remedy a violation of a collective bargaining agreement regarding involuntary teacher reassignments by requiring the district to offer the affected teachers their original positions.

    Holding

    Yes, because the legislature amended the Education Law to permit collective bargaining concerning a school superintendent’s power to transfer teachers, thereby allowing the arbitrator’s remedy, which was within the bounds of the collectively bargained agreement.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals focused on the narrow issue of the arbitrator’s power to order the reassignment, emphasizing the district did not contest the finding of a violation or the validity of the collective bargaining agreement. The court noted that the reassignment did not involve unqualified individuals being placed in teaching positions, or the creation of new positions. The teachers were certified for the positions, and the remedy was conditional on the positions existing in the subsequent school year.

    The court noted an arbitration award can only be vacated if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power. The school district argued the award violated public policy by infringing on the board of education’s nondelegable authority to determine teacher qualifications and assignments. The court disagreed, citing the 1986 amendment to Education Law § 1711(6), which overturned the prior holding in Sweet Home. The amendment allowed collective bargaining to modify the superintendent’s power to transfer teachers, and, by extension, the board’s power to review those decisions.

    The court dismissed the argument that the amendment only affected the superintendent’s power, reasoning the superintendent is the bargaining agent for the district, and the amendment authorized them to enter agreements limiting their transfer power. The court found it illogical to argue the resulting agreement could only be enforced against the superintendent and not the district itself. The court referenced the legislative history, including letters from school superintendents and board members expressing concern that the law would diminish the public employer’s authority regarding teacher transfers. The court concluded, “[b]y adding section 1711(6), the Legislature intended to overturn the Sweet Home holding that the authority to transfer teachers could not be limited through collective bargaining.”

  • Matter of Brewer v. Board of Educ. of Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist., 51 N.Y.2d 855 (1980): Determining When a ‘Vacancy’ Exists for Teacher Reassignment

    Matter of Brewer v. Board of Educ. of Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist., 51 N.Y.2d 855 (1980)

    A sabbatical leave for a significant period creates a temporary vacancy that a tenured teacher is entitled to fill under Education Law § 2510(3).

    Summary

    This case concerns the interpretation of Education Law § 2510(3), which governs the reassignment of tenured teachers when positions are abolished. The court addressed whether a sabbatical leave creates a “vacancy” that a tenured teacher is entitled to fill. Justice Jasen, in concurrence, argued that a sabbatical leave of one year constitutes a temporary vacancy within the meaning of the statute. The concurrence disagreed with the majority’s restrictive interpretation, emphasizing the statute’s purpose of ensuring reassignment opportunities for tenured teachers whose positions have been eliminated. It highlights the need to protect teachers and promote flexibility within the education system.

    Facts

    A tenured teacher’s position was abolished. Subsequently, another teacher in the district took a one-year sabbatical leave. The tenured teacher whose position was abolished sought reassignment to the position created by the sabbatical, arguing that the sabbatical created a vacancy under Education Law § 2510(3). The school district denied the reassignment.

    Procedural History

    The case originated in the context of an administrative decision by the school district. The specific procedural history prior to the Court of Appeals is not detailed in this excerpt, but the case reached the New York Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s decision, albeit with a concurring opinion expressing disagreement with the majority’s reasoning.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a sabbatical leave of one year constitutes a “vacancy” within the meaning of Education Law § 2510(3), entitling a tenured teacher whose position was abolished to be reassigned to that position.

    Holding

    No, according to the majority. However, Justice Jasen in concurrence argued Yes, because the statute was intended to apply to temporary as well as permanent position vacancies.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Justice Jasen, concurring, argued that the majority’s interpretation of “vacancy” was unduly restrictive and contrary to the spirit of Education Law § 2510. He emphasized that the statute aims to ensure that tenured teachers whose positions are terminated will be reassigned to other positions for which they are qualified as vacancies occur. He stated that the statute does not distinguish between temporary and permanent vacancies, and that the duration of the vacancy should not be the determining factor. He reasoned that excluding reassignment to a position merely because the incumbent will return at a later date is an unduly restrictive view. The concurrence draws on the policy consideration of encouraging qualified teachers to seek promotions. The judge quotes Matter of Fitzgibbons, 8 Ed Dept Rep 205, 208, stating that the Commissioner of Education sought to encourage qualified teachers to seek promotions without the fear of losing their tenure in their previous area should they fail to achieve permanent certification in their new positions for reasons unrelated to their ability to teach.