Hcea-Esp Master Agreement
In these consolidated appeals, we will resolve a dispute between two government departments that have taken conflicting positions on whether the collective agreement between a district school board and the staff representative for support workers can legally provide for a requirement to resolve disputes over the dismissal of these workers. The Maryland State Board of Education has taken the position that, because of the power to appoint and terminate non-professional staff, the County Superintendent of Schools is required to include in its collective agreement the arbitration provision agreed by the Howard State Board of Education. The Circuit Court for Howard County accepted the State Board of Education`s interpretation of the law on this point and asked the labor representative to force the dismissal of a nurse. But the Maryland Public School Labor Relations Board has a contrary view of the law and has taken the position that the provision of the Howard County Collective Agreement, which provides for a binding resolution of dismissal disputes for non-professional activity, is legally applicable. In an amicus letter, Maryland`s attorney general agrees with the working committee. And so are we. Accordingly, we will make a decision in favour of the complainant, Howard County Education Association-ESP, Inc., and quash the Circuit Court for Howard County rulings.1 Following legal assistance from the Local Education Commission, after counsel for the Howard County Board of Education indicated that the nurse`s collective agreement effectively provides for “mandatory conciliation of a staff member. 6-201, letter c.” Although the Working Committee considered the language sufficiently precise, it also considered the legislative history of the legislation to be a support for its interpretation. In its written submissions, it provided the following detailed explanation of its conclusion that the dispute over the dismissal of the nurse was duly covered by the collective agreement and subject to mandatory arbitration: the position of the National Education Office, which was to strongly acknowledge the resolution of disputes concerning the dismissal of workers, dates back at least to the early 1990s. , when the Court encountered such controversy in Livers/. Board of Education, 101 Md.App. 160, 643 A.2d 523 (1994).
In May 1991, George Livers, a charles County School administrator, was arrested under the influence of drugs. He was suspended by the Charles County Board of Education until he was charged. On June 11, 1991, the state did not charge drugs. A week later, the Charles County Board of Education fired him for misconduct. Livers, an unse certified employee, attempted to challenge his dismissal by filing a complaint pursuant to the master`s agreement between his union and the Charles County Board of Education. The complaint went through various phases, and finally confirmed the superintendent of the Board of Education of Charles Livers.