Position taken away

Status
Not open for further replies.

2010flstf

New Member
At the end of the school year all teachers are told to submit requests for the stipend positions they want to have for the next school year. I submitted my request for supervising the school cafeteria before 1st period, and over the summer I received a letter from the school district stating that I was appointed to that position (I have held that position for the last 2 years) for this school year at the agreed upon rate in our union's contract with the district.
On the first day of my duty, before I stated, I was told that the school monitors would be supervising the school cafeteria and I was lost that stipend because they wanted to use the money for something else.

Is the school district in breach of contract for their action since I was officially appointed to the position? The stipend they took away would have paid me about $300 per month.
 
That seems to be a good decision for the taxpayers and their pocketbooks.

In the first depression of the 21st century, be glad you have a job.

Millions of people are unemployed.

No, it isn't breach of contract. If it had been, your union would be howling.
 
That seems to be a good decision for the taxpayers and their pocketbooks.

In the first depression of the 21st century, be glad you have a job.

Millions of people are unemployed.

No, it isn't breach of contract. If it had been, your union would be howling.

My union has barely any money in the for greivances this year, so they are only "howling" over issues that effect an entire building or the entire union.

As far as your unemployment remark, my wife has been without work for a couple of years, and our family of 5 have to live off my salary; hence, the $300 is a big deal.

I would like to know why it isn't a breach.
 
AJ, the answer on the other forum on which this person posted was that, if the union contract does not provide this protection for non-teaching positionsthe poster is basically SOL.
 
My union has barely any money in the for greivances this year, so they are only "howling" over issues that effect an entire building or the entire union.

As far as your unemployment remark, my wife has been without work for a couple of years, and our family of 5 have to live off my salary; hence, the $300 is a big deal.

I would like to know why it isn't a breach.

It isn't a breach, because you're covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
What teachers call contracts, are not REAL employment contracts.
Public education has many special exemptions carved out of the common law.

Why isn't you contract a contract?
You sign it, before the board approves it (in most jurisdictions).
Even if they were signed individually, they provide nothing unique.
They simply spell out the fact that District "X" will hire Teacher "Y" for the 2010-2011 school year as a teacher at a salary of $XX,XXX.
Those are terms of employment, noit a true contract.
One aspect of a contract that is missing is that you can't bargain for a higher salary.
You take it, or leave it.
It also isn't guaranteed employment.
If the district doesn't have the money to pay for the entire 180 days, the teacher can and does get "terminated".
 
AJ, the answer on the other forum on which this person posted was that, if the union contract does not provide this protection for non-teaching positionsthe poster is basically SOL.

That is also a correct response.
Another problem would be, even if it were a contract, suing a public entity.
School districts are very hard to sue.
They are immune (like most public entities) from civil process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top