BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
NORTHWOOD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
NORTHWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Barry Delaney, Executive Director, Northern Tier UniServ-
West, on behalf of the Northwood Education Association.
Weld, Riley, Prenn & Ricci, S.C., Attorneys at Law, by Mr. Christopher
R. Bloom, on behalf of the Northwood School District.
The Northwood Education Association, hereinafter the Association, requested that the
Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission appoint a staff arbitrator to hear and decide
dispute between the Association and the Northwood School District, hereinafter the District,
accordance with the grievance and arbitration procedures contained in the parties' labor
The District subsequently concurred in the request and the undersigned, David E. Shaw, of
Commission's staff, was designated to arbitrate in the dispute. A hearing was held before
undersigned on May 29, 2002 in Minong, Wisconsin. There was no stenographic transcript
the hearing. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs in the matter by July 15, 2002. Based
the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the undersigned makes and issues the
To maximize the ability of the parties we serve to utilize the Internet and
software to research decisions and arbitration awards issued by the Commission and its staff,
footnote text is found in the body of this decision.
The parties stipulated there are no procedural issues, but were unable to agree on a
of the substantive issues and stipulated the Arbitrator will frame those issues.
The Association offers the following statement of the issues:
Did the District violate Article VIII, Section G, 3, a, of the
collective bargaining agreement on
December 20, 2001 by assigning Mr. Hagen to an IEP meeting during his
preparation period? If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
The District would state the issues as follows:
Did the District violate the parties' collective bargaining
agreement when it refused to
compensate the Grievant an additional 1/8 per day salary for attending an Individualized
Plan meeting during his preparation period? If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
The Arbitrator frames the issues to be decided as follows:
Did the District violate Article VIII, Section G, 3, a, of the
parties' collective bargaining
agreement by requiring the Grievant to attend an IEP meeting on December 20, 2001 during
regularly-scheduled preparation period and thereafter refusing to pay him an additional 1/8 of
salary? If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
The following provisions of the parties' 2001-2003 Agreement are cited:
ARTICLE II MANAGEMENT
. . .
. . .
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is expressly
recognized that the Board's
operational and managerial responsibility includes:
. . .
12. The right to establish and revise the school
calendar, establish hours of employment,
to schedule classes and assign work loads, and to select textbooks, teaching aids and
. . .
ARTICLE VIII WORKING
. . .
Section G School
. . .
3. Preparation Period:
a. Secondary teachers shall be scheduled for
a minimum of one preparation period per
day or the equivalent thereof for one semester and a minimum of two preparation
periods per day or the equivalent thereof in the other semester.
Preparation periods shall be those
periods during which the teacher is not assigned to
regular programmed responsibilities.
A teacher may elect to teach a
semester class in place of a study hall. No teacher will
be fully or partially laid off in future years if a study hall monitor is hired to replace
teachers presently serving as study hall monitors.
. . .
Section N Overload
Full time teachers who accept an overload
will be compensated an extra 1/8 of their regular
. . .
The District and the Association have been parties to a collective bargaining
covering the District's professional employees for a number of years and are currently parties
2001-2003 agreement. The Grievant has been employed by the District as a classroom
the past 23 years. In the 2001-2002 school year, the Grievant taught classes in history,
and current events. The normal teaching load is six classes, a study hall and one preparation
one semester and six classes and two preparation periods the other semester. There are eight
periods of 45 minutes each per day. For the first semester of the 2001-2002 school year, the
elected to teach a seventh class in lieu of a study hall and had one preparation period per
On December 20, 2001, the Grievant was required to attend an "IEP" (Individualized
Educational Plan) meeting for a special education student in one of the history classes the
was teaching. The IEP meeting was held during the Grievant's preparation period and was
by the Grievant, as a regular education teacher, the School Psychologist, the Special
teacher, the student and the student's parent. The purpose of an IEP meeting is to discuss
student's progress under the IEP and to review the IEP and discuss whether the plan needs to
modified. At the December 20th IEP meeting, the Grievant was asked if he
thought the student could
succeed in his class and he responded that he did not think she could and that she should
be placed in a special education situation rather than be mainstreamed. The Grievant had to
IEP meeting before it was over as he had a class to teach and there was no substitute to
He was later informed that the student would remain in his class.
The Grievant subsequently requested that he be paid "overload pay" of 1/8 of his
for being assigned to attend the IEP during his only preparation period on
December 20th. The
Grievant's request was denied by the school's Principal, Lon Bagley. By the following letter
January 2, 2002, a grievance was then initiated on the Grievant's behalf:
Dear Mr. Bagley:
Please consider this letter as the initiation of
step 2 of the grievance procedure.
On 12/20/01 Tom Hagen was required to
attend an IEP meeting during his only prep time of the
It is our opinion that the District has
violated Article 8 section G(3a) of the contract.
For relief we are requesting that Tom Hagen be paid for the
period that he participated in the IEP
which is equal to 1/8 of his daily salary.
NEA Grievance Committee
Bagley responded to the grievance by a letter of January 7, 2002, which, in relevant
Dear Mr. Olson:
I am writing in response to your letter dated
January 2, 2002, as per Article IV, Section C, Step
2 of the Master Agreement between the Northwood School District and the Northwood
Association. After careful consideration of your request I find no justification to alter my
I do not believe I have violated Article
VIII(G, 3, a) of the contract based on the following
Mr. Hagen has been scheduled appropriate
preparation periods as per the contract.
The contract does not
dictate that any compensation is warranted for attending an IEP
meeting during preparation times.
In the eighteen
months that I have worked here, a number of IEP meetings have been
scheduled during a regular education teacher's preparation period to prevent the
teacher from losing valuable instruction time with their class(es).
To date, this is the
second request for compensation, and I have denied both requests.
Attending an IEP
meeting to discuss a student's educational program is appropriate
use of a preparation period.
Please contact me if you need any
clarification concerning this correspondence.
Lon Bagley /s/
The grievance was processed through the steps of the procedure, including a hearing
the District's Board of Education. By the following letter of February 19, 2002, the Board
DATE: February 19, 2002
TO: Brian Olson, NEA Grievance Committee; Tom
Bill Stapp, Superintendent; Lon
Bagley, Principal Northwood School
FROM: Jan Jensen, President
Northwood School Board
SUBJECT: Grievance Hearing
Determination Tom Hagen request for Extra Pay for
attending an IEP meeting during regularly scheduled Prep Period
On February 14, 2002 the Northwood
School Board heard evidence presented by Northwood
School District administration members, Bill Stapp and Lon Bagley, and the complainant,
Hagen, and NEA Grievance Committee Chairman, Brian Olson regarding a grievance filed
Hagen pertaining to the denial of extra pay at the rate of 1/8 of his daily salary for being
use his prep period for an IEP meeting on December 20, 2001. During and following
questions were submitted and answered by both sides. School board members also submitted
questions to all parties involved. Following testimony, both sides gave closing statements
then excused while the board deliberated.
Conclusions drawn by the Northwood
School Board in deliberation after the hearing are as
Teacher attendance at IEP meetings is a
State requirement and, as such, becomes part of
the teacher's regular duties. Mr. Hagen stated that he prefers not to have his class periods
interrupted and, therefore, by default, IEP meetings should be scheduled during prep time.
IEP meetings are
held to 'prepare' an educational plan for a student and fall into the scope
of the intended use of a teacher's prep period. Mr. Hagen stated that, although it is
difficult to find time to make numerous parent contacts regarding students, he considers
his prep period the appropriate time for such activity.
including Mr. Hagen, have previously attended IEP meetings during their
prep periods and have not requested additional compensation. The few cases that were
cited as having been paid previous were, in the board's judgment, erroneously paid
through a clerical oversight as part of reimbursed 'comp time' schedules, and were paid
at a classroom supervision rate rather than at 1/8 of the teachers' daily salary.
The Board very much appreciates the time
and dedication that Mr. Hagen puts into his classes
and in particular the Advanced Placement course he cited in his arguments. However, the
that the circumstances cited were not those experienced in the course of normal classroom
and, therefore, should not be used to set precedent for future pay practices. As such, the
School Board determines that the administration did not violate Article 8, Section G of the
Agreement in its decision to refuse the additional pay requested by Mr. Hagen.
Jan Jensen /s/
Northwood School Board
Both the Association and the District presented evidence as to past practice. The
presented four teachers, including the Grievant, who testified that in the past they had
compensatory time or extra pay for attending an IEP during their preparation period. The
presented the testimony of Bagley and Financial Administrative Assistant
Audrey Visger that no teacher had received compensatory time or extra pay the past
two school years
for attending IEP's during their preparation periods, and that, of the 21 teachers who had
IEP's during their preparation periods in the 1999-2000 school year, three teachers had
been given compensatory time on that basis, some of which was paid out at the end of the
at the "supervision" rate in the Agreement.
Being unable to resolve their dispute, the parties proceeded to arbitration before the
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Association asserts that the language of Article VIII, G, 3, a, of the Agreement
and unambiguous and that therefore past practice as to how it has been applied is not
provision has three paragraphs that apply to secondary teachers, such as the Grievant. The
paragraph reads "Secondary teachers shall be scheduled for a minimum of one preparation
day or the equivalent thereof for one semester and a minimum of two preparation periods per
the equivalent thereof in the other semester." That language treats the two semesters as
separate time frames with a minimum preparation time for each semester. Thus, the District
use the average of the total preparation periods over the two semesters in order to be
compliance with the preparation period contract language. During the first semester of the
2001-2002 school year, the Grievant was scheduled for one preparation period per day, the
required. By directing the Grievant to attend an IEP meeting on December 20th, during his
preparation period, the District violated the minimum amount of preparation time, or its
provided for in Article VIII, G, 3, a.
The second paragraph of Article VIII, G, 3, a, of the Agreement reads, "Preparation
shall be those periods during which the teacher is not assigned to regular programmed
responsibilities." While the District argues that IEP meetings are not "regular programmed
responsibilities", Bagley testified that IEP meetings are for the purpose of developing or
the individual educational plan for a special education student and that at least one IEP
student is scheduled yearly. The Grievant testified that he had 18 special education students
classes during the 2001-2002 school year. Special education is certainly a District program
meetings are part of the special education program. 80 IEP meetings per year is certainly
and having 18 special education students in your class, where all 18 will have IEP's, is
of a program and a regular situation. Thus, by directing the Grievant to give up his
for an IEP meeting the District was assigning him to "regular programmed responsibilities"
his preparation period and depriving him of his preparation period in violation of Article
VIII, G, 3,
a of the Agreement.
In response to the District's argument that the Grievant had the equivalent of one
period per day for the first semester due to extra preparation time provided as a result of
activities, the Association asserts that the Grievant's uncontradicted testimony was that all
activities listed in Joint Exhibit 6 did not apply to him for the first semester of 2001-2002.
Grievant testified that for each activity, either the activity did not cover the grade level of
he was teaching at the time or in some of the activities only some of his students were
others were not. He testified, and Bagley agreed, that he never received any additional
time due to those outside activities.
The Association also disputes the District's assertion that attending IEP meetings by
is an appropriate use of preparation periods. In that regard, the President of the Board of
stated, and the Superintendent and Principal also agreed, that teacher attendance at IEP
part of the teacher's "regular duties". The second paragraph of Article VIII, G, 3, a, states
during preparation periods, teachers will not be assigned "regular programmed
IEP meetings are part of a teacher's regular duties, then according to that provision, such
at IEP meetings cannot be considered as preparation time if they are directed to attend.
being directed by the administration to do something during a preparation period is decidedly
than the teacher determining his/her own priorities and what needs to be done during a given
preparation period. Article VIII, G, 3, a, allows the teacher to determine what
preparation is needed
during the preparation period, but does not allow the District to assign regular
a time which will be counted as part of the minimum amount of preparation time provided to
The District also argues that the phrase "regular programmed" found in the second
applies only to regular programs of the teacher and does not include regular programs of the
However, the contract language does not restrict the phrase to just teachers. If the parties
intended such a restriction, they would have put it in the language. Even if they had, there
have been a violation in the Grievant's case, as having 18 special education students in a
all having IEP's to be followed, and being required to attend IEP meetings, are all part of his
responsibilities in the special education program.
Further, what takes place at an IEP meeting does not have anything to do with
All four teachers who testified stated that the IEP meetings do not help in any way prepare
how to work with the student in question, that the regular education teacher and the parent
share information about what accommodations the student needs in class, and that the regular
education teacher does not have any impact on what will be placed in the student's IEP.
testimony clearly shows that attendance of a regular education teacher at IEP meetings has
to do with preparing lessons for the student, or making a decision on what learning strategies
appropriate for the student, and do not help the regular education teacher prepare as to how
should educate the student. The teachers
also testified that they receive a copy of the IEP for each special education student they
tells them what accommodation they are required to follow in the classroom. They do not
attend IEP meetings to obtain that information. The Grievant testified that he would not have
less about the student if he had not attended the December 20th IEP meeting, that when he
the IEP for the student, the accommodations from the previous year had not changed, and
that he has
very little knowledge of what is supposed to take place at IEP meetings. According to the
Association, the testimony clearly shows that the purpose of having a regular education
the IEP meeting in this District is only to follow the federal law, and has nothing to do with
how to educate the student by the regular education teachers.
The Association also disputes the District's claim that teachers have not been paid in
for attending IEP meetings during their preparation period except through clerical or
error. In the Superintendent's response to the grievance, he stated that over the past 18
practice had been that no additional salary is paid for attending IEP meetings during a
preparation period. Bagley testified that during his two years with the District, no teacher
received compensatory time for attending IEP meetings. Bagley conceded that District
which the District relies on to support the alleged practice, is not a complete list of all the
meetings held during the 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years. Further, while
testified that during the 2000-2001 school year the administration directed special education
to schedule teachers for IEP meetings during their preparation periods so that the District
have to obtain substitutes for their classes, District Exhibit 2 shows that in fact the
teachers scheduled for IEP's during their class periods, rather than their preparation periods,
increased in the past two years. Teachers taken out of their class teaching duties for IEP
do not have to give up their preparation periods and do not suffer the harm as do the teachers
receiving their preparation period.
District Exhibit 2 also does not show which teachers, if any, attended IEP meetings
their preparation time and did not receive an equivalent amount of minimum required
time. Bagley testified he has no idea which of the teachers who attended IEP meetings
during the last
three years did not receive the equivalent of the minimum scheduled preparation time
Article VIII, G, 3, a. Without that information, the District's argument that over the last
no teachers have been paid for giving up their preparation period is invalid with regard to the
in this case. Here, the Grievant did not receive one preparation period per day or its
during the first semester of 2001-2002 due to his required attendance at the December
meeting. There is no evidence in the record that any other teacher was affected in this way,
there is no past practice demonstrated of not paying teachers who do not receive their
preparation time due to attending IEP meetings.
Moreover, the District's Administrative Assistant, Audrey Visger, testified that the
does not keep records of who gets compensatory time, nor for what reason they received it.
the District has an informal system where the teachers keep track of what compensatory time
are owed, and the only records the District has is if the teacher does not use the accumulated
compensatory time by the end of the year, and turns it in so that they can be paid for that
time at the
end of the school year. If the teacher takes the compensatory time off during the year, the
has no record of who earned it. Three of the four teachers who testified stated that they had
during the school year the compensatory time off that they received for attending IEP
during their preparation periods. Thus, their compensatory time never showed up in the
With regard to remedy, the Association notes that the Grievant volunteered to take
teaching periods with one preparation period out of an eight-period day, rather than having
teaching periods and one study hall. Teaching an extra class requires more preparation time
giving up the assigned study hall, he in fact lost some preparation time while his work load
more preparation time. Article VIII, Section N, states: "Full-time teachers who accept an
will be compensated an extra one-eighth of their regular salary." The Association requests
that it be
determined that the Grievant had an overload on December 20th, and that the District should
1/8 of his normal daily salary for that overload.
The District first asserts that its interpretation of the Agreement is correct.
Article II, Section
B, 12, of the Management Rights provision provides that the District has the right to ". .
classes and assign workloads. . ." Section C of that provision provides that management
not limited except as ". . .specifically nullified by this Agreement." Article VIII, Sec. G, 3,
a, of the
Agreement provides a limitation upon the District's right to schedule employees, in that it
that "Secondary teachers shall be scheduled for a minimum of one preparation period per day
equivalent thereof for one semester. . ." and that "Preparation periods shall be those periods
which the teacher is not assigned regular programmed responsibilities."
The Grievant was scheduled to have one preparation period per day for the first
the 2001-2002 school year. In order for the Association to prove that the contract was
must establish that the Grievant was deprived of one preparation period or its equivalent.
contract defines a preparation period to be those periods in which a teacher is not assigned to
"regular programmed responsibilities". Thus, the Association must first prove that an IEP
is part of a teacher's "regular programmed responsibilities". The District asserts that it is
not. In that
regard, it is a principle of contract interpretation that for technical terms arbitrators shall give
preference to technical or trade usage. See St. Antoine,
Theodore J., The Common Law of the Workplace,
Section 2.5, at p. 69. In the trade of an educator,
"regular programmed responsibilities" includes supervising and instructing students. A
period is not part of their regular programmed responsibility because those activities involve
preparation for the education of students by creating lesson plans, grading homework or
evaluating a student's progress. Similarly, an IEP meeting is for the purpose of preparing an
educational plan for an individual student, and not for the regular program responsibilities of
educating the special education student. Thus, "regular programmed responsibilities" was
intended to include an IEP meeting, as the term is used in the trade.
An IEP meeting was held on December 20, 2001 involving the Grievant, the School
Psychologist, the Special Education teacher as well as the student and the student's parent, at
the parties present discussed the student's progress in the Grievant's class. Clearly, the
subject of the
meeting was to discuss the student's progress and any potential revisions to the student's
and was not to educate the student in course material. This meeting is required by federal
the purpose of assuring that the student is receiving a proper education. In this sense, an
is no different than a meeting with a regular education student and his/her parent. The
testified he often confers with regular education students during his preparation period.
Agreement, both instances are proper uses of a preparation period.
Another principle of contract interpretation is that industry practice (in this case other
districts in similar situations) can be a guide to the intended meaning of a contract provision.
and Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, at p. 507. Here, the
District surveyed the athletic conference
regarding whether any school provided compensation for IEP meetings, and the results
none of the other districts did so. Thus demonstrating that the other districts view an IEP as
use of a teacher's preparation period.
Next, the District asserts that as the parties' Agreement does not explicitly define
programmed responsibilities" in Section G, 3, a, the language can be considered ambiguous,
therefore past practice may be used to clarify the language.
Principal Bagley testified that the District's past practice has been to schedule IEP
during a regular classroom teacher's preparation period when possible, and that the District
meetings as a normal part of a teacher's preparation period activity, and not part of their
programmed responsibilities". Thus, teachers are not compensated, nor given compensatory
for attending such meetings during their preparation period. In the last three school years,
has held at least 179 IEP meetings, at least 67 of which have been scheduled during the
teacher's preparation period. None of those teachers received compensatory time or
for attending any of those 67 meetings.
The Association argues that the practice is not consistent because a few teachers were
compensatory time for attending IEP meetings during their preparation periods in the
school year. Association witnesses Martell, Denninger and Jockisch testified that they had
compensatory time for attending IEP meetings. However, both Martell and Jockisch
cross-examination that they received compensatory time for only three meetings attended
1999-2000 school year. District Finance Administrative Assistant Audrey Visger explained
instances were simply oversights where they had been improperly recorded by the teachers
compensatory time sheet at the end of the year. More importantly, Martell had three IEP
during his preparation period in 2000-2001 school year, and two IEP meetings in the
school year, and was never given, nor did he request, compensatory time in those instances.
the District's records show that in the last three school years, Denninger only attended an
meeting once, on November 14, 2001, and it was not during his preparation period.
While the District awards compensatory time to teachers who supervise classes for
teacher when the regular teacher is absent, it does not award compensatory time for attending
meeting during a teacher's preparation period. Had Visger noticed that the teachers had
attendance at an IEP meeting as compensatory time, she would have brought this to the
attention and they would not have received compensatory time. However, three instances of
in three years does not rise above the level of de
minimis when compared to the more than 67
instances of the District's practice. Further, no teacher who attended an IEP meeting during
preparation period in the past three years received, or even requested, compensatory time.
the Association has accepted the District's practice.
Last, the District asserts that even if an IEP meeting is a "regular programmed
no contract violation occurred, as Section G, 3, a, of the Agreement provides that a teacher
scheduled for one preparation period ". . or the equivalent thereof." Even if the Grievant
deprived of his preparation period on December 20, 2001, there were other periods where he
assigned his "regular programmed responsibilities" that compensate for the lost preparation
The preparation period lasts 45 minutes, and as Principal Bagley testified, teachers have
where they are not assigned their "regular programmed" activities in addition to their daily
preparation periods, e.g., field trips where they are relieved of their supervision and teaching
and periods where students are out of the class for various testing that occurs throughout the
Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Grievant was deprived of 45 minutes when he was not
his "regular programmed responsibilities" during the 2001-2002 school year.
As it must, the analysis of the issue in this case begins with a review of the
language. Article VIII, Section G, 3, a, of the parties' Agreement contains sufficiently clear
in the first paragraph requiring that secondary teachers are to be scheduled for "a minimum
preparation period per day, of the equivalent thereof for one semester. . ." 1/ There
really is no
dispute in this regard; rather, the dispute in this case centers on the second paragraph of
Sec. G, 3, a, which provides that:
Preparation periods shall be those periods during which the
teacher is not assigned to regular
1/ Contrary to the
District's claim, the wording "or the equivalent thereof" does not come into play in this case.
The Grievant testified
without contradiction that those situations cited by the District did not result in free time for
him that could be used as equivalent preparation time,
and Principal Bagley conceded on cross-examination that he did not doubt the Grievant's
testimony in that regard.
The District asserts that assigning the Grievant to an IEP meeting was an appropriate
his preparation period and did not constitute assigning him to "regular programmed
Conversely, the Association asserts that assigning the Grievant to attend the IEP meeting
preparation period did constitute assigning him to "regular programmed responsibilities" and
him of his preparation period that day.
The District makes a credible argument that attending an IEP meeting with the
his/her parent to discuss and provide input regarding the student's progress and whether the
education student's educational plan should be revised 2/ is more akin to developing
2/ Albeit the Association's witnesses testified
that they did not feel they had any real input at these meetings.
lesson plans and evaluating a student's progress (activities that the District asserts
traditionally perform during their preparation periods), and is not part of a teacher's regular
responsibilities of instructing and supervising students. The Association also makes a valid
asserting that requiring a teacher to attend an IEP during the teacher's preparation period
that teacher of the ability to decide for his/herself the activities they will perform during that
(preparing lessons for their classes, correcting tests, etc.) However, while attending an IEP
involving a special education student in the regular education teacher's class is a part of that
responsibilities as the student's educator, it is not clear that attending IEP meetings are part
teacher's "regular duties", as the Association asserts.
While the Board's President made that statement in his response to this grievance, it
was in the
Teacher attendance at IEP meetings is a
State requirement and, as such, becomes part of
the teacher's regular duties.
The record establishes that regular education teachers may attend IEP meetings
from 0 to 2 or 3 times per school year. It is, however, unclear whether, in using the term
in paragraph two of Article VIII, G, 3, a, the parties intended it to mean "normal", i.e.
a teacher's responsibilities as a teacher, or whether they intended it to mean something that
on a systematic basis, e.g., daily or weekly.
What the foregoing demonstrates is that the term "regular programmed
anything but clear and unambiguous. The best guide in this case as to what the parties
how they have applied Article VIII, G, 3, a, in the past in similar situations, i.e., past
As noted previously, there is conflicting evidence as to whether or not teachers have
compensated in the past when they were assigned to attend an IEP meeting during their
period. The Association's witnesses testified either that they had received extra pay in those
in the past, or compensatory time which they could either use during the school year or cash
the end of the school year. However, none of those witnesses claimed that this had occurred
past two school years. 3/
3/ District Exhibit 2, discussed below,
indicates that Association witness Martell attended IEP meetings during his preparation
on four occasions in these two years.
The District provided two witnesses, Bagley and Visgers, as well as documentary
Bagley testified that he had not authorized any payment to teachers for attending an IEP
during their preparation period since he had come to the District in the 2000-2001 school
Bagley also provided a document that he had created by reviewing the "invitations" to attend
meetings from the past three years that are sent out for each IEP meeting and which list
will attend, and then cross-referencing those with the
teaching schedules of the regular education teachers listed on the "invitations".
(District Exhibit 2).
4/ District Exhibit 2 shows that there were 21 instances in the 1999-2000 school
4/ Contrary to the
Association's assertion that Bagley testified the exhibit did not include all of the IEP
meetings held in the past three
years, my notes of the hearing do not reflect such testimony, only that he could not say
which of those teachers had received equivalent time to
prepare due to having classes that were on field trips or were being tested,
year where a teacher attended an IEP meeting during his/her preparation period, 26
in the 2000-2001 school year, and 20 such instances in the 2001-2002 school year. Of those
instances in the past three years 5/ where teachers had to attend an IEP meeting during their
preparation period, the evidence indicates that only three teachers were compensated (a total
instances) for attending an IEP meeting during their preparation period in the 1999-2000
5/ Presumably, not all of the other teachers
in those 67 instances received "equivalent" preparation time.
The District's Financial Administrative Assistant, Visger, testified that the individual
kept track of what they did to earn compensatory time and their use of it throughout the
and then turned this information in (in the form of handwritten sheets) at the end of the
to receive payment at the "supervision" rate in the Agreement for the unused compensatory
Visger testified that the payments to Jockisch, Martell and Hoffman (the three teachers who
compensated) were due to her oversight in not reviewing the teachers' sheets more closely
and not having the Principal review them and sign off on them, but that she had not done so
she was too busy at the end of the school year. Visger also testified that at no time during
years she has been with the District has it awarded teachers compensatory time specifically
attending IEP meetings during their preparation periods.
While the record shows the practice has not been wholly consistent, it appears that in
substantial majority of the cases in at least the past three years, teachers have not been
for attending an IEP meeting during their preparation period. This, coupled with Visger's
and the lack of any evidence that other teachers had even requested compensation in those
6/ is sufficient to establish that requiring attendance at an IEP
6/ Save the one teacher
Bagley referenced in his January 7, 2002 response to this grievance (Joint Exhibit 3), who
had requested payment
and been denied.
meeting has generally been treated by the parties as an appropriate use of the teacher's
period, at least to the extent that the parties have not viewed it as depriving the teacher of
preparation period by assigning them "regular programmed responsibilities", contrary
to Article VIII,
G, 3, a, of their Agreement.
Based on the parties' practice, it is concluded that the District did not violate
Sec. G, 3, a, of the Agreement by requiring the Grievant to attend an IEP meeting during his
preparation period and thereafter refusing to compensate him 1/8 of his daily salary for doing
Based on the foregoing, the evidence, and the arguments of the parties, the Arbitrator
and issues the following
The grievance is denied.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 4th day of October, 2002.