The arbitrator found a New York City school teacher guilty of variousspecifications filed against her pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law. Thepenalty imposed: a four months' suspension of employment without pay andbenefits.
Supreme Court denied a New York City school teacher’s petitionseeking to vacate a post-hearing arbitration award brought pursuant toEducation Law §3020-a(5) and CPLR 7511, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In affirming the lower court’s ruling, the AppellateDivision said that the arbitration award had been made in accord with dueprocess and was not arbitrary and capricious, irrational, or lacking inevidentiary support, citing City School District v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917.
In response to the teacher’s challenge to the award on thetheory that the New York City Department of Education [DOE] had failed to meetthe time requirements set forth in Article 21(C)(3) of the collectivebargaining agreement, the Appellate Division said the even if DOE had failed tocomply with such time requirements “dismissal of the disciplinary charges againstthe educator was not required.
Article 21(C)(3), explained the court, “merely provides forthe removal of a contested writing from an employee's personnel file or recordin the event the procedural requirements of the Article are not followed.”Accordingly, such a defect “does not preclude the filing of formal disciplinarycharges pursuant to Education Law §3020-a.”
Citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union FreeSchool Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,34 NY2d 222, the Appellate Division said that “The penalty imposed does notshock our sense of fairness,” and dismissed the educator’s appeal.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03879.htm
======================
======================
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder