Michigan Court of Appeals upholds VBEA grievance on pay

The Van Buren Public Schools must pay the teacher who taught extra students as agreed under the collective bargaining agreement unless the district decides to appeal a Court of Appeals decision to the Michigan Supreme Court.
On Aug. 24, the State of Michigan Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the order of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission denying the district’s unfair labor practice charge against the Van Buren Education Association MEA/NEA.
The charge was brought by the district after the union’s request to arbitrate a grievance pertaining to the application of an “overage compensation” provision in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement to a teacher teaching online classes during the 2020-21 school year.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the district arranged for students to attend classes remotely for the 2020-21 academic year. The district and the union executed the following Letter of Understanding pertaining to remote online instruction:
“In our continuing efforts to allow our students at Belleville High School as many course offerings as we can provide given the current COVID pandemic we are experiencing, VBPS and the VBEA agree that BHS staff who agree to teach students remotely after their regular workday and in excess of their contracted number of hours will be compensated at a rate of $190 per student. The class size shall not exceed 50 students, and when possible all staff members who are qualified to teach the course will be offered an opportunity to teach the course. This letter of understanding will sunset at the end of the 2020-21 school year (June 30, 2021).”
BHS teacher Marcus Napthen was assigned more than 175 students in the fall of 2020 and the union filed a grievance in his behalf on Dec. 18, 2020. Both the high school principal and the superintendent denied the grievance based on a prohibited subject of bargaining under state law.
An Administrative Law Judge agreed with the union. MERC affirmed the law judge’s decision that the teacher’s pay was based on the collective-bargaining agreement and there would be compensation based on the number of students, as agreed.
The district appealed the rulings and the Court of Appeals confirmed the decisions of the Administrative Law Judge and MERC. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Public Employment Relations Act used by the district to deny the arbitration and found that anything to do with compensation was under the collective bargaining agreement and the teacher should be paid for the extra students as agreed.