Terms of Juul`s agreement excludes claim and arbitration from termination While the recognition that a teacher`s termination can normally be subject to the claim and arbitration provisions of a collective agreement (CBA), a state appeals court recently ruled that this is not applicable in the case of a probation teacher who has been terminated after the expiry of a so-called juul agreement. A school district and a teacher may enter into a juul agreement to extend the teacher`s probationary period by an additional year if the principal decides not to recommend the teacher for a term. The agreement gives the teacher a second chance to prove himself and allow the borough to grant or retain a mandate at the end of the extended period. At Matter of Marshall, a teacher entered into a Juul agreement signed by herself, the president of the teachers` unions and the principal of the school, but it was never submitted or ratified to the school board. At the end of the additional trial year, the teacher was not recommended for a term and then dismissed. She then filed a complaint against this reinstatement and claimed that she had a mandate from Estoppel. The Appeal Division of the State Supreme Court, The Fourth Division, confirmed that the termination of the employment relationship is an ordinary purpose for conciliation within a CBA. But in exchange for Juul`s second agreement, the union “renounced all rights, it has a complaint under the … Cba… in connection with the postponement of the superintendent`s recommendation, [or] the termination of [the teacher`s] employment. According to the fourth department, this agreement prevented the teacher from following a complaint and arbitration proceeding under the CBA in the event of dismissal. Within a fortnight of receiving the officer list, BOE and SED staff will report a certified auditor. If no agreement is reached, the SED will appoint the officer.
In that case, the teacher waived her right to a term in exchange for a fourth year of trial and not dismissal at the end of the third year. In these circumstances, the Juul agreement was reached fairly and the teacher was unable to challenge the agreement. The petitioner began his hiring in the riding with a test position as an alternative teacher in the middle classes, effective September 1, 2007 until August 31, 2009. At that time, the petitioner had certifications in the fields of average children`s education (CM2-3rd) and child rearing (CE1-6th). Under a “Juul Agreement,” the petitioner and respondent District agreed to extend the petitioner`s trial period until August 31, 2010. At the respondent`s meeting on May 24, 2010, the petitioner was granted an intermediate-grade warrant effective August 31, 2010. Due to budgetary constraints, the respondent reduced the position of intermediate-grade applicant on a part-time basis and eliminated the position on June 6, 2011. The petitioner was placed on the preferred list for the recall of middle grades. Chambers must approve agreements to extend the trial period In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner is tasked with proving that he is clearly entitled to the discharge requested and the conditions for determining the facts requested by the petitioner (8 NYCRR No. 275.10); Aversa Complaint, 48 Ed Dept Rep 523, Decision 15,936; Appeal by Hansen, 48 id.
354, Decision 15,884; P.M., 48 id.