In the matter of the fact-finding between the Marcellus Central School District, employer, and the Marcellus Substitute Teachers Association, union. PERB case no. M2010-302. Before: Ben W. Budelmann, fact finder

Budelmann, Ben W

English

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Marcellus Central School District, employer, and the Marcellus Substitute Teachers Association, union. PERB case no. M2010-302. Before: Ben W. Budelmann, fact finder.M2010_302.pdf: 243 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Budelmann, Ben W.

eCommons@Cornell

Marcellus Central School District and Marcellus Substitute Teachers Association

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
12-1-2011 
Marcellus Central School District and Marcellus Substitute 
Teachers Association 
Ben W. Budelmann 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board 
(PERB) at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB by an 
authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-
dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Marcellus Central School District and Marcellus Substitute Teachers Association 
Abstract 
In the matter of the fact-finding between the Marcellus Central School District, employer, and the 
Marcellus Substitute Teachers Association, union. PERB case no. M2010-302. Before: Ben W. Budelmann, 
fact finder. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
Comments 
This contract is part of a digital collection provided by the Martin P. Catherwood Library, ILR School, 
Cornell University. The information provided is for noncommercial educational use only. 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/77 
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 
FACT-FINDING REPORT 
 
Case Number: M 2010-302 
In the Matter of Fact-Finding Between 
 
 
Marcellus Central School District 
Marcellus, New York 
 
  And 
 
Marcellus Substitute Teachers Association 
 
 
 
 
Impartial Fact Finder: 
 
  Ben W. Budelmann 
 
 
For the Marcellus Central School District (The District): 
   
  David G. Maestri, BOCES Labor Relations Specialist and Spokesperson 
  Craig J. Tice, Superintendent of Schools 
  Debra B. Eichholtz, School Business Official 
 
 
For the Marcellus Substitute Teachers Association (MSTA): 
   
  James D. Matthews, Labor Relations Specialist and Spokesperson 
  Patricia G. Rao, President, MSTA  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
 
The dates of the last Agreement between The District and MSTA were July 1, 2009- 
June 30, 2010.  Bargaining sessions for a new Agreement were held on November 8; 
November 30; and December 16, 2010.  The fifth and last session was held on 
January 6, 2011.  At that time, open items for bargaining included: wages, grievance 
procedure, training, building and classroom access, and email notification 
(communication) of significant issues. 
 
The parties requested PERB Mediation and after two sessions (April 7, 2011 and 
May 19, 2011) were held, the parties were still at impasse.  Since neither The District 
nor MSTA were optimistic another session would result in a new Agreement, they 
requested a PERB fact-finding session.  The undersigned Fact Finder was appointed 
and met with both parties on September 28, 2011. 
 
At the time of the fact-finding hearing, the parties were still working under the 
Agreement dated 7/1/09-6/30/10.  A few of the items discussed were able to be settled 
by discussion and understanding of current policy.  The open items left for 
bargaining on September 28, 2011, were wages, grievance procedure and duration of 
agreement.   
 
The Association consists of approximately sixty (60) per diem substitute teachers. 
The District has approximately 2000 students and 150 teachers.  The MSTA 
substitute teachers provide coverage for more than 2700 days per school year. 
MSTA is an independent unit, unaffiliated. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WAGES AND DURATION OF AGREEMENT 
 
 
THE DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE 
 
Currently, the certified substitutes receive $98.00/day and the uncertified substitutes 
receive $87.00/day.  The District has the sixth (6th) highest per diem substitute wage 
rate among the more than twenty (20) reporting districts and BOCES. 
 
The District has felt the same budget reductions other districts are experiencing and 
cannot justify increases to MSTA members.  The budget reductions and the 
increases in retirement contributions have already forced the District to eliminate 
more than 20 permanent job positions.  The priority for the District is to preserve 
programs and services to students with a reduced budget. 
 
Call-ins for substitute teachers indicate there have been few problems filling these 
per diem positions.  Only 82 of 2433 (or 3.4%) positions were not filled during the 
2010-2011 school year.  This is a much lower percentage than the other schools 
reporting.  At this time the District believes their substitute teachers appreciate 
working for them and will continue to do so even if wages are frozen.  They also 
noted the number of unemployed teachers in the area provides sufficient substitutes 
to fill their needs. 
 
The District believes it is important to provide a competitive wage for substitute 
teachers.  To them, this means they can compete for quality substitutes without wage 
increases for at least five (5) years. 
 
**************** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MSTA PERSPECTIVE 
 
The 2004-2009 Agreement between the parties provided wage increases based on an 
average daily rate of other neighboring districts plus 4%.   In 2005 and through 
2009, MSTA members received a wage increase of 4%.  The 2009-2010 Agreement 
provided an increase of 4.25%, leading to the current $98.00 and $87.00 daily rates. 
 
The initial MSTA proposal in November 2010 was a four year agreement with a 4% 
wage increase each year.  At that time the District proposed no increase for an 
undetermined length of time.  In December 2010, MSTA proposed a four year 
agreement with a 2.75% increase each year.  The District held firm with no increase 
in wages. 
 
At the fact-finding hearing and currently, MSTA proposes: 
 
        Certified  Uncertified 
 2010-2011 2% retroactive   $100/day  $89/day 
 2011-2012 1% with a give back =0% $100/day  $89/day 
 2012-2013 2% with a give back =0% $100/day  $89/day 
 2013-2014 2%     $105/day  $94/day 
 2014-2015 2%     $107/day  $96/day 
 
MSTA has also provided examples of wages in other districts which show Marcellus 
is not exceptionally high compared to others.  This is somewhat difficult to compare 
since some of the data shows ranges rather than an actual wage.  In addition, MSTA 
claims the total cost of their proposed increases would cost the Marcellus District 
approximately $60,115.00 which is .00378% of the District’s local tax levy. 
 
**************** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FACT FINDER RECOMMENDATION 
 
The District is trying to respond to the financial issues and is taking a hard look at 
where they can trim their expenses.  There have been some tough decisions with 
more to come but they have decided to put a higher priority on programs than in 
other areas.  In this case, the District is willing to sacrifice the cost of some wages 
with the belief they will not lose quality substitute teachers. 
 
Other units have had salary increases for 2010-2011, but voluntarily agreed to lower 
the negotiated wages (up to 2% less) or frozen wages for the 2011-2012 school year. 
 
The substitute teachers have no compensation/benefits for the services they provide 
other than wages and deserve some reward for responding to the District’s needs 
and the District states they feel obligated to remain competitive and find quality 
substitutes.  Although not regular employees of the District, it does cost these 
substitutes more to travel to work, pay for child care, etc.  Keeping those facts in 
mind, I believe an offer of no increase for multiple years too severe.  My 
recommendation is a four year contract with the following wage increases: 
 
 Effective July 1, 2010    1% increase, retroactive 
 Effective July 1, 2011   1% increase with a give back (=0%) 
 Effective July 1, 2012   1% increase 
 Effective July 1, 2013   2% increase 
 
These wage increases are below the norm for similar positions in other school 
districts.  The increases would provide something for those who continued to work 
anticipating some increase in pay for 2010, and time to prepare for minimal 
increases in 2012 and 2013.  These increases should cause little stress to the District’s 
overall budget and may keep them competitive when recruiting substitute teachers. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND BINDING ARBITRATION 
 
 
THE DISTRICT PERSPECTIVE 
 
The issue of a grievance procedure and binding arbitration has been discussed in 
past negotiations with the District proposing a procedure to resolve disputes and 
issues of possible contractual disputes.  More than once MSTA has rejected district  
proposals that end short of binding arbitration.  Providing an arbitration clause 
could cause the district additional expenses for a substitute teacher who could work 
as little as one day per year. 
 
***************** 
MSTA PERSPECTIVE 
Grievance procedures with binding arbitration can be found in a number of 
bargaining units in per diem teacher contracts in Syracuse and a number of 
surrounding communities.  MSTA believes the potential of binding arbitration can 
expedite resolution of issues faster than having an Agreement without this clause. 
 
**************** 
 
FACT FINDER RECOMMENDATION 
At this time there is no grievance procedure in the Agreement.  My recommendation 
is for the parties to develop a procedure to handle contractual disputes.  This 
procedure could either be in the Agreement or developed as a “side agreement”. 
 
Since there have been little to no serious issues with the Marcellus Central School 
District and the Marcellus Substitute Teachers Association, and there has been little 
history of arbitration at other local school districts, I see no need for the procedure 
to include binding arbitration. 
 
 
I Ben Budelmann, do hereby affirm my oath as fact finder that I am the individual 
who executed this instrument which is my recommendation. 
 
   Dated:  December 1, 2011 _____________________________ 
        Ben Budelmann 
        Fact Finder 
  


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&amp;context=perbfact

Marcellus Central School District and Marcellus Substitute Teachers Association

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@Cornell

DigitalCommons@ILR