Legally speaking, can the School Reform Commission really
do this?
Legislation authorizing the takeover of the Philadelphia
schools, signed in 1998 and implemented a few years later, gives the state
broad powers to manage the financial affairs of the district, and it is on that
basis that the SRC canceled its contract Monday with the teachers union.
Public employee contracts enjoy broad, if not absolute,
legal protections in Pennsylvania, but the SRC says the legislature created a
carve-out for Philadelphia schools, and subsequent amendments only bolstered its
powers.
It is what lawyers call an issue of first impression, a
legal question never before fully tested by the courts, lending an element of
uncertainty to the commission's tactic.
To force the matter, the SRC filed a lawsuit against the
teachers union Monday, asking Commonwealth Court to uphold its decision to
cancel its contract with the teachers, thus requiring them to pay a portion of
their health insurance costs.
The union, which has called the SRC's action
"cowardly," has promised a legal response.
The SRC's "approach is interesting and
appropriate," says labor and employment lawyer William J. Flannery of Post
& Schell P.C. of Center City, who represents school boards, municipal
governments, and other entities on collective bargaining matters. "What
the district is doing is trying to get a jump start on this."
As a tactical matter, the SRC's decision to go to
Commonwealth Court suggests a legally savvy approach that, if successful, could
short circuit years of litigation and put on a fast track its plan requiring
teachers, school nurses, and others covered by the contract to pay into their
health insurance fund.
That is because the case turns on a handful of narrowly
drawn legal questions that focus on what the legislature intended when it
authorized the takeover of the financially strapped district, and what impact
if any subsequent changes in the law may have. Lawyers for both the teachers
union and the SRC did not respond to request for comment.
Flannery said courts were often loathe to jettison normal
procedures when it comes to resolving disputes, and typically conflicts over
what is permitted under a collective bargaining agreement are sorted out by the
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, or by an arbitrator.
But Commonwealth Court may feel this case has special
import because it raises legally unresolved issues and because it poses a
question of pivotal public importance - perhaps the very financial survival of
Philadelphia's public school system.
Commonwealth Court is an intermediate-level appeals court
that hears disputes involving government agencies, among other matters.
By going directly to an appeals court to test the legal
basis of its actions, the SRC, which asserts that its changes to the teacher
health plan will save tens of millions of dollars annually - in order to
"restore essential resources such as books, paper supplies, and staffing"
- may well succeed in dramatically accelerating the process of judicial review.
"I think the court would give serious consideration
to entering an order for declaratory judgment," Flannery said.
Broadly speaking, the SRC asserts two legal arguments. It
argues on the one hand that the teachers' contract had expired and that
following 110 meetings over 21 months, both sides were at an impasse, giving
the SRC the option to upend the agreement.
It cites state Supreme Court precedent that
it says permits public employers to impose the proposals they made during
negotiations once contract talks break down.
But, because there are no state Supreme Court cases
bearing on the current dispute, lawyers on both sides are traversing
unchartered legal territory.
In its complaint, the SRC contends that Act
46, the original legislation authorizing the Philadelphia school takeover, gave
the state broad authority to manage the School District's finances, to the
point of withholding city sales tax receipts if the Pennsylvania education
secretary concluded that the district had failed to implement reforms.
And as part of the original mandate, the act
gives the SRC the authority to cancel collective bargaining agreements, if
needed. The five-member SRC, three of whose members are appointed by
the governor and two by the mayor, says that while the legislature amended the
original law to include other school districts, exempting collective bargaining
agreements in those jurisdictions from cancellation, it let stand that power
for the Philadelphia district.
"In short, the General Assembly conferred
extraordinary powers upon the SRC and the School District, with the intent of
giving them a much freer hand than other public employers when it comes to
collective bargaining during a period of financial distress," the SRC
complaint says.
Whether that argument will fly is another question.
Flannery says he expects that the teachers union, when it responds to the
complaint, will ask for an injunction barring the SRC from imposing changes to
the health plan until the matter is hashed out in court.
Source: Philly.com
No comments:
Post a Comment