peabodyvpeabody

(51 Mass. App. Ct., 2001)
 * PEABODY SCHOOL COMMITTEE vs. PEABODY FEDERATION OF TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 1289**

D (Peabody Teachers Union) After the superintendent denied three teachers voluntary transfers to other schools in the district, the teachers brought a grievance against the superintendent and an arbitrator heard each independently. The arbitrator ruled in their favor stating that the failure to transfer was not based upon just cause and, therefore, was a substantive violation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. P (Peabody School Committee) Challenged the ruling of 3 arbitrators over 3 teachers who grieved being denied voluntary transfers to vacancies in other Peabody schools because they claimed that the rulings of the arbitrators encroach upon the exclusive managerial powers of the principals of the schools.
 * __Facts__**:

Whether the grievances were arbitrable under the Education Reform Act of 1993? (1) No Whether the transfer provisions establish seniority based procedural mechanism for voluntary and involuntary transfers of teachers in which managerial authority to approve or recommend the transfers is exclusively reposed in the superintendent of schools. (2) Yes
 * __Issues/Answers__**:

Legal Basis—School Committee of Lowell v. Local 159 Serv. Employees Intl Union (1997) and Natick v. Education Assn. of Natick (1996) Rationale—In the Lowell case, arbitrators ruling encroach up the managerial power of principal and held that an arbitrator's ruling that directed the school committee to award the job to the custodian was "a result contrary to § 59B" and ordered it vacated as beyond the arbitrator's power. In the Natick case, transfers are subject solely to the approval of the superintendent of schools.
 * __Basis/Rationale__**:

Peabody Superintendent rejected the requests of three teachers for transfer to vacancies in other Peabody schools. The teachers’ union brought up 3 separate grievances and 3 arbitrators independently heard each case and ordered the committee to transfer the teachers to the requested positions, ruling in each case that the failure to transfer was not based upon just cause and, therefore, was a substantive violation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The school committee brought it to the brought three Superior Court actions, which were consolidated to one case. The superior court judge ruled in favor the school committee and ordered the jobs to be vacated. The judge concluded that the grievances were not arbitrable under the Educational Reform Act of 1993 (ERA). The union appealed based upon a similar case t in Lowell involving a custodian wanting a transfer that was denied, went to arbitration and the court rejected the arbiter’s decision saying it was in violation of ERA. Additionally, the ruling that transfers are the decision of the superintendent is based upon a ruling in a 1996 involving the town of Natick and the Education Assn of Natick. The court went on to state that this decision is not to be interpreted as invalidating collective bargaining provisions that establish procedures for applying for transfers and filling vacancies that do not encroach upon the powers to approve or disapprove reserved to principals and superintendents.
 * __Notes__**: