Will the failure of the DOE to follow the UFT contract’s requirement to reduce OSI investigations to writing within 6 months prevent a teacher from being disciplined under 3020-a?

Article 21, C(4) of the UFT contract provides that when an investigation of a teacher is conducted any report must be reduced in writing, given to the teacher with an opportunity to respond in writing within 6 months of the date of the incident investigated or the date that the DOE should have discovered it.

Phyllis Nuchman, a 29 year veteran special education teacher was charged with 3 specification dealing with her responsibilities with maintaining special education records and IEP conferences. The charges resulted from an SCI/OSI investigation which took longer than six months to complete. It was undisputed that neither Nuchman or her UFT rep were given written copies of the investigation or given a chance to respond before charges were lodged against her.

Arbitrator Jay Siegel denied Nuchman’s motion to dismiss the charges based on the DOE’s failure to comply with the UFT contract. After a hearing Nuchman was suspended for 4 months.

On appeal to State Supreme Court Nuchman reargued the motion to dismiss claiming that the provisions of the contract required that the investigation be completed within 6 months. Justice Cynthia Kern found that there was nothing in the contract which specifically prevented the DOE from bringing charges that were not reduced to writing within six months. Justice Kern found that the arbitrator correctly weighed Nuchman’s 29 years of service and rejected the DOE’s attempt to terminate her. Justice Kern found that the 4 month suspension was reasonable.

Observation: The contract language is pretty strong. It provides that “The writing may not be incorporated into the employee’s personnel file or record, unless this procedure is followed, and any such writing will be removed when an employee’s claim that it is inaccurate or unfair is sustained.” Given this strong language it is hard to imagine how charges can be sustained if is not part of an employees file.
In the Matter of the Application of PHYLLIS NUCHMAN, Petitioner, -against- JOEL I. KLEIN, CHANCELLOR, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, and THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondents, To Vacate a Decision of a Hearing Officer Pursuant to Education Law Section 3020-a and CPLR Section 7511. Index No. 111217/10, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY, 2011 NY Slip Op 30694U; 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1215, March 10, 2011

Is a request for medical arbitration necessary before going to Court to challenge a Line of Duty Injury request?

Anna Carter, a teacher assigned to the Reassignment Center, claimed a line of duty injury. She claimed that the injury occurred when “My knees were giving me pain I stood to go to the bathroom, and I tripped over two chair legs that were  straddling one another. ”

She completed the necessary paperwork and took an extended time before she was able to return to work.

Her OP-198 was not properly signed by the Superintendent and she was unable to produce a proper approval. Nevertheless the matter was heard by the Medical Board where Line of Duty status was denied. Carter then received a bill for a payroll overpayment of almost $34,000. No demand for medical arbitration was ever made by Carter or by the Union on her behalf.

Carter brought a petition in Supreme Court seeking the Line of Duty Injury status and the cancellation of the DOE recoupment of the alleged overpayment.

Justice Stallman found that the Court was powerless to review Carter claim because the Union contract permitted only medical arbitration as the exclusive remedy to challenge the Medical Board’s denial of LODI status.
In the Matter of the Application of ANNA CARTER, Petitioner, – against – Board of Education/Leaves Admin./HR Connect, Respondents. Index No. 401498/10, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY, 2011 NY Slip Op 31061U; 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1941, April 22, 2011