BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
ITHACA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
ITHACA SCHOOL DISTRICT
(Kathy Harris Grievance)
Mr. Marvin Shipley, Executive Director, South West Education
Association, appearing on behalf of the Association.
Ms. Eileen Brownlee, Attorney, appearing on behalf of the
The above-captioned parties, hereinafter referred to as the Association and the
respectively, were parties to a collective bargaining agreement which provided for final and
arbitration of grievances. Pursuant to a request for arbitration, the Wisconsin Employment
Commission appointed the undersigned to decide a grievance. A hearing, which was
held on September 18, 2001 in Richland Center, Wisconsin. Afterwards, the parties filed
reply briefs, whereupon the record was closed on November 8, 2001. Based on the entire
the undersigned issues the following Award.
The parties stipulated to the following issue:
Did the Ithaca Board of Education violate or misinterpret Article
V of the Master Agreement
between the Ithaca Education Association and Ithaca Board of Education when it failed to
the memos of April 3 and 18, 2001, from Principal Flaherty to the grievant? If so, what is
The parties' 1999-2001 collective bargaining agreement contained the following
ARTICLE IV JUST CAUSE
No teacher shall be nonrenewed,
terminated, or suspended with loss of pay without just cause.
. . .
ARTICLE V PERSONAL FILE
A teacher shall have the right upon
request to review the contents of his/her personnel file in the
presence of the Superintendent and to receive one (1) copy at district expense of any
document contained therein. A teacher may be accompanied by a local association member
at this time. Once every two (2) years, a teacher shall have the right to indicate those
documents and/or other materials in his/her file which he/she believes to be obsolete or
otherwise inappropriate to retain. Said documents shall be reviewed by the Superintendent
and if, in fact, the Superintendent agrees that they are obsolete or otherwise inappropriate to
retain, they shall be destroyed.
No material derogatory to a
teacher's conduct, service, character or personality shall be placed in
his/her personal file unless the teacher has had an opportunity to review the material. The
teacher shall acknowledge that he/she has had the opportunity to review such material by
affixing his/her signature to the copy to be filed with the express understanding that such
signature in no way indicates agreement with the contents thereof. The teacher shall also
have the right to submit a written answer to such material and his/her answer shall be
reviewed by the Superintendent, or his/her designee, and attached to the file copy.
It is understood that the central
office of the school district shall protect the confidentiality of
personal references, academic credentials, and other similar documents received prior to the
teacher's initial employment; but it agrees that it will not establish any separate personal file
which is not available for the teacher's inspection.
The District operates a public school system in Richland Center, Wisconsin. The
is the exclusive collective bargaining representative for the District's certified teaching
Kathy Harris is the District's librarian and is a member of that bargaining unit.
In 1999, District administrators decided to automate the school library. This effort
be known as the library automation project. On October 12, 1999, Lynn Koresh, the
technology coordinator, met with Harris and discussed getting the project started. The first
of the project required "weeding" of library books so that a shelf list accurately reflected the
on library shelves at the time of the automation. It was envisioned that after the shelf list
it would be sent to a company that would use it to prepare the materials needed for the
(namely, software and bar code labels for the books). One of the items that was discussed at
October 12 meeting was the timetable for Harris to complete the shelf list. The timetable
discussed was Easter, 2000. Following this meeting, Koresh prepared a document
meeting which indicated, in pertinent part, that the "goal [was] to send shelf list by Easter
On October 25, 1999, Koresh gave a presentation on the library automation project to
School Board. Afterwards, the Board approved it and directed that the project proceed. As
this approval, the Board granted Harris ten additional paid workdays to weed library books
the 1999-2000 school year. It also granted Harris twenty additional paid workdays to label
during the summer of 2000.
Following the Board meeting, Koresh told Harris that the Board had approved the
automation project. When she told Harris this, Koresh offered to obtain help for Harris for
weeding phase above and beyond what the Board had approved, but Harris responded that
not need any additional help.
In December, 1999, Koresh asked Harris how the weeding of the library books was
proceeding. Harris responded that she had not yet started weeding. Koresh again offered to
Harris some additional help for the weeding phase, but Harris again refused the offer.
On April 11, 2000, Koresh asked Harris again how the weeding of the library books
proceeding. Harris responded that the weeding had been started but was not completed, and
not be completed by Easter. Harris then asked Koresh for two additional paid days for
(beyond the ten paid days already approved by the Board), because she had already used nine
Koresh subsequently took Harris' request for additional paid time for the weeding
back to the Board for their consideration. The Board denied the request for additional paid
decided that some of the twenty days allocated for labeling could instead be used for
On May 1, 2000, Koresh asked Harris again how the weeding of the library books
proceeding. Harris responded that the weeding was not yet completed. Koresh suggested to
that the portion of the shelf list that was completed be sent in (that, in essence, a partial list
but Harris rejected the idea.
Harris completed the weeding in late May, 2000. When the shelf list was completed,
packed it up herself and mailed it on May 26 to the Company that was going to make the
The District received the book labels from the Company that made them (Sagebrush)
The next phase of the library automation project began in August, 2000. That phase
placing labels on books. Many of the District's library books were labeled that month by
library aide and volunteers from the community. Not all of the library books were labeled
About 110 books could not be bar coded because the labels which were supplied by
In September, 2000, Harris and the library aide entered students' names on a patron
In October, 2000, students began using the new automated check-out system in the
Over the next several months, Harris tried several times to get the correct labels from
Sagebrush for the 110 books that still needed labels. She was not successful in doing so. In
2001, Harris told Koresh that about 110 books still needed labels. Koresh subsequently
Sagebrush about the missing labels and resolved the problem. Sagebrush sent the correct
those books to the District in mid-April, 2001.
In early April, 2001, Koresh told Principal Rick Flaherty that not all the books in the
were labeled and bar coded. Flaherty then sent several memos to Harris regarding the
of his memos are the subject of the instant grievance.
All of the dates which follow occurred in 2001.
On April 3, Flaherty sent Harris the following memo:
To: Kathy Harris
From: Richard Flaherty
Date: April 3, 2001
Re: Library Automation
CC: Lynn Koresh
I have been made aware of several issues
dealing with the library automation of which I am very
concerned. First, it has come to my attention that although the library was to be fully
all books bar coded by the beginning of the school year, this is indeed not the case. To my
understanding there are approximately 110 books in the library, that do not have bar codes.
it is my understanding that we were sent the wrong bar codes for the above stated books last
According to Tami Meyer with Sagebrush, this was a mistake on her companies' part, and to
this mistake all we needed was a PO sent to the company to receive the correct labels at no
The fact that this was not dealt with until March of 2001 is unacceptable.
Secondly, I am concerned that not all books
in the library are not being checked out
electronically. It is obvious to me that books without bar codes cannot be checked out in this
but all other books can and should be checked out in this way. Lastly, at this time, I am
that all students K-12 have not been properly instructed in the use of Athena.
I would like you to
share with me the times and dates that you have in-serviced the students on the use of
would like you to schedule an appointment with Mrs. Koresh and myself to discuss these
would also like you to respond to this memo in writing so that I can attach your response to
Two days later (April 5), Flaherty called Harris into his office for a meeting
library automation project. In this meeting, Harris told Flaherty that although she had not
so, she would respond in writing to Flaherty's April 3 memo. The two then discussed a
that to occur. Flaherty told Harris that he wanted to have the matter wrapped up by spring
which was to begin on April 11. Flaherty also told Harris to set up a second meeting and to
written response to his April 3 memo done by that time. Flaherty meant the foregoing to be
albeit one given in courteous language, that Harris was to schedule the next meeting before
break. Harris did not interpret the foregoing as an order, but as a suggestion (that she was
schedule the second meeting before spring break).
On Friday, April 6, Harris went to Flaherty's office to try to schedule the follow-up
but Flaherty was not there at the time. Harris did not leave him any kind of message about
On Monday, April 9, Harris was ill and did not work.
On Tuesday, April 10, Harris returned to work. She did not attempt to contact
day to arrange the follow-up meeting.
Spring break began April 11 and ran through April 16. School resumed on April 17.
On April 18, Flaherty scheduled a meeting with Harris for the following day. He
Harris the following memo:
To: Kathy Harris
From: Richard Flaherty
Date: April 18, 2001
Re: Library Automation
CC: Lynn Koresh
I sent you a memo on April 3, 2001, which
addressed three concerns I have with the library
program. In that memo, I directed you to respond in writing as well as scheduling a meeting
discuss the areas of concern. Further, on April 5, 2001 I gave you a verbal directive to
meeting before spring recess Tuesday, April 10, 2001. You did not respond to the memo in
writing, or by scheduling a meeting. This
type of insubordination cannot be overlooked. I have
scheduled a meeting for Thursday, April 19, 2001 at 12:45 p.m. Bring your written
response to the
original memo to that meeting. You should also bring union representation to the meeting.
I have provided two copies of this memo.
Please sign one and return to me immediately so it
may be placed in your personal file.
No material derogatory to a teacher's conduct, service,
or personality shall be placed in his/her personal file unless the teacher has
had an opportunity to review the material. The teacher shall acknowledge that he/she has
had the opportunity to review such material by affixing his/her
signature to the copy to be filed with the express understanding that such signature in no way
indicates agreement with the contents thereof. The teacher
shall also have the right to submit a written answer to such material and his/her answer shall
be reviewed by the Superintendent, or his/her designee, and
attached to the file copy.
The meeting referenced above occurred as scheduled on April 19. Four people
meeting: Harris, Flaherty, Koresh and Association Representative Marv Shipley. At that
Harris gave Flaherty her written responses to Flaherty's memos of April 3 and 18. Harris'
response to the April 3 memo was six handwritten pages and her written response to the
memo was two handwritten pages. Neither response is reproduced here. In her responses,
indicated she was shocked with what Flaherty had written and took umbrage with same, and
there were extenuating circumstances.
The next day, April 19, Flaherty sent Harris the following memo:
To: Kathy Harris
From: Rick Flaherty, Principal
Date: April 19, 2001
CC: Marv Shipley
Re: Conference Follow-up
This memo is to be a follow-up to the conference we had today
attended by Mr. Shipley, Mrs.
Koresh, you, and me.
On April 3, 2001 I sent you a memo that
raised three concerns about your job performance,
requested that you respond to the issues raised in writing, and asked that you schedule a
me to discuss the issues. On April 5, 2001 I came to you and asked that you make the
with me before we left for spring break at the end of the day on April 10, 2001. You
responded in writing nor made an appointment by the designated time.
On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, I made an
appointment with you for today as you had failed to
make an appointment. Today you gave me the written response that I had requested on
I have attached your memo to a copy of my original memo, and will ask that you sign it so I
place it in your file. You need to know that I appreciate your responses to my concerns, but
have been much better had the responses come in a more timely manner, and had you
meeting as requested.
I am concerned with your failure to make
an appointment within the deadline period that I had
established. I repeat that "This type of insubordination can not be overlooked," and have
signed copy of my April 18, 2001 memo in your file.
In our meeting today, Mr. Shipley requested
that none of this material be placed in your personal
The only argument that could possibly be
made that could dissuade me from placing the materials
in the file would be that you did not understand that I wanted you to respond in writing by a
time, and that I wanted you to make an appointment by a certain time. It is clear from your
memos that you knew that I wanted things done by a certain time, but that you decided to
own deadline. This is unacceptable. It is clear that when a supervisor directs that things be
uses courteous language and demeanor that the courtesy does not diminish the employee's
responsibility to perform the required tasks.
I will be placing the materials connected
with both my memo of April 3rd and my memo of April
18th in your personal file.
Harris then filed the instant grievance. The grievance alleged that Flaherty's memos
3 and 18 should be removed from her personal file. The District refused to remove them.
grievance was processed through the contractual grievance procedure and appealed to
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Association contends that the memos which Principal Flaherty wrote to Harris on
3, 18 and 19 were inaccurate and erroneous. Building on that premise, the Association
should not have been placed in Harris' personal file. As the Association sees it, it was
capricious not to remove them. The Association believes that the District violated the
bargaining agreement when it failed to remove the aforementioned memos from Harris' file.
elaborates on this contention as follows.
The Association avers at the outset that since Principal Flaherty placed three memos
personal file (i.e. his memos of April 3, 18 and 19), he was obligated to ensure that the
accurate. In the Association's view, that was not the case. To support this premise, the
notes that while the memos requested information from Harris, Flaherty then went on to state
view of the facts. According to the Association, some of the "facts" contained in the memos
"facts", but instead are Flaherty's opinions. The Association believes this shows that the
which Flaherty posed in the memos were only rhetorical, and were therefore not meant to
elicit facts from Harris because he (Flaherty) had already decided what the facts were that he
to hear. Additionally, the Association characterizes the memos (collectively) as accusatory
condemnatory in tone, and contained innuendoes which were meant to chastise Harris. As
Association sees it, this establishes that Flaherty's memos were inaccurate, erroneous and
represent the truth or reality." The Association maintains that erroneous memos should not
in Harris' personal file.
Next, the Association argues that Harris was not insubordinate in her actions. For
background purposes, the Association notes that insubordinate conduct generally involves the
following: 1) refusal to obey direct and lawful orders or 2) demonstrating contempt or
disrespect to supervisors in the conduct of their official duties. The Association contends
occurred here. With regard to the first category, the Association maintains that Flaherty
Harris a direct order to establish a meeting date on or before a given timeline. To support
premise, the Association calls attention to the fact that Flaherty wrote in his April 3 memo:
like you to schedule an appointment with Ms. Koresh and myself to discuss these issues."
to the Association, the word "like" does not constitute a direct order. Rather, it was a
Harris to set up a meeting with him.
Next, the Association argues that even though Flaherty did not give Harris a direct
nonetheless attempted to comply with his wishes. To support this contention, it notes that
attempted to schedule a meeting with Flaherty on April 6, but he (Flaherty) was not available
time. As the Association sees it, this establishes that Harris did not willfully ignore
Instead, it shows that Harris attempted to comply with Flaherty's request that she set up a
but she was unable to do so because of the very restrictive time available before spring break
Turning now to the second category of insubordination (i.e contempt or disrespect to
the Association maintains there is no record evidence of contempt, disrespect or insulting
by Harris to Principal Flaherty. To support this premise, it avers that Harris' responses to
memos of April 3 and 18 do not contain any offensive or disrespectful language. The
therefore believes that the charge of insubordination against Harris should not pass muster.
Aside from the arguments just noted, the Association also addresses the following
which, in their view, are raised by the District. First, the Association reads the District's
to raise a procedural objection to the instant grievance. The Association avers that the
not raise any procedural arbitrability questions when the grievance was being processed. It
Elkouri for the proposition that when an employer does not raise a
procedural arbitrability question
until the hearing, that claim is usually not addressed by the Arbitrator. The Association asks
Arbitrator to do that here. Second, it contends that the District's attempt to paint Harris as
uncooperative because she did not want help weeding should be unavailing. In this regard, it
attention to the fact that when a fellow teacher became seriously ill last year, Harris
assumed some of his extra-curricular activities.
The Association asks that the Arbitrator sustain the grievance and issue whatever
deems necessary to make the grievant whole. As the Association sees it, such an order
the following components: 1) removal of Flaherty's April 3, 18 and 19 memos from Harris'
file; 2) removal of all material which relates to those memos; and 3) a written apology from
and Koresh to Harris.
The District contends it was entitled to place Flaherty's
to Harris of April 3 and 18
in Harris' personal file. It contends it did not violate Article V of the collective bargaining
when it refused to remove those memos from her file. It elaborates on this contention as
The District begins its analysis by reviewing the contract language which is alleged to
been violated, namely Article V. For background purposes, the District notes that that
how items are placed in an employee's personal file, and under what
circumstances they may be removed. As the District sees it, just two sections of that
pertinent here Sections A and B. The District interprets Section A to give teachers
the right to
review their personal file and, once every two years, to seek the removal of obsolete or
material. The District interprets Section B to give teachers the right to file a written
response to that
material. Before applying this language to the instant facts, the District notes, for
purposes, that the Association does not challenge the placement of either memo in Harris'
file. Instead, the Association challenges the District's failure to remove the letters. The
that Harris never made a request to review her personal file or otherwise invoke the
described in Article V, Section A. Rather, she replied in writing to the memos, and as part
replies, requested that Flaherty's memos be removed from her file. The District avers that at
did Harris avail herself of the procedure specified in Article V for requesting removal
from a personal file. That being so, the District maintains that Harris did not attempt to
memo removed via the procedure specified in Article V, Sections A and B. According to the
what the Association is essentially trying to do here is get the Arbitrator to add a third option
collective bargaining agreement whereby teachers could seek removal of material from their
file that they find offensive. That option, if added, would allow teachers to seek removal of
from their personal file directly via the grievance and arbitration procedure. Citing language
contractual grievance and arbitration procedure concerning the authority of the Arbitrator, the
District contends that the Arbitrator should decline to do that. The District asks the
enforce the plain meaning of Article V and not to rewrite it or add something to it.
Next, the District turns its attention to the April 3 and 18 memos in question. With
to the April 3 memo, the District avers that in that memo, Flaherty identified three areas of
1) whether all of the library books had been properly bar-coded, and if not, why it had taken
March to do this; 2) whether all students had been instructed in the use of the library
3) whether the electronic check-out system was being consistently used. The District
memo to direct Harris to supply Flaherty with answers and/or information about these
to direct Harris to set up a meeting wherein the matter could be discussed further.
According to the
District, there was nothing unreasonable about Flaherty's request for answers and/or
The District notes that after spring break came and went, and Harris had still not responded,
sent her a follow-up memo (the April 18 memo). The District points out that in that memo,
noted that Harris had neither set up a meeting prior to spring break nor supplied her written
to his April 3 memo, so he had set up a meeting for the next day (April 19). The District
all these statements were accurate, appropriate and timely. It further avers that if Harris had
responded to Flaherty's first memo in a timely fashion, there would not have been a second
Finally, the District addresses the Association's argument that Harris was not
According to the District, the record facts belie that assertion. To support that premise, it
the following: 1) that Flaherty sent a memo to Harris telling her he wanted answers to
questions and a meeting to discuss those answers; 2) that Flaherty followed this by meeting
Harris and telling her he wanted her written response before their next meeting and that he
the meeting held prior to spring break; 3) that Harris understood that Flaherty wanted the
taken care of prior to spring break, but for her this was a "low priority item"; and 4) that
acknowledged that she made only one attempt to contact Flaherty (on a date that she knew he
very busy), and used none of a plethora of communication options to even attempt to
meeting with him.
The District therefore maintains it did not violate the collective bargaining agreement
refusing to remove the April 3 and 18 memos from Harris' personal file. The District
argues that if
the Arbitrator finds otherwise, and finds a contractual violation, then the appropriate remedy
be to remove the memos and place a memorandum in her file which indicates that she
biennial right to request that certain materials be removed from her file.
The Association reads the District's initial brief to raise a
procedural objection to the instant
grievance. If the District raised a procedural objection to the arbitrability of the instant
that claim would obviously have to be addressed prior to a consideration of the merits of the
grievance. In this case, though, it is unnecessary to address the procedural arbitrability of
grievance for the following simple reason: the District did not raise it as an issue. In my
Association simply misread the District's initial brief to raise that claim when, in point of
fact, it did
not do so. That being the case, there is no procedural arbitrability claim which needs to be
Having so found, the focus now turns to the merits of the grievance.
The pertinent background to this case is this: On April 3 and 18, 2001,
wrote memos to Harris concerning the library automation project. Those memos were
placed in her personal file. Harris took umbrage with them and wants them pulled from her
the District refused to do so.
The question to be answered here is whether the District violated Article V of the
bargaining agreement when it failed to remove those two memos from Harris' personal file.
that question in the negative, meaning that the District did not violate the collective
agreement by refusing to remove those memos from Harris' personal file. My rationale
Since the stipulated issue references Article V, that is the logical
starting point for purposes
of discussion. Article V, which is entitled "Personal File of Teacher", governs how items
in an employee's personal file, and how items can be removed from same. Thus, it deals
items go into, and come out of, an employee's personal file. Section A of that article
teachers have the right to review their personal file in the presence of the Superintendent and
every two years, to seek the removal of obsolete or inappropriate documents and/or
Removal of items is not automatic. Instead, the process works as follows: first, the teacher
determines which documents and/or materials they want removed; then, the Superintendent
those documents. If the Superintendent agrees that the documents and/or materials are
otherwise inappropriate", the documents are removed and destroyed. It is implicit from the
though that if the Superintendent does not agree that the documents are "obsolete or
inappropriate", then the documents stay in the file. Section B of that article specifies that no
that is "derogatory to a teacher's conduct, service, character or personality" will be placed in
personal file "unless the teacher has had the opportunity to review the material." What this
is that before any material which arguably falls into any of the foregoing categories goes into
teacher's personal file, they get the chance to see it and review it. They do not get to veto
however, or prevent items from going into their file. After the teacher sees it and reviews it,
have the right to file a written answer/response to that material. The employee does not
have to file
a written response, but if they do, it is attached to the original document and/or materials.
C of that article specifies that the District will protect the confidentiality of references,
documents received prior to the teacher's initial employment. It also specifies that the
not create a "separate [personal] file which is not available for the teacher's inspection."
Having just reviewed all three sections of Article V, the threshold
question is whether all are
applicable here. They are not. Neither side contends that Section C has any bearing on, or
applicability to, this case. That being so, just Sections A and B are involved here. Those
will now be applied to the record facts.
Attention is focused first on Section A. Notwithstanding the
Association's contention to the
contrary, Harris did not even attempt to invoke or utilize the procedure specified in Section
following facts show this. She never sought to review her personal file in the presence of
Superintendent for the purpose of designating the documents she believed to be inappropriate.
Additionally, she never sought her biennial right to request destruction of materials from her
file. Instead, she simply filed the instant grievance.
Turning now to Section B, it has already been noted that Section B
does not give employees
the right to veto unfavorable items from going in their personal file. Instead, it simply gives
right to see it (i.e. the unfavorable material), review it and respond to it (if they are so
that happened here. Flaherty gave Harris the opportunity to see
and review his memos before they were placed in her personal file. Harris then
availed herself of her
contractual right to make a written response to Flaherty's memos which were attached to
The foregoing facts show that Harris did not attempt to have either
memo removed via the
procedure specified in Article V, Sections A and B. Perhaps recognizing this, the
a different litigation approach: it argues that the memos should nonetheless be removed from
personal file because, in their view, the memos are inaccurate, inappropriate and erroneous.
argument appears to have a contractual basis because the word "inappropriate" is used in
Specifically, it is found in the following phrase from Section A: "obsolete or otherwise
to retain." The Association extrapolates the word "inappropriate" from that phrase and asks
determine if the two memos which Flaherty wrote were "inappropriate". The problem with
contention is that I am not empowered, under this contract, to make that call. The following
why. The last sentence of Section A makes it clear that the Superintendent gets to determine
items in a personal file "are obsolete or otherwise inappropriate to retain." Under this
is his call to make, and his call alone. Nothing in either Article V, Section A or elsewhere
collective bargaining agreement gives an arbitrator the authority to second-guess the
call governing what items in a personal file are retained or destroyed. While there are no
teacher contracts that give an arbitrator authority to determine if a particular item which is
a teacher's personal file is inaccurate, inappropriate or erroneous, this particular contract
Instead, this particular contract creates a very limited mechanism for removing items from an
employee's personal file. Specifically, it leaves that authority exclusively to the
Were I to do what the Association asks me to do (i.e. review the memos in question and find
inaccurate, inappropriate and erroneous), I would be adding a new step to Article V, Section
does not currently exist. Such a step needs to be obtained through negotiation not
Perhaps recognizing this, the Association chose still another theory to
litigate this case. That
theory was to implicitly characterize this case as a discipline case, as opposed to a contract
interpretation case. The factual basis for the Association's contention is that Flaherty's
(the April 18 memo) states in pertinent part: "This type of insubordination cannot be
Thus, Flaherty's second memo characterizes Harris' conduct as insubordination. In labor
circles, the word "insubordinate" refers to people or their actions who are not submissive to
established authority. Employers oftentimes discipline employees for insubordinate behavior.
this happens, employees sometimes challenge the discipline on the grounds that the employer
have just cause to impose same.
The basic question is whether just cause applies to this case. Based on
the rationale which
follows, I find it does not. What traditionally happens in arbitrating discipline cases is that
stipulate to an issue which references the contractual just cause provision, or if there is no
issue, reference that contract provision in their own wording of the issue. That did not
The reason it did not happen here becomes apparent when that clause, which is found in
is examined. The just cause provision contained in this contract only covers non-renewals,
terminations and suspensions with loss of pay. None of these things occurred here.
Harris was not non-renewed, terminated or suspended for her conduct. At most, Harris
written warnings from Flaherty. Written warnings are not covered by Article IV. The
have included them in its coverage, but chose not to. That was their call to make. In light
relatively narrow scope of the just cause provision contained in Article IV, plus the fact that
parties stipulated to an issue which referenced just Article V, the undersigned is not
utilize the traditional just cause analysis here to determine if Harris was, or was not,
by her actions. Consequently, no comment is made concerning same.
Based on the foregoing, it is held that the District did not violate the
agreement by its actions herein.
Any matter which has not been addressed in this decision has been
deemed to lack sufficient
merit to warrant individual attention.
In light of the above, it is my
That the Ithaca Board of Education did not violate or
misinterpret Article V of the Master
Agreement between the Ithaca Education Association and Ithaca Board of Education when it
to remove the memos of April 3 and 18, 2001, from Principal Flaherty to the grievant.
the grievance is denied.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 18th day of December, 2001.