1976-12-13-SC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 198 December 13, 1976 Mrs. Swanson did so. responded that she "did not initiate the grievance" and that she supported it "only insofar as she recognized the LEA' s responsibility to protect its members." Mr. Michelman then inquired of Mr. Cawley whether there is any ground for the grievance other than that stated--is the grievance seek- ing an interpretation of the contract article and nothing else. Mr. Cawley responded that the L.E.A. was grieving the contract for interpretation of Article III, but also concerned that 1) a person doing the job be paid for the job he/she is doing equally to others doing the same job, and, 2) future administrators be paid according to the salary guide. Dr. Lawson noted that the two other administrators are at maximum in terms of experience and have more than the number of courses which would equal a Master's degree. Mr. Michelman noted that when the grievance reached the Superintend- ent's level, the Superintendent rejected the grievance on the grounds that the L.E.A. did not have standing to file such a grievance. Under normal circumstances a grievance of this type would, he thought, be filed by the aggrieved employee. In response to Mr. Cawley's letter, Mr. Michelman did not feel that this case is of a general nature--not suit- able for a class action grievance. To accept this grievance, as Mr. MichelmPn sees it, would be to make the exception to the rule. This grievance, he concluded, affects only one employee and is in no way a class action grievance. Mr. Cawley, in referring to the contract article in question, noted that Mr. Michelman picked the words following "or", whereas he picked the words preceding "or" as debatable. Mr. Michelman responded that while the position he was presenting sounded technical, it is really an important issue. This (grievance) seems to be an attempt to interpret the contract for an individual, and action on it could conceivably lead to all grievances becoming class action grievances. Mr. Michelman also referred to the issue of discrimination. Because there had been a suggestion of sex bias in this case, he felt it was the Committee's responsibility to consider this as a separate issue. He had examined the case carefully and felt that there was no evidence of dis- crimination on the part of the Lexington administration. There is no other female in the system who is not paid equal to males in the same position. The reason for less pay in this case is observable, he said, and the facts clearly distinguish this case. Dr. Rotberg inquired about the phrase in Mr. Cawley' s letters of September 15 and October 6, "on behalf of " Mr. Spins responded that, Miss Pilarski had already indicated her position in reference to the grievance.