Jul 28, 2017

July 27, 2017

In the July 20 Update, members were told that the details of the settlement reached between the TAAAC and the Board on July 19 would be available by Monday, July 24. Through no fault of either party, the language of the release is still under discussion between the parties.

Details will be released as soon as practicable, with the anticipation being early next week.

Schmidt’s Charges against TAAAC Dismissed by PSLRB

On May 2, 2017, on behalf of himself and purportedly all Unit 1 employees assigned to Annapolis High School, Robert “Robin” Schmidt filed a complaint against TAAAC to Maryland’s Public School Labor Relations Board (PSLRB) asserting that TAAAC failed to meet its statutory duty of fair representation.

Specifically, Schmidt’s complaint stemmed from the FY18 negotiations wherein the Employer introduced a topic to discontinue the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiated exclusively for Unit 1 employees assigned to Annapolis High School, which was scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. Initially, the MOU was intended to provide Unit 1 employees at AHS additional compensation and benefits as temporary incentives to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers in the school after zero-basing it. It has been in effect since 2007 and had been modified and extended a number of times as expiration dates occurred.

The FY18 settlement between the parties postponed the scheduled expiration, extending the MOU for two additional years during which time the incentives will be phased out. During the two-year extension, Unit 1 AHS employees will retain salaries and other compensation unavailable to other Unit 1 colleagues across AACPS. (Please do not mistake that last remark as criticism. All Unit 1 employees, including those at AHS, should be better compensated than they are.) Despite the fact that TAAAC did not agree to allow the MOU to expire, and instead, negotiated to extend it for two more years, Schmidt charged that TAAAC willfully worked against the interests of Unit 1 employees at AHS with both hostility and discrimination because of the decision to discontinue the MOU while at the same time securing benefits for select portions of the bargaining unit at the expense of Unit 1 employees at AHS. Ultimately, the tentative agreement was presented and ratified by TAAAC’s Representative Council and later by the Employer.

The PSLRB disagreed with Schmidt. After acknowledging that there was no evidence to show that Schmidt had any authority to act on behalf of other Unit 1 employees at AHS, the PSLRB continued that even if Mr. Schmidt had been authorized to represent them in the instant matter: …he has not provided any evidence, or even alleged that TAAAC treated Unit 1 Members at AHS differently based on any “invidious” classification. His only claim was that TAAAC did not represent Unit 1 Members at AHS fairly in comparison to other Unit 1 Members in the District. Without evidence that TAAAC acted in a discriminatory manner, there is no basis to support a Charge that TAAAC violated its duty of fair representation.

The PSLRB’s action: It is hereby Ordered that the Charge in the Instant Matter, PSLRB Case No. SV 2017-04 is Dismissed.

Employee and Child Coverage

In the event there is any remaining uncertainty regarding Employee/Child coverage, please be advised that it applies to one employee and one child. To apply coverage to more than one child Family coverage is the proper selection.

DOWNLOAD Schmidt-Unit 1 Employees v. TAAAC

Jump to Content