Unit determinations and substitute teachers
Unit determinations and substitute teachers In the Matter of North Syracuse Central School District, PERB Decision C-2367 The 1981 amendment to the Taylor Law providing for representation of per diem substitute teachers (Chapter 814, Law of 1981) has required PERB to consider a number of "unit" questions. The Board ruled that per diem substitutes whose employer gives them reasonable assurance of continuing employment should not be placed in "fractionalized units" within a school district depending on the frequency or infrequency of their employment. PERB indicated that the authors of amendment "saw no difficulty in multiple representation of (such) per diem substitute teachers who hold … substitute teaching positions" with a number of school districts. Finally, the decision indicates that "the status of per diem substitutes who did not receive a reasonable assurance of continuing employment was not changed by the 1981 amendment. (See Section 201.7(d) of the Civil Service Law.)
Read more detail on Recent Administrative Law Posts –
Legal notice about the Unit determinations and substitute teachers
rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Unit determinations and substitute teachers?
- No automatic appointment for substitute teachers
- School nurse negotiating unit established
- PERB determinations
- TAYLOR: Not all district employees are pleased with teachers contract (The News-Herald)
- Appealing retirement system member service determinations
- Governor Cuomo's letter to the Chancellor of the Board of Regents regarding performance evaluations for teachers
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- Tenure Rights of Part-Time New Jersey Teachers
- BLLAHWU Boteti Branch In Solidarity With Teachers
- Pay for Suspended Teachers in New Jersey