Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Resign Too Early For Retroactive Pay? Too Bad, You are Out of Luck. Sorry. Morton v Mulgrew

I am re-posting here the case of Morton V Mulgrew which I originally posted on January 29, 2016, because I am asked so many times how educators forced to resign, can get their retro-active pay under the new UFT MOA.

You can't.
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, The NYC Public Voice

Decision (2015) in Morton v Mulgrew Concerning UFT Members Who Resigned After Nov. 1, 2011 and Were Denied Their Rights in the New UFT MOA

January 29, 2016
Dianna Morton

One of the many things I never understood, is how NYSUT lawyers get away with screaming and yelling at  tenured teachers (UFT members) charged with 3020-a, to get them to "irrevocably" resign.

Too many people have reported to me these tactics.

MY OPINION - and remember, this is my opinion - is that NYSUT lawyers know that each and every case brought to 3020-a has so many procedural and substantive errors that the best way to get the tenured teacher out of getting the UFT and DOE into trouble is by forcing the charged educator into signing a Stipulation of Settlement that gets rid of him/her permanently, and also prohibits the educator from ever suing the DOE for any reason up to the date of signing.

NYSUT does this, knowing that a resignation will stop the charged employee/UFT member from getting the retro-active pay due. This is deliberate malfeasance. However, according to Judge Mills, no one can sue for this:

Decision (2015) in Morton v Mulgrew Concerning UFT Members Who Resigned After Nov. 1, 2011 and Were Denied Their Rights in the New UFT MOA

January 29, 2016

Can a teacher who left the DOE before the date set in the UFT contract to obtain retroactive pay maintain a class action against the union based on the union’s failure to represent this group of teachers fairly?

by edlawfaqs
No. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement (the Collective Bargaining Agreement) entered into between the UFT and the DOE provisions were made for retirees and currently employed teachers to obtain retroactive pay for the period between the last day of the previous contract in 2009 and the new agreement. No provision was made for teachers who resigned during this period and were not actively employed on the contract date.
Four teachers who neither retired nor were terminated but resigned their positions during this period sought to maintain a class action against the union for its breach of its duty of fair representation.
Donna Mills, Justice of the New York Supreme Court, found that the teachers had no legal basis to maintain the case in State court but rather the teachers had a right to maintain an improper practice charge, under the Taylor Law, before PERB.
N.B. Given PERB's short statute of limitations it is doubtful whether the teachers could maintain such a proceeding in PERB.
edlawfaqs | July 26, 2016 at 11:59 am