Former 3020-a Arbitrator Leona Barsky Tells the Judge She's Mentally Ill

I remember very well the 3020-a hearing that I worked on as the paralegal where Leona Barsky was the Arbitrator. Both I and the person who attended as the member of the public where astonished at Ms. Barsky's lack of respect for the process and for the private Attorney who was defending the Respondent.

We thought she was not rational.

Now New York Supreme Court Judge Ellen Gesmer thinks so as well. And Leona's ex-husband, Stephen Radin. Maybe they are all nuts.

Leona Barsky herself evidently thinks she is too mentally ill to hold a job (see article below). Did she come to this realization before, during, or after she was working as an Arbitrator on the 3020-a Panel with the Department of Education?

Betsy Combier

Leona Barsky (left) failed to soak soon-to-be ex Stephen Radin (right) for extra alimony by claiming she was
too mentally unstable to work

Judge doesn’t buy wife’s ‘mentally ill’ bid for more alimony

By Julia Marsh

She’s crazy greedy.
An Ivy League-educated lawyer tried to claim she is too mentally ill to hold a job — to get her estranged husband to pay for her lavish lifestyle after their divorce, according to Manhattan court papers.
But while Leona Barsky, 56, has been supposedly so whacked out, she has blown $1.5 million of her lawyer husband’s dough on plastic surgery, extravagant vacations, jewelry, clothing and legal bills, documents show.
Barsky — who arbitrated high-profile disputes between the city Department of Education and the teachers union in 2010 — also even volunteered to talk to law students at her alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania.
A Manhattan judge didn’t buy her crazy story — and has now awarded her a relatively measly $12,000 a month in alimony after she asked for more than five times that amount.

Justice Ellen Gesmer snipped in her searing, 29-page decision that Barsky could “achieve anything [if] she puts her mind to it.”
Gesmer was miffed by Barsky’s attempt to duck a court hearing by submitting a doctor’s note claiming she was on the verge of a heart attack — when she showed up at a Knicks game that night.
The fed-up judge calculated that the Penn and Cornell University grad — who once worked for Revlon — could earn more than $300,000 a year since she’s only been out of the workforce since 2012.
Barsky’s soon-to-be-ex-husband, Stephen Radin, rakes in more than $2 million as a partner at the international corporate law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges.
The couple was married for almost 25 years and has two grown children.
When Radin, 55, filed for divorce against his wife in 2012, she claimed that “her mental condition prevent[ed] her from maintaining employment.”
Barsky said her psychiatrist would testify that she was “very fragile” and “seriously traumatized.”
But the judge never let the shrink take the stand to answer questions about the unnamed mental illness because the same doc had already claimed in a previous custody dispute that her patient was “a strong person” who “has never evidenced any symptoms of mental illness.”
The judge also knocked Barsky for “lying on her net-worth statement by inflating expenses by large amounts in 22 separate categories.”
Barsky still made out well in the divorce.
On top of the alimony, she’ll receive 35 percent of the family’s $12 million in assets, including a 2011 Lexus, a $3 million Upper West Side apartment and $140,000 worth of silverware, jewelry and art.
She declined to comment.
Her husband also declined to comment through his lawyer, ­Robert Cohen.

Leona Barsky

Labor and Employment Arbitrator and Mediator, Human Resources Attorney and Consultant

Greater New York City Area

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Current	Workplace ADR and Compliance Services
Previous	Revlon Consumer Products Corporation,  Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel (currently known as Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel),  Townley & Updike
Education	University of Pennsylvania Law School

Summary

Specialties: alternative dispute resolution, arbitration and mediation, workplace investigations, employment compliance, training and audits, human resources, employment, equal employment opportunity/employment discrimination, affirmative action, labor and employee benefits law

Experience

Labor and Employment Arbitrator and Mediator, Principal Attorney and Consultant

Workplace ADR and Compliance Services

2004 – Present (11 years)

Labor and Employment Arbitrator and Mediator 2010 to present
Principal Attorney, Consultant and Factfinder, Workplace Investigations, Compliance and Training 
Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Martin Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, Labor Arbitrator Development Certificate Program

Vice President, Employment Compliance

Revlon Consumer Products Corporation

1992 – 1999 (7 years)

Employment/EEO, Labor and Employee Benefits Attorney

Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel (currently known as Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel)

1987 – 1992 (5 years)

Employment/EEO, Labor and Employee Benefits Attorney

Townley & Updike

1984 – 1987 (3 years)

University of Pennsylvania Law School

J.D.

1981 – 1984

Activities and Societies: M.G. Goldstein Memorial Prize for outstanding academic achievement in labor law

Cornell University

1980 B.S. 1981 M.S., industrial and labor relations

1976 – 1981

Master's thesis: "A Comparison of the Treatment of Arbitrability Questions in the Private Sector and the New York State Public Sector"

Activities and Societies: Daniel Alpern Prize for Leadership and Scholarship

Additional Info

Advice for Contacting Leona

leonabarsky@aol.com

Organizations

Additional Organizations

Board of Directors, Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations Alumni Association; Board of Managers, University of Pennsylvania Law School Law Alumni Society; New York State Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section and Dispute Resolution Section; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; American Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section and Alternative Dispute Resolution Section

A Tribute To the Late Deputy Chancellor, Kathleen Grimm

I was very fond of Kathleen Grimm. In the world where I have advocated for parents and teachers since 1999, I often had the opportunity to say what I thought of the NYC Department of Education. I haven't spent my 2 minutes in front of the Panel For Educational Policy praising the DOE, as most readers of my blogs - like this one - know.

Kathleen Grimm was on the PEP. She heard me. She also lived near me on the upper east side of Manhattan, and we often saw each other on the street, in nearby stores, etc.

Despite her job at the DOE and my finding lots wrong with the policies of the DOE and their implementation, Ms. Grimm always was friendly and respectful, as am I. But I admired her. She stood out from the crowd over there at Tweed, because of her quiet decency. I have been tortured by many who work for the DOE, and my children were all victims as well.

But Kathleen Grimm was different.

I will miss her.

Betsy Combier

Deputy Chancellor Kathleen Grimm and General Counsel Courtenaye Jackson-Chase

New York Schools Veteran Kathleen Grimm Dies at 68

Battling cancer, she stepped down as deputy chancellor in January

 

By 

LESLIE BRODY

Feb. 18, 2015 9:19 p.m. ETLINK

Kathleen Grimm, who served as deputy to four chancellors of the New York City schools, died on Tuesday night of cancer, officials said Wednesday. She was 68 years old.

Ms. Grimm stepped down as deputy chancellor for operations last month after working in the city Department of Education since 2002. A tax lawyer, Ms. Grimm oversaw a $20.5 billion operating budget and a wide range of issues, including food services, school repairs, space planning and enrollment, and often represented the department at contentious City Council meetings.

Chancellor Carmen Fariña called her a “passionate champion for all of our students,” with a commitment to excellence, a droll sense of humor and respect for decorum. “Some of our more casually dressed colleagues will recall being exhorted to grab a tie from the collection she kept under her desk,” the chancellor wrote in a memo to staff.

Ms. Grimm started working for the city in 1985 and served as first deputy commissioner at the city Department of Finance. Later she became deputy comptroller at the office of State Comptroller H. Carl McCall.

When former Chancellor Joel Klein took charge of city schools in 2002, he recruited her to join his management team because he needed “an insider” who could help him navigate Albany and budgets, he said. Mr. Klein said Ms. Grimm had great managerial skills and equanimity when explaining the department to critics angry about everything from busing problems and food complaints to dirty rugs and insufficient toilet paper.

“I used to joke with her that it was time to go to City Council, get your flak jacket,” Mr. Klein said. Mr. Klein is now chief executive officer at Amplify, which, like The Wall Street Journal, is owned by News Corp .

Ms. Grimm had an “inverse ratio between ego and talent,” he said. Often with talented people, he said, “their ego can get in the way. She had none of that.”

Born in Troy, N.Y., Ms. Grimm attended parochial schools and helped build the education department’s relationship with the Archdiocese of New York, Ms. Fariña said. She was also a trustee at New York Law School and an adjunct professor, teaching a course in municipal finance.

Earlier in her career, she taught English briefly in Obregón, Sonora, Mexico. She had a bachelor’s degree from Manhattanville College and graduated from New York Law School, with a master’s degree from New York University School of Law.

Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Ms. Grimm was smart and demanding. “She was never afraid to speak her mind—and always willing to stand up for our students,” he said in a statement. “She made everyone around her better, and she made our schools better, too.”

Write to Leslie Brody at leslie.brody@wsj.com

William Cullen Bryant HS Principal Namita Dwarka is in Trouble, Lots of Trouble

I would be surprised if this Principal-from-hell (Namita Dwarka) stayed in her job. But, I'm often surprised by the DOE.

Council Member Jimmy Van Bramer visited William C. Bryant High School in Astoria to
meet its new principal, Namita Dwarka, and speak with teachers, including his former teacher, Carl Brosnan.

W.C Byrant High School Madness

Bryant High School has a mini-jail on campus
The principal of William Cullen Bryant HS in Long Island City, Queens, has rounded up more
than 20 failing kids with behavior problems — and put them in a trailer where they stay all day.

Dwarka's Crazy Leadership & Bullying of Teachers and Staff

$195K unaccounted for at NYC high school

By Susan Edelman

, NYPOST Feb. 15, 2015


William Cullen Bryant HS

Bryant Parents, Teachers Demand Answers On Missing
Funds

BY LIZ GOFF, Queens Gazette

LINK

Teachers and parents of students at William Cullen Bryant High School are demanding answers from officials and Department of Education (DOE) officials – an accounting of almost $200,000 collected from students to support phys ed and student activities at the Astoria school.

Local leader and former Bryant Parents Association president Gus Prentzas said he and physical education teacher Peter Maliarakis last year sent a letter to the city Department of Investigation and DOE seeking answers about the missing funds.

Prentzas said the money comes from items purchased at the Bryant Student Union store, where students buy food, drinks, gym uniforms and other “authentic” school gear. The funds are supposed to pay for phys ed equipment, repairs to the school gymnasium and school activities, Prentzas said.

After a year went by without a response to their letters, Prentzas and Maliarakis reached out to the office of the Regional Superintendent for help, Prentzas said. “Still, no one has come up with any answers,” he said.

Maliarakis said he sent an email to Mayor Bill deBlasio and Schools Chancellor Carmen Farina and other officials in September 2014, telling them he had just two basketballs for use by 150 students in his three bale gym classes at the school.

Maliarakis said in his email that the two tattered basketballs are “at least” 10-to-15-years-old and they are “falling apart at the seams.”

On the following day, an assistant principal walked into the gym and handed over seven new basketballs to Maliarakis, he said. “But they were all girl-size basketballs. They’re smaller ad lighter than basketballs used by the boys,” making them useless as replacements he requested in the email, Maliarakis said.

Prentzas said he sent an email last September to school officials,  United Federation of Teachers (UFT) officials and school network officials demanding an accounting of the missing funds. “I asked them to show us what happened to the money, to show us deposit slips, receipts – anything,” Prentzas said. “ I asked them how and when the funds were used to support th physical education department.”

Prentzas said he has yet to receive a response on the whereabouts of the missing funds.

Prnetzas also spoke up at a September 19, 014 meeting of the School Leadership Team (SLT) about “thousands of dollars” in charges that had accumulated on a school credit card used by Bryant principal Namita Dwarka, including “$500 dinner charges.”

Prentzas said he questioned th4 charges again in a recent email to deBlasio an Farina, after SLT officials failed to respond to his original request.

“I’m not demanding answers just for myself,” Prentzas said. “I want answers for other parents, teachers and for students who want to know how the credit card funds are being spent. What dinners” With whom, and why?” Prentzas said.

Prentzas said he and Maliarakis filed a Freedom of Informaion request last year demanding an accounting of the missing Student Union funds. DOE officials responded, saying they were unable to find receipts for student purchases at the school store from 2011 to 2013 – and had only found several receipts from 2014, Prentzas said.

A DOE spokesperson this week said the agency is investigating the matter to determine exactly what happened to the money.

Will we ever get an answer? I hope so, but I doubt it,” Prentzas said. “Just like in the past, they’ll sweep it under the carpet and never give us an answer. No one will ever be held accountable.”

Superintendent Tamika Matheson, its Time you put “Kids First ” Give us a New Start and a New Principle

October 26, 2013 1 Comment

LINK  

Superintendant Tamika Matheson is very well informed about all the abuse and retaliation against staff ,students and parents by Principle Namita Dwarka.
Mrs Matheson ,the abuse of power  by  Ms Dwarkas and her  lack of experience to  work with everyone in her building( expect  for a hand full teachers)  has destroyed our school.
Ms Matheson Bryant High School Community needs a new start  NOW !!!!!!!!!
You need to ACT NOW ! If you care about our children ,you care about Bryant HS bring back the APs that were forced out along with a new principle . You have in your position enough documentation to make the RIGHT DECISION for our school.

 Contact Information

  Ms Tamika Matheson 

6565 Flatlands Avenue, Room 104B   Telephone Number 718-968-4101  x 1044 tmathes@schools.nyc.gov

City Council hearings on the NETWORK
Before deciding the principal ought to be replaced, She sought the advice of Tamika Matheson, the district superintendent of Manhattan High Schools. “Things aren’t perfect… but student attendance is up and teacher morale is also up.”
Even as Matheson, Sheehan and Cruz recounted the good that can come from a strong network-school-superintendency relationship, city council members remained skeptical of the networks’ value.
“I talk to all my principals, [and] I don’t know anyone who is satisfied with the current system,” Councilman Mark Weprin said. “Give me a superintendent and ten staffers and I will run my school district better than you are.”
Polakow-Suransky countered that he was familiar with many school administrators who are much more satisfied with the current network structure than they were a decade ago, when the schools were run by community districts. But Weprin was unconvinced.
School leaders, he said, “are afraid of their own shadows. They don’t want to do anything without checking behind them to make sure they’re not getting fired.”

Teachers at William Cullen Bryant High School suspect the "English learners" designations are a
scheme by Principal Namita Dwarka.

Principal cheats on tests by pretending students are immigrants

By Susan Edelman

June 22, 2014
Students at the troubled William Cullen Bryant High School in Queens were falsely labeled as not fluent in English — to grant them extra time to finish last week’s Regents exams, The Post has learned.
More than 100 teens in one teacher’s English classes were recently marked “FELL,” for “former English language learner.” The label grants students exam “accommodations” up to two years after they test proficient on the New York state English as a Second Language Achievement Test.
But many students given extra time on the Regents exams are native English speakers, staffers said. Others had once taken English as a Second Language but became proficient long ago.
“I was born in New York. I grew up in this country. I speak perfect English,” said a senior at the Astoria school who took the English Regents exam on Thursday — and got an extra hour.
Her parents, of Italian and Spanish descent, were also born in the United States and grew up speaking English.
She said she speaks “a little bit of Italian — whatever I can learn from my grandmother.”
So the senior was surprised to find herself on a list of many students given extra time to complete the normally three-hour Regents exam, which is required for graduation.
“I was rushing to finish when the proctor approached me and said, ‘Relax, take your time, you have extra time,’ ” she recalled.
She didn’t question her good fortune.
“I used it to my advantage. I think any student would have,” she said.
She spent about 15 minutes completing an essay and going back to answer two multiple-choice questions she had gotten stuck on.
Other students in the room also got extra time.
“If I get a better grade, it will help me get into college,” she said. “On the other hand, it shouldn’t have happened. I don’t feel it’s fair at all.”
Student rosters dated in March list 110 of 154 students, or 71 percent, in one teacher’s classes as former English language learners. Almost none was so identified on rosters last October, records show.
Teachers suspect a scheme by Principal ­Namita Dwarka and her administrators.
“It may be a way to skew the Regents results, or skew the credit the school gets for graduating these students,” a teacher wrote to the city’s Special Commissioner of Investigation last week.
An SCI spokeswoman said the matter was referred to city and state education officials.
Dwarka referred inquiries to the city Department of Education press office, which cited state policy on accommodations.
A Bryant teacher who checked records for a sample 25 students marked “FELL” found that eight never took English as a Second Language. The others all tested proficient on the state test well over two years ago — some as early as 2005.
Staffers have begged the chancellor’s office to take action at Bryant. About 200 students, teachers and parents protested outside the school last week, with some carrying signs that read, “Dwarka must go.”

The Chicago Public School Becomes the Island in "Lord of the Flies"

Public school administrators are becoming more and more like the boys in "Lord of the Flies"

Just my opinion.

Betsy Combier

Allison Bates

re-posted from Parentadvocates.org:

How a CPS teacher went from 'excellent' to 'do-not-hire' in
one year
By Ben Joravsky @joravben
LINK
On June 25, Mayor Rahm Emanuel invited a group of recent education-school graduates to help change the world by signing up with the Chicago Public Schools. "I hope you stay in the Chicago area because I will continue to do what I think is best in telling the city of Chicago that we have the best-trained, best-educated workforce," Emanuel said in a commencement address to graduates at National Louis University.

Rahm Emanuel

To hear the mayor tell it, CPS is a great place to teach. Obviously, he's never met Allison Bates.
Bates was a third-year science teacher at Austin Polytechnical high school on the west side. But earlier this year, she was fired and banned from working anywhere in CPS for the unforgivable sin of—hold on to your hats, folks—not putting her lesson plans in the red folder, as her principal told her.
Welcome to the bureaucratic nightmare of the Chicago Public Schools' do-not-hire designation, the latest chapter in the city's curious strategy of reforming the schools by making life miserable for the people who teach there.
In 2008 Bates, 35, received her master's degree in education from Dominican University in River Forest and went to work at Austin Polytech, one of three small schools housed in the old Austin high school.
"It's pretty much a neighborhood west-side school," says Bates. "You have your sweethearts—the little girls and boys from the neighborhood who are quiet and want to get their work done. You also have a lot of tough kids—kids with parole officers who can make it pretty hard on you."
As a rookie teacher, she had to learn to take control of her classroom. "I've had some moments," she says. "I've been told to shut the fuck up. I had one kid grab me on the arm and say, 'Move your ass, bitch.' You have to learn how to stand up for yourself."
She thought she was making progress. The principal who hired her, William Gerstein, rated her "excellent" in her evaluations.
But in the summer of 2010, Gerstein was promoted to a job with the central office. And CPS replaced him with Fabby Williams, an interim principal, who moved to Chicago from North Carolina to take the job.
In March, Williams evaluated Bates's performance as "unsatisfactory."
I called Williams to get his side of the story, but he didn't respond to my messages.
According to Williams's evaluation of Bates, her unsatisfactory rating had nothing to do with her ability to manage a classroom or teach science to her students, many of whom are reading on a fourth-grade level. In fact, the evaluation, which is based on Williams's observation of Bates for all of 30 minutes one day, makes no mention of her teaching abilities at all.
Instead, Williams notes that she had not followed his instructions to put printed-out copies of her lesson plans in the red folder that he instructed all teachers to leave in a box in their rooms.
"Based on lack of evidence (data binder and lesson plan binder which teacher is required to have in class daily and should have current materials in them) teacher did not regularly have lesson plans available for lessons taught," Williams wrote in the evaluation.
And why didn't Bates put the lesson plans in the red folder like her boss told her?
"It's just something I didn't get around to doing 'cause I was doing so many other things," says Bates. "In retrospect, I wish I'd have done it. And I have lesson plans. They're in my computer and the principal can read them anytime he wants. I believe in lesson plans. I follow them. I just don't need to print them out and have them right in front of me like I'm reading from a script."
To realize the significance of an unsatisfactory evaluation you need to know a little something about CPS probationary policies, so bear with me, readers.
Basically, probationary teachers—that is, those with less than four years in the classroom—have no tenure rights. They have their jobs on a year-to-year basis and can be fired without much of an explanation.
Moreover, probationary teachers who are given unsatisfactory evaluations and who are not rehired at their schools are slapped with a do-not-hire designation. Principals can hire back teachers evaluated as unsatisfactory, but if they don't, the teachers are essentially banned from ever teaching anywhere in the CPS system.
Traditionally, CPS reserved its do-not-hire designation for really bad people who do really bad things, like abusing their students.
But last year, then-schools CEO Ron Huberman expanded the designation to include probationary teachers with unsatisfactory ratings whose schools decide not to rehire them. So now do-not-hire includes people who don't put their lesson plans in the red folder.
One more time: thank you, Mr. Huberman, for all the wonderful things you did for the schools.
Anyway, Bates met with Williams on March 3 to talk about the evaluation. "I had two questions," she says. "One is, 'What is it about my teaching that you consider so bad?' And the other is, 'Are you planning to hire me back?'
"He told me he hadn't made up his mind about bringing me back," says Bates. "He also told me that I seemed frustrated. I said, 'Of course I am. My kids come in at a fourth-grade reading level. I want them to do better. Anyone would be frustrated. But that doesn't tell me about my teaching.'" She says he didn't have a response.
All told, Williams fired seven teachers, roughly a quarter of the staff. In addition to Bates, four others were probationary teachers who now face lifelong bans. Two of them tell me that Williams's evaluation cited them for not putting the lesson plans in the folder.
On May 16, about 100 students walked out of Austin Polytech in a show of support for the ousted teachers.
Two days later Williams called Bates to his office and handed her a letter from Flavia Hernández, the CPS chief officer for P-12 management, informing Bates that she had been "temporarily reassigned" to an administrative office pending "the result of an investigation of the incident/matter in question." The letter doesn't say what the "incident/matter in question" actually is. Hernández did not respond to my call for comment.
Once he'd delivered the letter, Williams led Bates back to her classroom to get her jacket and purse. "This is a school day and there's students in the classroom," she says. "They're asking me, 'Ms. Bates, where you going?' I could only tell them, 'I got to go.'"
After being escorted out of the school by security, she drove to the Area 19 administrative office. "I never knew why I was reassigned. No one told me what I was charged with or what incident or matter they were investigating. They punished me without telling me my crime."
Eventually, a union official—who filed a grievance on her behalf—told Bates that she'd been accused of inciting the student walkout. "That's ridiculous," Bates says. "The students did that on their own. I had nothing to do with it."
For the last month of the school year, until it officially ended on June 17, Bates reported to work every day at the area administrative office, where she sat at a desk in the corner and read a book. She's now appealing her unsatisfactory evaluation in the hopes of overturning the do-not-hire designation so she can get another job in the system. And she's still paying off the $13,000 she borrowed to get her master's degree.
As for her students, they got a month's worth of substitute teachers. Or, as Mayor Emanuel might put it, they "got the shaft."
Incidentally, Williams is no longer at Austin Polytech—he took a new job as principal at suburban Bolingbrook High School. "The man was here for less than a year and he left everybody's life in shambles," says David Corwin, another probationary teacher at Austin Polytech who was given the do-not-hire designation. "He's gone and we're left to pick up the pieces."
YOU KNOW YOU'RE REALLY OLD WHEN . . .
You're writing about the school-teaching kids of teachers you wrote about years ago. Let me explain:
In the winter of 1995, I noticed a story in the Sun-Times pointing out that six of the ten winners in a citywide high school poetry-writing contest came from Lane Tech.
I read the poems and they were pretty damn good.
Curious about why so many good poets were coming from one school—which back then was primarily known as a technical school—I made a few calls and wound up having coffee at a north side cafe with an English teacher named Randy Bates.
You guessed it—Allison Bates's father.
It turned out that Randy Bates was also Lane's drama coach and he was gearing up to stage a production of The Diary of Anne Frank. I came up with a plan to follow the production from auditions to cast party and write one of those endless epics the Reader used to run in those days.
Alas, a few days before auditions, the principal fired Bates as drama coach and reassigned him from creative writing. Apparently the principal was upset because Bates had complained about safety hazards in the auditorium to Lane's local school council, an oversight body of parents, teachers, and community reps.
A few dozen of Bates's students walked out to protest his hiring, staging a demonstration right in front of the school.
I wrote it up, hammering Lane with everything I had. Randy Bates told me that the assistant principal said to him that if "that newspaper guy" ever came to Lane, "I'll kick his ass."
Fortunately, he never made good on that threat, though I went to Lane every year to watch its Thanksgiving basketball tournament. Good thing I always wore my Groucho Marx mustache.
Randy Bates retired in 2006 and now he's reliving it all with the crackdown on his daughter.
As old teachers will tell you, the more things change at CPS—well, you know the rest.

E-mail Ben Joravsky at bjoravsky@chicagoreader.com. Joravsky discusses his reporting weekly with journalist Dave Glowacz at mrradio.org/benj. Subscribe to their podcast at the iTunes Store.

Bad Faith Bargaining: Union Fails To Communicate With Employer's Designated Collective Bargaining Rep

OCTOBER 23, 2013 by ADMIN

PERC Examiner Finds that Union’s Refusal to Communicate with Employer’s Designated Collective Bargaining Rep is a ULP

By Therese Norton

LINK

Both unions and employers have the right to designate who represents them in the collective bargaining process. In Kiona Benton School District, PERC Hearing Examiner Guy Coss ruled, without a hearing, after a motion for “summary judgment”, that the Kiona Benton Education Association breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to bargain with the School District’s designated collective bargaining representatives.

In this case, the District notified the union twice, and in writing, who it designated as its collective bargaining representatives. The union responded that it would only communicate with the superintendent and the union would “no longer” communicate with the employer’s designated representatives. The union argued that the employer essentially waived its right to designate a collective bargaining representative because it did not only use its designated representatives for collective bargaining purposes. The union also argued that the employer had been uncivil and difficult to deal with.    

Examiner Coss rejected both arguments explaining that the union’s refusal was “clear and unequivocal”: the union refused to “evercontact the employer’s designated representatives for any reason whatsoever;” and the union unilaterally “dictate[d] who the employer’s representative would be.”  The Examiner also explained that the uncivil behavior of the employer was “not material” because if the union had any complaints about the employer, the proper course of action would be for the union to file a complaint with PERC. Based on these reasons, the Examiner granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

The Examiner reiterated that the right to choose a representative extends equally to both the union and the employer.

“It is clear that both unions and employers have an important, though not absolute, right to designate those representatives that they feel are best qualified and positioned to represent them in collective bargaining.”

He continued by explaining,

“The Commission’s rules do not require parties’ representatives to be licensed attorneys or to hold any other license, training, or experience. It is up to each party to choose their own representatives based on the level of knowledge (legal or otherwise, experience, and training they feel is necessary to represent them.”

FILED UNDER: BAD FAITH BARGAINING, DUTY TO BARGAIN, PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS

 

What is a "Sexually Hostile Environment" in the Classroom?

Appeals Court Orders New Trial in Case Alleging Sexually Hostile Classroom

By Mark Walsh on February 5, 2015 8:55 AM

LINK

A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit brought on behalf of a Pennsylvania high school student that alleged a high school history teacher created a sexually hostile environment in the classroom by, among other things, showing nude pictures of murder victims.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled 2-1 to order a new trial in the civil lawsuit against Bruce H. Smith Jr., who was a 20th century history teacher at Pleasant Valley (Pa.) High School in 2007 when a female student identified in court papers as M. Young found many of his teaching methods offensive.

Court papers say Smith displayed photos of, among others, the nude body of Charles Manson murder victim Sharon Tate as part of a lesson about the "undercurrent of the hippies." Smith also allegedly said that women were not suitable to be U.S. president because they get their "monthly visitor"—or menstrual period.

The teacher also once compared the beauty typified by the "Gibson girl" of the early 20th century with Victoria's Secret models, discussing pushup bras and whether students thought one model's "breasts were firm enough," according to the student's trial testimony.

"It always came back to women," Young testified, according to court papers. "It was always degrading women." 

After Young's parents complained to the principal, Smith was suspended, but he was later reinstated and his teaching methods were monitored more closely. 

Young and her parents sued Smith over the allegedly sexually hostile environment in the classroom. The suit also named the principal, the superintendent, and the Pleasant Valley school district as defendants, claiming that Young faced retaliation for her complaint.

The case has a long and complex procedural history. A jury in a 2011 trial ruled against Smith and the school district and awarded some $325,000 in damages. But the trial judge tossed out the verdict and ordered a new trial.

In 2013, a new trial judge dismissed the suit's claim of sexually hostile environment against the teacher, and a jury ruled for the school district and administrators on the retaliation claims.

The family appealed those decisions to the 3rd Circuit court. In its Feb. 4 decision in Young v.Pleasant Valley School District, the appeals court panel issued a split decision.

The panel unanimously upheld the dismissal of the retaliation claims against the school district and administrators. 

"Here, the Youngs did not present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the School District's alleged retaliatory acts were committed pursuant to an official policy or custom, as is required to establish Section 1983 municipal liability," the appeal court said.

However, the panel held 2-1 that Smith was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Youngs' hostile educational environment claim.

"A reasonable jury could have found that Smith created a hostile educational environment," Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote for the majority. "Over the course of one semester, a classroom filled with 16- and 17-year-old students was regularly subjected to references to sex and graphic depictions of nudity and violence that degraded women."

"Such a classroom environment could make a reasonable female teenager feel uncomfortable, and it did in fact cause M. Young discomfort to the point of nausea according to her testimony," Fisher added. "Because the Youngs presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact for trial, we vacate the District Court's grant of summary judgment and remand for a new trial."

 

The dissenter, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, (pictured above) said that "only an environment permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult will satisfy the onerous standard for a hostile environment."

"The majority concludes that Smith's classroom environment could make a female teenager 'feel uncomfortable' and could cause 'discomfort.' But that is not enough" under the proper legal standard to allow the claim to go to trial, Hardiman said.

Bad Faith Bargaining: Kiona Benton Education Association Breached Its Good Faith Bargaining Obligation

 

AUGUST 29, 2014 by ADMIN

PERC Affirms Ruling Union Improperly Circumvented Employer’s Designated Collective Bargaining Rep

By Therese Norton
LINK

In Kiona Benton School District, the Public Employee Relations Commission affirmed Examiner Coss’s finding that the Kiona Benton Education Association, the Union that represents certain teachers in the School District, breached its good faith bargaining obligation under State collective bargaining laws by refusing to communicate with the District’s designated collective bargaining representatives.

Twice, the District sent emails notifying the Association of its two designated representatives and, if those individuals were not available, that the Association could contact the Superintendent of the District. The Association responded by email to one of the designated representatives indicating that the Union’s representative would not contact the designated point of contact and would only communicate with the Superintendent.

On Appeal, the Association argued that it did not commit a refusal to bargain unfair labor practice, because the District had repeatedly departed from its direction and a different Employer representative communicated directly with the Association regularly.  The Association also argued that the two designated individuals were unavailable or unqualified to respond when the Association contacted another Employer representative.

The Commission was not persuaded and found that the Association’s arguments were “attempts to justify” its actions.  The Commission reasoned that regardless of the Union’s explanation, the fact remains that the Union representative put in writing his refusal to communicate with the Employer’s designated representative.  The Commission determined that the response from the Union was “a clear refusal to communicate with the employer’s designated collective bargaining representative.” Therefore, the Commission concluded that the Union’s refusal interfered with the Employer’s right to select its representative for collective bargaining.

The Commission distinguished between Union officials’ right to lobby public officials on public issues and when a Union official commits an unfair labor practice by circumventing the Employer’s chosen bargaining representative.  In this case, the Commission explained that the District had designated a primary representative and the Association crossed the line into an unfair labor practice when it specifically informed the District that it would not communicated with that designated individual.

For a more about this case, please refer to our previous blog article.

Editor’s Note [Chris Casillas]: This case should not be viewed as prohibiting or limiting the ability of a union to directly contact and petition the elected representative(s) of an Employer.  In fact, PERC reaffirms in this case that Unions have such a right.  What set this case apart was that the Union officials repeatedly refused to funnel their communications through the Employer’s designated bargaining representatives, and instead sought to contact the School Superintendent directly on matters of collective bargaining.  While both sides have to respect who the other side has designated as their bargaining representatives, this does not mean that the Union is prohibited from seeking out and petitioning their elected officials to lobby on behalf of their members.

FILED UNDER: BAD FAITH BARGAINING

 

In Washington State, PERC Examiner Finds Bad Faith Bargaining

PERC finds Deputy Sheriff’s Association Bargained Regressively on Eve of Interest Arbitration

By Therese Norton

LINK

Both employer and union can violate their good faith bargaining obligations under the state collective bargaining laws when one party advances proposals prior to interest arbitration that are regressive from proposals made earlier in negotiations. In Spokane County (Spokane County Deputy Sheriff’s Association), PERC Examiner Stephen W. Irvin found, and the Commission affirmed, that the Spokane County Deputy Sheriff’s Association breached its good faith bargaining obligations by submitting a regressive wage proposal after impasse and shortly before the parties’ scheduled interest arbitration hearing.

The Association had initially tied its wage proposal to the Consumer Price Index (CPI); however, the Examiner had concluded that prior to arbitration the Association severed the tie to the CPI when conveying its wage proposal to the interest arbitration panel, resulting in an escalated wage demand.

The Association argued that it never intended to tie its wage proposal to CPI-U, because its proposal was meant to offset the potential of significantly higher out-of-pocket medical costs. The examiner evaluated the union’s overall bargaining behavior and concluded, “Despite the employer’s insistence on a wage freeze for 2012 and 2013, the possibility existed that the parties could have reached a settlement on the courthouse steps prior to interest arbitration.  The window of opportunity for a negotiated settlement closed abruptly, however, when the union switched courses on its wage proposal following months of bilateral negotiations and mediation in which it consistently maintained its initial proposal to link wage increases to CPI-U.”

Regressive bargaining occurs when one party at the bargaining table in some manner evidences an attempt to make a proposal less attractive. The Commission has determined, and the Washington Supreme Court has affirmed, that interest arbitration represents a continuation of the collective bargaining process and of the parties’ obligation to bargain in good faith. In this case, the union argued that its wage proposal did not infect the bargaining process, because the bargaining process was finished once impasse was declared.  The examiner disagreed, explaining that impasse can and should be broken if possible, even after the Executive Director has certified the matter for interest arbitration. “Offers can be changed after interest arbitration has been invoked, particularly when there is an apparent attempt to narrow the parties’ differences.”

The examiner explained the impact of the Association’s behavior. “Instead of narrowing the parties’ differences, the union frustrated the collective bargaining process by making its wage proposal less attractive to the employer and making it less likely that the parties would be able to reach agreement.”

Examiner Irvin also rejected the union’s argument that the employer’s complaint was not timely. The examiner determined that it was reasonable for the employer to conclude that the union’s subsequent email regarding its wage proposal was tied to CPI-U as it had been in its initial proposal. Therefore, the examiner determined that the employer knew of the change in the union’s position and filed its complaint within the six months statute oflimitation.

As a remedy, Examiner Irvin ordered the union to cease and desist from its illegal activity, to post appropriate notices, and to enter the interest arbitration hearing with the initial wage proposal it provided to the employer in which the wages were tied to CPI.

Editor’s Note (Chris Casillas): This case is a good reminder that the good faith bargaining obligation does not cease to operate once an impasse is reached and the parties have been certified for interest arbitration.  There is a statutory obligation that all collective bargaining be done in “good faith.”  The interest arbitration process was designed to be a final step in the process to reach a new collective bargaining agreement, but it is still a part of the collective bargaining process as a whole.  As such, both the employer and union must act in a manner that each side would reasonably believe could bring the parties closer to a deal rather than escalating any demands, and such an obligation continues through the arbitration process.  

FILED UNDER: BAD FAITH BARGAINING