Drug Teating and Collective Bargaining

Week 1 Blog
Please read the information below on drug testing and collective bargaining. These experts were lifted from the textbook.

1. Respond to the discussion question after the section on drug testing.
2. Respond to the discussion questions in the case study.
3. Respond to at least two comments on your classmates' posts.
4. Post a "What if" question on one of the two topics.

I will makes comments to your post by Sunday evening. Next week's topic will be posted by Monday evening. Happy blogging..........

Chapter 1 0 • Recruitment, Tenure, Dismissal, and Due Process

DRUG TESTING
In an interesting case involving dismissal, teachers sued a school district after being fired

for reporting to work while under the influence of marijuana. After observing behavior and

physical symptoms that were out of character for both teachers, they were tested for drug use and

both tested positive for marijuana. After administrative hearings, both teachers were fired with-

out written notice because their behavior was deemed to be “irremediable.” The court held for

the school district. One of the school board’s options for a teacher who reports to work under the

influence of drugs, alcohol, or any controlled substance is to terminate the employee. It was at

the school board’s discretion to determine whether the teachers’ conduct was irremediable.

Given the weight of the evidence, the board found the conduct to be irremediable and therefore

written notice was not required before the teachers could be terminated.

Discussion:
Conviction of a felony or a series of misdemeanors may form grounds for dismissal and revocation

of the teaching certificate. Do you believe the school board was right to terminate the teachers for reporting to work under the influence of marijauana? Why? Why not?

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Collective bargaining has grown in popularity and appeal in public education. Although collec-

tive bargaining has always provoked controversy, many educators view it as a mechanism to

achieve a greater role in management and operation of public schools. Since many of the issues

involving collective bargaining focus on the rights of employees as well as terms and conditions

of employment, its very nature sometimes evokes conflict and adversarial relationships between

school boards and union representatives.

 

It is well recognized that collective bargaining has not always enjoyed the popularity it

does today. In fact, it did not gain legal protection until the early 1930s in the private sector. The

evolution of this concept in the public sector developed very slowly, due primarily to the belief

and acceptance of governmental sovereignty. Public schools, as agents of the state, exerted

almost complete control of school operations as well as terms and conditions of employment

consistent with their state’s statutory mandates and local district policy. The prevailing view

among state lawmakers was that this sovereign power should not be abrogated.

 

Collective bargaining gradually emerged in the public sector in the late 1940s, when

Wisconsin became one of the first states to enact legislation allowing bargaining to occur.

However, it was not until the 1960s that teachers launched a major effort to gain a greater level of

involvement in the administration and operation of their schools. Most states currently permit

some form of bargaining between teachers and school boards. These agreements may vary from

required bargaining to some form of meet and confer provision.

 

Irrespective of these variations, the basic intent is to create teacher empowerment and

shared power between teachers and school boards. Obviously, some states are more liberal than

others in deciding on items that are negotiable. For example, arbitration is mandated in some

states yet prohibited in others. In any case, the primary objective is to create conditions within

which school employees are afforded the opportunity to affiliate with a union without fear of

reprisal for their participation. One common element found in most state statutes is a good faith

requirement imposed on employers, which implies that they must bargain with the recognized bargaining unit with the sincere intent to reach a reasonable agreement. In fact, this good faith

provision affects both parties during the bargaining process.

1. The collective negotiations process should always be guided by a good faith effort involving both parties: school boards and union officials.
2. School boards should not negotiate items for which they have no legal authority to negotiate (e.g.,setting salaries and employing personnel) unless there is express statutory authority to do so.
3. Any sustained action taken by striking teachers that may disrupt educational opportunities for students will not likely receive court support.
4. Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms of teachers should not be impaired by collective bargaining agreements.

CASE STUDY
Insubordination—Failure to Change a Student’s Grade

 

Alice Hill, an eleventh-grade English teacher at Fairview High School, located in a fairly pro-

gressive school district, assigned the grade of F to a star basketball player, Tom Benson, who had

failed to turn in assigned work. Hill encountered considerable criticism from coaches and other

colleagues at school. A request was made by the principal, Jim Martin, for Hill to return to

school and change the grade. Due to stress associated with this event, Hill was unable to do so

and arranged for a substitute to cover her classes for two days. The principal recommended dis-

missal based on charges of insubordination for failure to return to change the grade.

 

Discussion Questions

1. Was Alice Hill justified in not returning to change the grade? Why or why not?
2. Does the principal have sufficient grounds to recommend insubordination? Why or why not?
3. Did Alice Hill’s failure to return constitute insubordination? Why or why not?
4. As principal, would you have taken the position the principal took in this situation? Why or why not?
5. How would the court likely rule in this case? Provide a rationale for your response.