Residencial Mac-Kay Las Condes

Penn Delco Collective Bargaining Agreement

Penn Delco Collective Bargaining Agreement

11/04/2021 • Under: Sin categoría


At Harbor Creek, the question was whether the transfer of certain duties from the school district to the non-negotiation unit staff had been taken into account.   The school district eliminated the position of athletic director and the person who had served in that position was a full-time teacher.   The school district then created a new supervisory position called «Assistant Principal of Student and Supplemental Activities,» which included the duties of the former athletic director.   The teacher voluntarily left the bargaining unit to assume responsibility for the new supervisory position.   The association filed a complaint on the grounds that the removal of the position of the sports director led to a transfer of the work of tariff unit to a non-contracted employee, in violation of the collective agreement.   The arbitrator upheld the appeal.  First, we note that in a complaint of an arbitrator`s decision, our audit is very limited.  Cranberry.  An arbitral award must be upheld if it can be inferred in any rational way from the collective agreement, taking into account the language, context and other indications of the parties` intent.  Id. The initial review requires determining whether the terms of the contract are the subject of the dispute.   Where it is established that the object of the dispute is a matter of contract, the validity of the arbitrator`s interpretation is not at issue for the court. The court noted that the Harbor Creek Supreme Court found briefly and in court that the elimination of a complementary position was not an arbitration because the collective agreement does not contain a language that allows the arbitrator to base its jurisdiction.

  The court rejected the School District`s interpretation of Harbor Creek that the parties cannot legally agree that arbitrators can rule on disputes relating to non-professional positions, including athletic directors.   The Tribunal found that «although the jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court, which states that disputes related to extracurricular work performed by teachers are not arbiters, because it is not a professional job covered by the collective agreement, its legal analysis and conclusion are based on the «basic test». Cranberry, 713 A.2d to 728. The federation filed a complaint regarding the borough`s failure to hire Mr. Bell for the position of head coach.   Id. at 59a-60a.   The association`s president, Linda Cook, signed the complaint and the complaint was filed as a class action.

  Id. The complaint stated that the District had violated the CBA by not hiring Mr. Bell, a member of the bargaining unit and experienced assistant coach.   Id. The means sought were: «Omission and omission sviolation, hire Mr. Bell as head coach and do so entirely by giving the head coaching salary of US$3,781 to the PDEA Scholarship Fund.»   Id. The Court held that teachers working in extracurricular positions do not actually work as teachers and therefore do not work as professional employees who can avail themselves of the appeal procedures provided for in the collective agreement, such as arbitration.   The Supreme Court agreed and upheld it.

 In addition, as the arbitrator pointed out, in this case, there is a member of the bargaining unit, Mr. Bell, who applied for the position of head coach and was immediately affected by the selection of an uns negotiated member for the position.   Although he did not testify, Mr. Bell was present at the conciliation of the complaint on March 13, 1998.   Id. at 61a-62a.   Accordingly, the arbitrator correctly concluded that Mr. Bell had a persistent interest in the case which found the arbitrator`s interest was not put to the arbitration claim.

Presiona nuevamente en el botón de Whatsapp para hacer tus preguntas.