Sunday, October 4, 2009

MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT - BUSING: DID COURT MAKE RIGHT DECISION?

We don't know - but here is what we do know.

Judge Lucci of the Lake County Common Pleas Court ruled Friday on the Madison Bus Driver Union (OAPSE) law suit by dismissing the claims against the Madison School District and their administrators.

If anyone has a copy of the ruling please forward it to our attention at carecommitteepac@yahoo.com.

We don't know all the details but do understand that there may have been tactical errors in the OAPSE union lawsuit. The News-Herald quoting Judge Lucci's ruling indicated that the former bus drivers only recourse was to follow grievance procedures in their contract for unfair labor practices under the Ohio Revised Code.

Unfortunately for these former bus drivers given the time frame that has elapsed it is most likely too late to file a grievance. This truly is a shame and these individuals should have had their grievance heard on the merits rather than having their case dismissed with no opportunity to be heard.

The News-Herald article http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2009/10/03/news/nh1519822.txt is as follows:


"Court makes decision on Madison bus union
Published: Saturday, October 3, 2009

By Sandra M. Klepach SKlepach@News-Herald.com


In a sweeping ruling Friday, Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Eugene Lucci dismissed a lawsuit filed last year against Madison School Board, two district administrators and Community Bus Services of Youngstown, hired to staff and operate the district's bus garage.

Lucci denied jurisdiction over three of the claims, though, including the prominent breach of contract claim.

Attorneys for the Ohio Association Public School Employees Local 238 filed the suit July 30, 2008, on behalf of 37 school bus drivers, bus assistants and school bus mechanics who lost their jobs when the district privatized its garage at a savings of $1.5 million over five years.

OAPSE Field Representative Lloyd Rains did not respond to a message left on his cell phone Friday afternoon.

The suit alleged that the board breached its collective bargaining agreement with OAPSE — lasting July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2008 — when it voted June 17, 2008, to hire CBS effective July 1, 2008.The decision was made five days before the union's contract expired and new negotiations could be scheduled, OAPSE claimed. Laid-off employees were notified June 19 "for reasons of economy and efficiency" and told they could reapply through CBS.The suit asked for an injunction to stop and void the CBS contract, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

It named the school board, CBS, former Superintendent James Herrholtz, Assistant Superintendent Matthew Chojnacki, and the state of Ohio as defendants.

The state was named because the lawsuit claimed certain parts of House Bill 66, enacted in 2006, are unconstitutional because they can be used to interfere with contracts.Oral arguments were heard Sept. 25.

Lucci found that the board achieved both economy and efficiency in hiring CBS.However, he denied jurisdiction to rule on the "breach of contract" claim, the "refusal to bargain, discrimination, and violation of public policy" claim, and whether a certain rule applies to unions wherein transportation service employees are included with other employee classifications."

The plaintiffs' only means of recourse is to follow the grievance procedures laid out in the (collective bargaining agreement) and in (Ohio Revised Code) 4117 (regarding unfair labor practices." Judge Lucci wrote.

Chojnacki, School Board President Jacqueline Azbill and CBS President Terrence Thomas also couldn't be reached Friday afternoon. But current Superintendent Roger Goudy said it's good to have the suit behind them."This is hopefully going to start the healing process, because these things are never healthy for either side," he said. "It's one of those things unfortunately that got to this point, and we'll hopefully all move on together from here and build a better school district."

Goudy did not know the cost of the district's legal defense against the suit."