Education Law §3013(2) provides as follows: "Whenever a trustee, board of trustee, board of education or board of cooperative educational services abolishes a position under this chapter, the services of the teacher having the least seniority in the system within the tenure of the position abolished shall be discontinued."
Two part-time teaching assistants [Petitioners] challenged their termination by the Board of Education when the Board declined to terminate the employment of at least two full-time teaching assistants having less seniority. Petitioners contended that the Board's decision resulting in their termination violate Education Law §3013(2) and provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement between the Board and Petitioners' union.*
Supreme Court denied the Petitioners' petitions and dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.
Pursuant to Education Law §3013(2), whenever a board of education "abolishes a position under this chapter, the services of the teacher having the least seniority in the system within the tenure of the position abolished shall be discontinued." In this instance the relevant collective bargaining agreement provided that "[l]ayoffs for Teaching Assistants shall be in accordance with Education Law Section 3013." Moreover, the Court of Appeals has recognized that teaching assistants fall within the ambit of Education Law §3013(2) "for the purpose of determining layoffs".**
However, the Board contended that the protections afforded individuals pursuant to Education Law §3013(2) apply only to full-time teaching assistants and that the Petitioners were part-time teaching assistants. Petitioners did not dispute the Board's contention that Education Law §3013(2) applies only to full-time teaching assistants.
Citing Matter of Walters v Amityville Union Free School Dist., 251 AD2d 590, and Matter of Cole v Board of Educ. of Syosset Cent. School Dist., 167 AD2d 538, the Appellate Division, noting that Petitioners "failed to establish that they were full-time teaching assistants entitled to the protections afforded under Education Law §3013(2)", held that Supreme Court properly denied their petitions.
* Taylor Law contract provisions, however, may not adversely affect the layoff rights vested in employees by law. See, for example, Plattsburgh v Local 788, 108 AD2d 1045 and Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137.
** Matter of Madison-Oneida Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v Mills, 4 NY3d 51.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
###
The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page NYPPL e-book reviewing the relevant New York State laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. For more information and access to a free excerpt of the material presented in this e-book, click here: http://booklocker.com/books/5216.html