Does a subsequent removal of a chapter leader for a disciplinary hearing render an arbitration ordering the DOE to meet with him moot?

No. Francesco Portelos was elected as UFT Chapter Leader at IS 49 in Staten Island in July 2012. As Chapter Leader Portelos brought two grievances against the principal, Linda Hill, in which he alleged that she refused to meet with him as part of the UFT Consultation Committee to discuss budget allocations and refused to meet with him to discuss other matters pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.

The two grievances were combined in an arbitration before Jeffrey B. Tener on May 16, 2013 who sustained the grievances. The DOE refused to comply with the award because, it claimed, that “On April 25, 2013, the office of Special Commissioner of Investigation issued a lengthy report that dealt with Portelos both as the subject and as the complainant {DOE-6) The report discussed various allegations against Portelos and stated that “The investigation confirmed most of the allegations reported here.”* (p. 2) The report did not specifically identify those allegations.”

At the time of the arbitration award Portelos was not the subject of charges and had not been removed from his school.

The DOE refused to comply with the arbitration award. The UFT commenced a proceeding to enforce the award.

In a decision dated November 14, 2013 Justice Joan B. Lobis decided that the DOE’s argument that subsequent charges filed against Portelos rendered the matter moot was not a proper grounds for refusal to confirm the award.

UFT v. NYCDOE

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s