June 2022

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondent Violated Section 10(1)(a) and 10(1)(e) By Unilaterally Implementing Board Policy 3221 Pursuant to Which a Teacher Will Not Be Eligible to Advance on the Salary Grid if He or She is Rated Ineffective on the Annual Performance Evaluation, or Receives a Minimally Effective Rating For Two Consecutive Years; Respondent’s Argument that Section 15(3)(o) Eliminated the Right to Bargain Salary Schedules For Teachers Regardless of Their Performance Evaluation Scores is Not Supported by the Language in the Statute; Respondent Not Only Repudiated the Terms of the Contract When it Implemented the Policy, it Also Actively Engaged in Bad Faith Bargaining by Virtue of its Conduct During Negotiations; Respondent Failed to Establish the Elements of Equitable Estoppel, as the Record Established That the Union Objected to Any Attempts By Respondent to Link Advancement on the Salary Schedule to Performance Evaluation Results.

Election Directed: Commission Directed an Election For All Full and Part-Time GSRP and Preschool Lead Teachers, Aides, and Childcare Providers to Determine Whether They Wish to be Represented By the MEA or by No Union; Positions Possessed a Sufficient Community of Interest to Support Their Placement in a Singular Bargaining Unit; Lead Position Not Supervisory as Authority Related to Routine Direction of Daily Work; Proposed Unit Would Not Result in Fragmentation Because of the Lack of Interest From Existing Bargaining Units in Representing the Positions.

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: The Union’s Attempt to Arbitrate Grievance for “Overage” Compensation Allegedly Due to a Teacher Under the Parties’ Agreement Did Not Involve or Implicate a Prohibited Subject of Bargaining or Violate Section 10(2)(d); Parties’ Arguments Related to Contract Interpretation Are Not Relevant to Whether Grievance Implicated a Prohibited Subject and Should Properly Be Resolved Through Arbitration; Section 15(3)(h) Prohibits Bargaining Over a Public School Employer’s Decision to Use Technology or Implement a Pilot Program, as Well as Over the “Impact” of Such Decision; The Employer Failed to Produce Evidence That the Grievance Over Which the Union Demanded Arbitration Involved Either the Employer’s Decision to Use Technology or Implement a Pilot Program or the Impact of Such Decision.

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party’s Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order May Warrant Dismissal of Charge; Charging Party’s Allegation That Respondent’s Reluctance to Support Her Desire to Engage in Remote Work Violated Its Duty of Fair Representation Does Not State Claim Under PERA. 

Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order; Failure to State Claim