If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .
In the case of Board of Education of Region 16 v. State Board of Labor Relations, a local board of education (BOE) appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing its appeal from a decision of defendant, the state board of labor relations, in which the board found the BOE violated when it changed a condition of employment and engaged in unlawful direct dealing with teachers, who were members of a union.
When a high school special education teacher left his employment, the BOE's representative met with the remaining special education teachers and increased their workload without negotiating with the union. The trial court improperly determined substantial evidence supported the board's determination that the BOE had unilaterally changed an employment condition. The union failed to establish a fixed and definite prior practice. The union failed to present evidence either the workload handled or the hours worked per week by the remaining special education teachers were substantially greater after the teacher's departure than in the preceding school years. On the other hand, substantial evidence did support the determination that the BOE had engaged in unlawful direct dealing. Once the teachers had invoked their right under the collective bargaining agreement to have the union represent them in connection with the increased workload, the BOE could no longer deal with the teachers directly on the matter. Although the BOE representative did not expressly offer a quid pro quo, she implied the teachers would be better off if they did not pursue their formal complaint with the union.
The judgment was reversed with respect to the dismissal of the BOE's claim challenging the board's ruling that the BOE had unilaterally changed a condition of employment. “Even though the union ultimately could not prevail on its claim that the increased workload was subject to mandatory negotiation because it failed to establish that the [board] had substantially changed a fixed and definite employment practice, once the teachers had invoked their right under the collective bargaining agreement to have the union represent them in connection with the claim, the [board of education] could no longer deal with the teachers directly on the matter.”
If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
Source: Bd. of Educ. of Region 16 v. State Bd. of Labor Rels., 299 Conn. 63, 7 A.3d 371, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 412, 189 L.R.R.M. 2705, 160 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P61,083 (Conn. 2010)
