Norristown Area School District Collective Bargaining Agreement
j$k1840480j$k
The question before the arbitrator was: “Did the district act with only the cause when it exonerated the Grievant, Sherikia Bailey? If not, what is the cure? On 31 October 2002, the Adjudicator made a decision that Grievant`s actions in welcoming their colleagues did merit serious discipline, but that the denunciation was too severe a sanction to have dropped the allegations of wiretapping. In addition, the Adjudicator found that the wiretap act was enacted for reasons other than to protect a disgruntled employee from secretly recording staff comments, and that Grievant`s actions cannot therefore have the same meaning when someone is illegally wiretapped. The Adjudicator also noted that the recording suggests that the district knew that Grievant had made audio tapes of their conversations with other employees in the past, but the District did nothing to discipline them for this behavior. Accordingly, the arbitrator ordered that Grievant be reinstated to its position from the date on which the wiretap fee was cancelled and also ordered that it be refunded from that date. The borough appealed to the court, which, by order of September 3, 2003, upheld the arbitrator`s decision. The district`s appeal to the Court of Justice followed. On November 7, 2003, the Tribunal issued an opinion explaining its decision, in which it stated that “the arbitrator`s award has taken its essence from the collective agreement [CBA] because the award is not inconsistent with the terms of the agreement.” (Court judgment, p. 8). The nasD boundaries and surrounding areas are shown in the map below.
Finally, the borough argues that the arbitration award is inconsistent internally because it suspends the grievant from a given date until the date on which the wiretap charges were dropped, which is an event that did not occur. In particular, the borough contends that the wiretap fees were never “abandoned”, but that Grievant made a plea in which the wiretap fee would be reduced to a charge of disorderly conduct. Regardless of the technical issues, if the charge was “abandoned” or grievant pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, it is clear that the arbitrator`s interpretation was rationally derived from the CBA, because Grievant was charged with a crime but was never prosecuted for that crime, was never convicted of that crime and was never convicted of that crime as a result. was convicted for the oral argument. , will not be prosecuted in the future for interrogation wiretaps.
