3. Recent Cases
Manning -- pay for a “long-term”
substitute teacher
Harvard – what constitutes a
“change in circumstances” for a
RIF
Central City -- duration clause and
pay for unused sick and personal
leave
4. Manning Case
South Sioux City Ed. Ass’n. v.
School District, (2009)
School hired Manning as a
“long-term substitute”
1st
semester 2007-08
Clear agreement
Multiple correspondence
5. Union’s Position
Manning was not a substitute
A substitute must take the place
of a teacher on some kind of leave
Medical, attend conference,
sabbatical, military, etc.
Manning should be paid on salary
schedule with full fringe benefits
6. District’s Position
Used long-term subs sparingly
Association never negotiated comp
Manning employed less than half-
time, not a certificated employee
Contract case, not an unfair labor
practice case
CIR had no jurisdiction
7. CIR / Supreme Court
District unilaterally deviated from
negotiated agreement
Prohibited practice
Manning was not a substitute
She was a probationary teacher
[Entitled to all statutory rights of
probationary teachers]
8. Recommendations
Don’t use “long-term substitute”
except for actual substitutes
Use a replacement contract for
teachers who replace others on
long-term leave
Confer with district attorney
about special circumstances
9. Harvard Case
Miller v. School District No. 18-0011 of
Clay County
• Plaintiff RIFfed when school
contracted with neighboring district
for art instruction
• NSEA: no RIF if program remains
• District Court: ruled for plaintiff
• District appealed to Ne. Supreme
Court
10. Supreme Court
Chance to share programs did not
constitute a change in circumstances
No RIF because still have art teacher
on staff
Seemed to be trying to limit to these
facts??
• Probie vs. Tenured
• Communication to neighboring board by
their superintendent
11. Recommendations
Start the RIF process EARLY
Control EVERYTHING
Eliminate all stray talk
Use multiple data to prove change in
circumstances
Distance learning, staff sharing now
questionable
12. Central City
Standard wage / fringe benefit case
Except for continuation clause
• 3 years after prior wage case
• Previously litigated in Clarkson
case
13. CIR Holdings – Delete:
Number of contract days
Negotiated agreement “part of all
teachers’ contracts”
Board discretion to:
• Terminate pay after absent 60 days
• Grant emergency sick days
Make up days when fewer than 175
days of attendance
14. CIR’s (BAD) Holdings
Add contract continuation provision
Such provisions in 10 of 14 districts
This agreement shall continue in full
force and effect until a successor
agreement is adopted which is then
retroactive to the beginning of that
school year.
Pay for unused sick & personal leave
15. Central City
District appealed bad holdings
Supreme Court granted petition to
bypass
Supreme Court heard the case Dec. 1
Decision published last Friday
16. Supreme Court: Duration
Duration Clause is mandatory subject
of bargaining
Duration Clause doesn’t violate right
of unilateral implementation: “neither
orders District to enter into a contract
nor acts as a contract for an indefinite
term. [T]he … clause set[s] forth the
terms of the parties’ agreement until a
new agreement can be reached.”
17. Supreme Court:
Unused Leave
Payment for unused leave is prevalent:
10 of 14 schools
Terms of the provision ordered by the
CIR not supported
Remanded to CIR to determine
appropriate terms of pay for leave
18. Supreme Court: Dissent
Chief Justice Heavican and Justice
Connolly
Agree on Sick Leave
Disagree on Duration
• Extends CIR authority into future
contract years
• Violates CIR’s limited authority
19. Recommendations
Do not agree to a continuation or
duration clause voluntarily, but check
for prevalence
Hold the line on other issues: NSEA
has long-term plan, we should, too!
Keep your fringe benefits in line with
other school districts – the CIR is
very willing to ignore your excesses
