1

STATEOFMINNESOTA BUREAUOFMEDIATIONSERVICES
INTHEMATTEROFGRIEVANCEARBITRATIONBETWEEN
MINNEAPOLISSPECIALSCHOOL DISTRICTNO.1, EMPLOYER, ARBITRATORSAWARD BMSCASENO.09TD16 (TEACHERDISCHARGE)

and,

MINNEAPOLISFEDERATIONOF TEACHERS, UNION. RollandC.Toenges Notinevidence May29,2009 August21,25&26,2009 September16,2009 November16,2009 January16,2009

ARBITRATOR:

DATEOFGRIEVANCE:

DATEOFARBITRATORSELECTION: DATESOFHEARING:

DATEPOSTHEARINGBRIEFSFILED: HEARINGCLOSED: DATEOFAWARD:

ADVOCATES FORTHEEMPLOYER: JaPaulJ.Harris,Esq. MinneapolisSchools GRIEVANT ThomasCross,Teacher FORTHEUNION: DebraM.Corhouse,Attorney EducationMinnesota

 WITNESSES FORTHEEMPLOYER: FORTHEUNION: MikeLeiter,Bus.Agent,MFT RonCase,Teacher,EdenPrairie

GregBeyer,Principal(retired)

RosalynnLockett,EmployeeRelationsAsst.

M.EmmaHixson,Exec.Dir.,Emp.Rel.(retired) ThomasCross,Teacher/Grievant DawnReilley,AssistantPrincipal KathyAlvig,Principal ALSOPRESENT BetsyThompson,Attorney,EducationMinnesota RobPlunkett,Attorney,EducationMinnesota BonitaJones,BusinessAgent,MinneapolisFederationofTeachers COURTREPORTER NancyL.Tollefsrud,TollefsrudReporting,LLC ISSUE WasthedischargeofTomCross(Grievant)forcauseasprovidedinMinnesota Statutes122A/41.Subd.6(1)?1
1TheissuestatementprovidedbytheEmployeris:WhethertheDistricthasprovedbya

preponderanceoftheevidencethatithadcausetodischargeThomasCrossforconduct unbecomingateacherpursuanttoMinn.Stat.122A.41,Subd.6(1)? ItisnotedthatthehearingrecordshowstheEmployerincludedthestatutoryreasonsof inefficiencyInTeachingandInsubordinationinitsrecommendationfordischargetothe BoardofEducation,butnarroweditsbasisfordischargeintheinstantproceedingto ConductUnbecomingaTeacher. TheissuestatementprovidedbytheUnionis:WhethertheDistricthasjustcauseto immediatelydischargeMr.CrossfromhistenuredcontractunderMinnesotaStatutes 122A.41,Subd.6(a)(1)(2008),forhisconductunbecomingateacher?

 JURISDICTION Thematteratissue,regardingthedischargeofTomCross(Grievant),cameonfor hearingpursuanttothestatutorygroundsandproceduresforterminationofa tenuredteacher,MS122A.41,Subdivisions6through13. UndertheprovisionsofMS122A.41,Subdivisions7and13,theGrievantelected thatanarbitratorratherthantheSchoolBoardconductahearingandrendera decisiononthecharges. ThePartiesselectedRollandC.Toengesasthearbitratorfromalistofarbitrators providedbytheMinnesotaBureauofMediationServices. MinneapolisPublicSchools,SpecialSchoolDistrictNo.1,beingaCityofthefist

class,issubjecttoMinnesotaStatutesNo.122A.41,TeacherTenureAct;citiesofthe firstclass.UnderthisActthegroundsfordischargeofatenuredteacher,relevant totheinstantmatter,isasfollows:2 Subd.6(1)Immoralcharacter,conductunbecomingateacher,or insubordination; Subd.6(3)Inefficiencyinteachingorinthemanagementofaschool; AhearingonthedischargematterwasconductedonAugust21,25&26,2009.The PartiesfiledposthearingbriefsonSeptember16,2009.Therecordwasheldopen for6odayspendingfurthersubmissionsbytheParties.Beingnone,therecordwas closedonNovember16,2009.

2Thespecificchargesare:inefficiencyinteaching,insubordination,orconductunbecoming ateacher.(EmployerExhibit#7)

 TheArbitrationhearingwasconductedinaccordancewithapplicablestatutesand theCollectiveBargainingAgreement(CBA)betweentheParties.ThePartieswere affordedfullopportunitytopresentevidence,testimonyandargumentbearingon thematteratissue.Witnesseswereswornunderoathandsubjecttocross examination.

Theapplicablestatuteintheinstantmatter(MS122A.41,Subd.12,Para.C)provides thatthearbitratorshalldetermine,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,whether causespecifiedfordischargeexists.Italsoprovidesthatalesserpenalty,than discharge,maybeimposedbythearbitratoronlytotheextentthateitherparty proposessuchlesserpenaltyintheproceeding.ThePartiestotheinstantmatter stipulatedthatthearbitratorhasauthoritytomakeanawardotherthanthat proposedbytheParties. ThePartiesstipulatedthatthematterwasproperlybeforetheArbitratorandthere werenoproceduralorsubstantiveobjectionspending. AstenographicrecordwasmadeofthehearingandcopiessuppliedtotheParties andtotheArbitrator. BACKGROUND MinneapolisPublicSchoolsisalargeurbanschooldistrictwithsome33,000 studentsandmorethan6,000employees.Therearesome91schoollocations serving84neighborhoods. TeachersinMinneapolisPublicSchoolsareinacollectivebargainingunit representedbytheMinneapolisFederationofTeachers. ThomasCross(Grievant)beganteachinginMinneapolisPublicSchools(District)in Augustof1991.HehasabachelorofartsinmusicfromSonomaStateUniversity

 andislicensedtoteachK12musicinMinnesota.Histeachinglicenseauthorizes himtoteachinstrumentalbandandvocalmusictoanyclassinMinnesota. TheGrievanthastakentraininginconflictresolutionandvariousworkshops

providedbytheDistricttoaidhiminclassroommanagementandstudentlearning. TheGrievantbeganhisteachingcareerwiththeDistrictatAndersonElementary SchoolandtaughtthereforabouttwoyearsbeforeleavingtheDistrict.The Grievantreturnedinthe199495schoolyearandtaughtmusicatseveralschools includingFolwellMiddleSchool,HoweMiddleSchool,NorthrupUrban EnvironmentalSchool,AfroCentricSchool,andNorthHighSchool.School.The GrievantmovedtoSullivanSchoolforthe20082009schoolyear,wherehetaught generalmusicandbandfulltimeonafulltimebasis. TheDistrictadministeredanumberofdisciplinaryactionsagainsttheGrievant: InJuneof2005theGrievantwasissuedaNoticeofDeficiencyandatwo daysuspensionforconductunbecomingateacher. InOctoberof2007,theGrievantwasissuedanotherNoticeofDeficiency andWrittenReprimandforinefficiencyinteachingandinsubordination.3 InJuneof2008,theGrievantwasissuedathreedaysuspensionforconduct unbecomingateacherandinsufficiencyinteaching.4 InSeptember2008,theGrievantwasagaindisciplinedwithathreeday suspensionforconductunbecomingateacherinretaliatingagainsta student.5 InFebruary2009,theGrievantwassubjecttodisciplinedagainfor intimidatingastudentinamannerunbecomingateacher.6

3EmployerExhibit#20. 4EmployerExhibit#13. 5EmployerExhibit#17. 6EmployerExhibit#3.

OnFebruary4,2009,DistrictAdministrationinformedthegrievantthatitwouldbe recommendinghisdischargetotheSchoolBoardandplacedhimonadministrative leavewithpay,pendingSchoolBoardaction.7 OnApril15,2009,theDistrictnotifiedtheGrievantthattheSchoolBoard recommendedhisdischargeeffectiveApril14,2009.TheGrievantwasnotifiedof hisrighttoahearingeitherbeforetheSchoolBoardorbeforeanArbitrator. InaccordancewithMinn.Stat.122A.41,subd.12(a),theMinneapolisFederationof Teachers(Union)submittedawrittenrequestforahearingonbehalfofthe Grievantbeforeanarbitrator.Accordingly,thematterisbeforetheinstant proceeding. EXHIBITS JOINTEXHIBITS: J1.CollectiveBargainingAgreement. EMPLOYEREXHIBITS: E1.MemoBeyertoLockett,RE;PersonnelIncidentof01/29/09. E2.ConfidentialFaxLocketttoLeiter&Beyer,RE:LoudermillMeeting02/05/09. E3.MemoGreentoStewart,RE:Charges&SuspensionofGrievant,02/24/2009. LetterCooktoCross,RE:SuspensionofGrievantapproved,02/25/09. E4.Loudermill/DueProcessMeetingRE:Grievantwithnotes,02/05/09.s E5.LetterLocketttoGrievant,RE:AdministrativeLeave,02/04/09.8 E6.Blank. E7.Memo.GreentoLee,RE:Charges&RecommendationofDischarge,04/14/09. LetterBowermantoGrievant,RE:NoticeofTermination&Appeal,04/15/09. 7EmployerExhibit#5.
8Thisdocumentappearstobemisdatedandshouldprobablybedated02/05/2009.

 E8.SullivanStaffHandbook,20082009,updated08/20/09. E9.Blank. E10.PersonalNotesofGregBeyer,RE:IncidentinvolvingGrievant,01/29/09. E11.MemoReilleytoHixson,RE:IncidentinvolvingGrievant,04/25,08. E12.PersonalNotesofEmmaHixson,RE:Loudermillmeeting,06/04/08. E13.MemoGreentoHenryBlythe,RE:Charges&Suspension,06/10/2008. LetterHixsontoGrievant,RE:SuspensionWithoutPay,06/11/08. E14.MemoNobletoHixson,RE:ConductofGrievant,06/10/08. E15.PersonalNotesofEmmaHixson,RE:SuspensionofGrievant,08/27/08. E16.MemoGreentoHenryBlythe,RE:SuspensionofGrievant,09/09/08. LetterHixsontoGrievant,RE:SuspensionWithoutPay,09/10/08. E17.NoticeofDeficiencyandSuspensionHixsontoGrievant,09/02/08. E18.EmailREDismissalofStudentsbyGrievant,04/1416/08. E19.EmailRE:UnauthorizedShowingofMovie&MissingLessonPlans. E20.NoticeofDeficiencyandWrittenReprimand,10/25/07. E21.ConfidentialFax,RE:Loudermillmeetingscheduledfor06/14/05.9

E22.PersonalNotesofKathyAlvig,andwitnessstatementsRE:Incidentinvolving GrievantofMay2005. E23.NoticeofDeficiencyandSuspension,RE:GrievantBehavior,06/14/05. E24.MemoPeeblestoBoard,RE:SuspensionofGrievant,06/28/05. E25.LetterHixsontoGrievant,RE:SuspensionWithoutPay,06/29/05. UNIONEXHIBITS: U1.DissertationbyRonaldA.Case,PhD,RE:AMixedMethodStudyofTeacher StudentRapportFromThePerspectiveofFifthGraders. U2.PeriodicalAQualitativeViewofHumorInNursingClassrooms,byJoanKay Ulloth.

9Exhibitnotacceptedintoevidenceforlackoffoundation.

 U3.Humor,LearningandSocializationinMiddleLevelClassrooms,byJudyP. Pollak&PaulD.Freda. U4.MinneapolisPubicSchoolsBoardPolicy#6411F,Learning/Instruction, 06/04/08. U5.GregBeyerpermissionforGrievanttoshowmovieon09/22/08. U6.LetterofRecommendationbyDawnAllan,RetiredPrincipal,05/08/08. U7.LetterofRecommendationbyFayeBlakelyWashington,retired,08/19/09. U8.AppreciationEssaytoGrievantbyStudent,HenryStark,04/30/02 POSITIONOFTHEPARTIES THEEMPLOYERSUPPORTSITSPOSITIONWITHTHEFOLLOWING: InJanuary2009,parentsraisedconcernsregardingtheconductofthe Grievant. TheGrievantwasreportedtohavestatedthathewouldcutoffastudents headandpourorangejuicedownhisthroat. TheGrievantwasreportedtohaveattemptedtotapeastudenttoachairin bandclass. ThePreponderanceofEvidencesupportstheEmployerspositionthatit ismorelikelythannotthatthechargesmadeagainsttheGrievantaretrue. TheEmployersactionindischargingtheGrievantmeetsthestandardof beingfairandreasonable. TheGrievantisnotentitledtoanopportunitytocorrectanydeficiencies beforedischarge.NeverthelesstheEmployerbelievesthatanyremedial measureswouldbefutileandwasafactorinthedecisiontodischargehim. TheGrievantengagedinConductUnbecomingaTeacherbyusing threateningactions,whichisinviolationofschoolpolicyandethical standardsforteachers.

AninvestigationsubstantiatedtheallegationsthattheGrievantthreatenedto cutoffastudentsheadandpourorangejuicedownhisthroat. AninvestigationalsosubstantiatedtheallegationsthattheGrievant threatenedtotapeastudenttothechairandwenttowenttoobtaintapefor thatpurpose.

 AlthoughtheGrievantmayhavemeanthisstatementstobehumorous,the studentswhereuncomfortableandreportedtheincidentstotheirparents.

Inaninvestigationoftheallegations,withtheUnionRepresentativepresent, theGrievantacknowledgedhavingmadetheallegedstatements. TheGrievantsefforttocloudhisactionswithdiscussionofusingjokesasa productiveteachingtoolisunconvincing.Itisimportanttonotethathumor isintheeyeofthebeholderanditisclearthatithadadetrimentaleffecton thestudents. ThetestimonyofDr.Case(UnionExhibit#3)doesnotsupporttheGrievants contentionasitdescribesnegativehumorastheantithesisoflearning. ItisnoteworthythattheGrievantperceivedthestudentstobethe inappropriatepartyandfailedtocomprehendortakeresponsibilityforhis actions. ItisclearthattheGrievanthasissueswithconfrontingstudents. TheGrievanthasbeengivennumerousnoticesthathisconductwas inappropriateandhasdisregardedthem. TheGrievanthasdemonstratedConductUnbecomingaTeacherandthereis justcauseforhisdischarge. TheGrievanthasalonghistoryofinappropriateconduct: 1. Dr.KathyAlvig,PrincipalofNorthropUrbanEnvironmentalSchool hadproblemswiththeGrievantandhadcounseledhimonhisuseof inappropriatelanguage.TheGrievantreceivedasuspensionfor inappropriateconductinconfrontingastudentathisneighborhood busstopandthemannerinwhichtheconfrontationwasconducted. 2. DawnReilley,AssistantPrincipalatNorthHighSchoolhadnumerous concernsregardingtheGrievantsclassroommanagement.The GrievantwasgivenaNoticeofDeficiencyandathreedaysuspension forConductUnbecomingaTeacher,InefficiencyinTeachingand Insubordination.Thereafter,theGrievantthreatenedthestudenthe believedwasresponsibleforhisdisciplineandwasgivenfurther disciplineofafivedaysuspension.10

10Therecordshowsthatthefivedaysuspensionwaslaterreducedtoathreeday

suspension.

10 Itisimportanttonotethat,withtheconsultationofhisUnion,theGrievant didnotgrieveanyofthedisciplinarysanctionsadministeredandcannotnow attempttorehashtheseissues.11 Insum,allofthetraditionallycitedelementsofjustcausehavebeensatisfied tosupportthedischargeoftheGrievant. 1. TheEmployersexpectationthattheGrievantwouldnotusehostile languagetowardstudentsandthreatenthemisreasonable. 2. TheEmployersexpectationthattheGrievantwouldfollowruleson discipliningstudentsandtheethicalstandards/responsibilitiesinhis unioncontractisreasonable. 3. Therulesandexpectationswereconstantly,consistentlyandclearly communicatedtotheGrievantastestifiedbyWitnesses,Hixson,Alvig, ReillyandBeyer. 4. TheGrievantwasclearlyonnoticethathisconductwouldresultin discipline.HewasgivenmultipleNoticesofDeficienciesandfour DueProcessmeetings.EmployerExhibits#17,20and23advisethe Grievantthat,Furtheractionofthisnaturecouldresultinfurther disciplinaryaction. 5. TeacherresponsibilitiesoutlinedintheUnionContractalsoputthe Grievantonnoticethathewouldbesubjecttodisciplineforhis conduct. 6. Further,anyemployeewouldreasonablyknowthatengagingin threateningactionstowardstudentsandoffensivelanguagewouldbe groundsfordiscipline.TheEmployersinvestigationwasprompt, thorough,fairandobjective.Beyerinterviewed10ofthe19students. TheGrievantwasgivenfullopportunitytorespondtotheallegations duringtheinvestigationandlaterathisdueprocessmeeting.Hewas affordedUnionrepresentation. 7. Numerouswitnesses,includingstudents,supportedtheallegations againsttheGrievant.TheevidenceisoverwhelmingthattheGrievant engagedinmisconduct,violatedschoolrulesandviolatedethicalrules codifiedintheUnionContract. 8. TheGrievanthadahistoryofconfrontingstudentsinathreatening manner,leavingtheEmployerwithdischargeastheonlyappropriate option.

11TheCBAcontainsindepthprovisionsprovidingforthefilingofandredressofgrievances

arisingfromdisciplinaryactions.

11 9. TheEmployeradministersprogressivedisciplineinauniformand consistentmanner.Witnesses,EmmaHixsonandRosalynLockettof theEmployeeRelationsDepartmenttestifiedthatanyotherteacher, withthesamehistoryasthatoftheGrievant,wouldlikewisebe discharged. 10. ThelevelofdisciplineadministeredtotheGrievantisconsistentwith hislevelofmisconduct.Hismisconductwasgross.Itwasseriousand repeated. TheEmployerhasmetitsstatuaryobligationbydemonstrating,viaa preponderanceofevidence,thattheGrievantcommittedConduct UnbecomingaTeacherandthereiscauseforhisdischarge.

THEUNIONSUPPORTSITSPOSITIONWITHTHEFOLLOWING: TheGrievantisaveryeffectiveeducator. Thedisciplineadministeredisexcessiveandinappropriate. WhenassignedatSullivanSchoolduringthe20082009schoolyear,the GrievanthadneverbeengivenawrittenwarningbyMr.Beyer,exceptforthe allegationthathehadthreatenedtotapeastudenttoachair. 1. TheUnionraisedobjectiontoBeyerspersonalnotesfrominterviews withtenofthe18studentsashearsay.Therewasnodirecttestimony fromthestudents. 2. Theonlydirecttestimonyconcerningthematterwasprovidedbythe Grievant,whomadeitclearthathiscommentswereintendedasajoketo aideinclassroommanagement. 3. TheGrievantdidnottouchthestudentandneverhadanyintentionof actuallytapingthestudenttothechair. 4. TheGrievantbelievedhisuseofhumor,asamanagementstrategy,was moreeffectivethanthreateningthestudentwithareferraloutofthe classroom. 5. TheEmployerscharacterizationofthecommentsbytheGrievantas intimidationisunsupported.Thereisabsolutelynoevidencethatthe Grievantscommentswereintimidation.Beyerdidnottestifythatitwas intimidationhesimplysaidhethoughttheGrievantshouldhave removedthestudentinsteadofactingashedid. 6. ItwasbothreasonableandprofessionalfortheGrievanttoaddressthe matterthroughuseofhumor,whichissupportedbyresearch.

12 7. Dr.RonCasesdoctoralresearchwithfifthgradersisdirectlyapplicable totheGrievantsworkwithseventhgradersatSullivan. 8. Dr.Casetestifiedthathumorisinextricablyintertwinedwithrapport,and rapportisacriticalattributeofthesuccessfulclassroom.Dr.Case furthertestifiedthat,Theresalotofresearchouttherethatsays,yes absolutely,thatthelevelofastudentsconnectednesstotheteacher connectstothelearningandobviouslymakeachievementscoresbetter. 9. TheGrievantsactiontoaddressthestudentbehaviormatterinthe classroomisinkeepingwithSchoolPolicy,whichemphasizesthe teachersresponsibilityforkeepingstudentsintheclassroom environment(Reducingtheamountoftimestudentsspendoutofthe classroomduetobehaviorisclearlyonewaytoimpactouracademic success.). 10. Further,thestudentstatementscontainedinBeyersnotesare contradictoryandunreliable. 11. Clearly,therewasnotmajorityofstudentswhoviewedtheGrievants commentstobeinappropriate. 12. TwoofthestudentsinterviewedbyBeyerthoughttheGrievantwas joking.AthirdstudentacknowledgedthattheGrievantwaslaughing.A fourthstudentthoughttheGrievantwasbothseriousandjoking. 13. Fourofthetenstudentsinterviewedtrumpedupexaggeratedallegations andshouldhavenocreditability.Onestudentdidnotrememberthe incident. 14. TheGrievantsstatementsgivenduringtheinvestigationandatthe hearingareconsistent.YouhavetositdownandIprobablyshouldtape youtothechair.Youknowwhat?YouvegottositdownorIll probablyhavetotapeyoutothatchair. 15. ThestudentwhowasthesubjectoftheGrievantscommentdidnoteven allegethattheGrievantactuallytapedhimtothechair.TheGrievant testifiedthatthestudentsubjectofhiscommentsknewhewasjoking becausethestudentwaslaughing. 16. WhatBeyerwasdescribinginhistestimonyissimplythatthekidsdid notthinkateachershoulddoitbecausetheycannotdoit.Thissurely cannotbethestandardfordischarge. 17. Thetapingmatterdidnotariseasacomplaint,butviarumorfroma studentwhohaditinfortheGrievant,astudentthathadthemost disciplinereferralsofanyofthestudentsinthatclass.

13 18. Clearly,theEmployerdidnotbelievethattherewasanactualthreatto harmthestudent,ortherewouldhavebeentestimonyaboutmeetingthe obligationunderthemaltreatmentofminorsacttoreport,threatened injury. 19. TheGrievantscommentsheredonotrisetothelevelofconduct unbecomingateacher,andheshouldnotbedischargedfromhis employment. TheEmployersactiontodischargetheGrievantisinconsistentwiththe principlesofJustCause.12 TheEmployergavetheGrievantnowarningthatuseofthishumorwould resultindiscipline. PriorwarningsgiventheGrievantwere: 1. Nottomeetstudentsattheirbusstoporattheirhomesdodealwith issues(2005). 2. Youmaynotyellatstudentsorberatethem,eveniftheyareengagedin misconduct(2005). 3. Ifconcernedabouttheft,youmusthandlethesituationappropriately (2005). 4. Ifstudentsneedtobeconfronted,itshouldbedoneobjectively,privately andrespectfully(2005). 5. Ifencounteringaseriousissueofmisconduct,seekguidancefromyour Principalpriortotakingaction(2005).

12ReferencedhereistheseventestsofJustCauseascitedbyArbitratorCarrollDaugherty

inGriefBros.Cooperage,42LA555,558(1964):(1)Didthecompanygivetotheemployee forewarningorforeknowledgeofthepossibleconsequencesoftheemployeesconduct?(2) Wasthecompanysruleormanagerialorderreasonablyrelatedtotheorderly,efficientand safeoperationofthecompanysbusiness?(3)Didthecompany,beforeadministeringthe disciplinetotheemployeemakeanefforttodiscoverwhethertheemployeedidinfact violateordisobeyaruleororderofmanagement?(4)Wasthecompanysinvestigationfair andobjective?(5)Attheinvestigation,didthejudgeobtainsubstantialevidenceorproof thattheemployeewasguiltyascharged?(6)Hasthecompanyapplieditsrules,ordersand penaltiesevenhandedlyandwithoutdiscriminationtoallemployees?(7)Wasthedegreeof disciplineadministeredbythecompanyinaparticularcasereasonablyrelatedto(a)the

seriousnessoftheemployeesprovenoffenseand(b)therecordoftheemployerin hisservicewiththeCompany?

14 6. Youmustrespectstudentconfidentialityregardlessofwhetheryouthink someonehasdonesomethingwrongornot.Youmaynotpubliclydiscuss confidentialinformationaboutstudents(2005). 7. YouareexpectedtofollowtheProfessionalStandardslaidoutinArticle5 oftheMFTContract.(1)Yourinteractionswithfamiliesmustbe appropriateinfrequencyandfocusonbuildingtrustandcreating positivere4lationships.(2)Youshoulduseasuccessfulparent communicationprocessthatinvolvesstudents,displayssensitivityfor familiesandinvolvesfamiliesinsolvingproblems.(3)Youmust consistentlyadheretostandardsforprofessionalconductandoverall performancerequirementsandhelpthemembersof[sic]school communitytounderstandandadheretotheseobligations.(4)Youmust createaclassroomenvironmentthatisrespectful,emotionallysecure andphysicallysafeforstudentsandadhereto[sic)]therequirementsof theMinnesotaDataPracticesAct(particularlywithregardtostudent confidentiality)[citationomitted(2005). 8. Thedayafteraperformance,youandyourclasswillreflectonthe previousdaysperformance.Youwilldiscussandwriteaboutsuccesses aswellasareasforimprovement.Youwillnotcancelclass,showamovie orgivestudents[sic](2007). 9. Ifyouplantoshowamovieinthefuture,youneedtogetpriorwritten permissionfromanadministrator(2007). 10. Theexpectationisthatyouwillconsistentlymaintainprofessional standardsofconduct(2008). NoneofthesewarningsorexpectationsprovidedtheGrievantwithafair warningthathewouldbesubjecttodischargeforhisactionsinthetape incident. Thegrievantwasabsolutelyattemptingtocreatearespectfulclassroom environmentbyfirstteasingthestudentandthenattemptingtotalktohim privatelyaboutbehavingappropriatelyasopposedtojustreferringhimout oftheclassroom. Basedontheresearchregardingeffectivenessofhumorintheclassroom,itis notreasonabletoexpecttheGrievanttohaveknownthathiscommentswere inappropriate.TheEmployercanchoosetomakearuleprohibitingcertain humor,butitshouldapplyonlyprospectively. Thehearsaynotesintroducedintoevidenceregardingtheinvestigationof thetapingincidentprovidedlittleornoinformationaboutthemethodused andmakesitprettyclearthattherewasnoconsistencyinquestionsposed. Studentresponsesincludedawiderangeofallegations.Themostreliable

 informationinthesenotessupportstheGrievantstestimonythatthe commentsweresimplyajoke.

15

TheEmployersdisciplineoftheGrievantintheinstantmatterisinconsistent withitstreatmentofotherteachers.ThehistoryshowsthattheEmployeris actinginconsistentlywithpriorcasesofdiscipline.13 ComparedtothedisciplineofotherteachersinMinneapolis,thefactsinthis casedonotjustifydischarge. Itisinappropriatetodischargeateacherbasedsolelyonhearsaytestimony, withnodirecttestimonyontheallegations.UnderMinnesotaSupremeCourt precedentandawardsinotherarbitrationcases,theGrievantshouldnotbe subjecttodischargeonhearsayevidencealone.14 TheEmployershouldknowfromitsexperienceinitsotherarbitratedcases thatdirecttestimonyisnecessaryandhearsayevidencealonesnotsufficient tosupportdischarge. Intheinstantcase,thePrincipalsnotesandsecondhandtestimonyare insufficientevidencetosupportdischargeoftheGrievant. Theexistenceofpreviousdisciplinedoesnotchangetheobligationofthe EmployertoprovejustcausetodischargetheGrievant.

13CitedasAttachment#1:InthematterofArbitrationBetweenMinneapolisSpec.Sch.Dist.

No.1andMinneapolisFed.OfTeachers,BMS#06PA492,Feb.23,2007). CitedasAttachment#2:IntheMatterofArbitrationBetweenMinneapolisFed.OfTeachers v.MinneapolisSpec.Sch.Dist.No.1,BMS#06PA971,July10,2007atpp.2022). CitedasAttachment#3:IntheMatterofArbitrationBetweenMinneapolisSpec.Sch.Dist. No.1andMinneapolisFederationofTeachers,BMS#06PA972,July31,2007). Alsoreferenced:IntheMatteroftheProposedDischargeofThomasMuehbauerbySpecial Sch.Dist.No.1,Minneapolis,BMS#05TD2,Nov.28,2005).

14Citedis:Moreyv.SchoolBd.OfIndep.Sch.Dist.No.492,AustinPub.Sch.,136N.W.2d105

108(Minn.1965)(emphasisadded). Citedis:IntheMatterofArbitrationBetweenFaribaultEducationAssociationand IndependentSchoolDistrictNo.656,92PP42B,atpp.67) Attachment#1:InthematterofArbitrationBetweenMinneapolisSpecialSchoolDistrict No,1&MinneapolisFederationofTeachers,BMS#06PA492,Feb.23,2007). Alsoreferenced:Elkouri&Elkouri,HowArbitrationWorks,5thEd.1997atp.440.

16 AtissueisnotwhetherallofthedisciplineadministeredtotheGrievantrises tothelevelofdischarge,butrather,doestheGrievantscommentsinthetape matterrisetothelevelofdischarge. TheGrievantacknowledgesthathedidnotchallengedisciplinaryactions priortothetapeincident.However,sincetheEmployerpresentsthemto supportitsdischargeaction,hewantstopresenthissideofthefacts: 1. Hismotivationintheincidenttorecovermusicalequipmentatthe studentsbusstopwastoinsureitwouldbeavailablefortheuseofother studentsandforthestudenttolearnalifelessonthatstealingis inappropriate.TheGrievantunderstoodhowthefamilycouldbe defensiveaboutthematter. 2. Regardingtheallegationthatheimproperlydismissedseniors,hesimply reportedthattheyhadbeendismissedanddidnotexplainthatgivenhis badtoothache,hewasnottheonewhodismissedthem.Duetothe Grievantsteachingschedule,hewouldnothavebeenabletoattendany meetingwheretheissueofexpectationsforseniorattendancewas discussed. 3. TheGrievantadmittedthatheintentionallyleftamovieforthesubstitute teacherforwhichonlyhehadverbalpermissiontoshow.TheGrievant assumedthatpermissionwaspermissionanddidntdistinguishbetween verbalandwrittenpermission.Thesecondmovieshownbythe substituteteacherjusthappenedtobeinhisclassroombecausehehad renteditforhissonandaccidentlyleftitthere.Althoughthiswasan unfortunatesituation,itshouldnotservetinflateanydisciplineinthe instantmatter. 4. Regardingtheencounterwithastudentwhohefearedwouldgethiminto trouble,theGrievantacknowledgeshiserrorandtakesresponsibilityfor hisconduct.Thisencounterdifferedfromthetapeincidentwherethe Grievantwasnotangrybutjoking.TheGrievantcompliedwiththe Employersdirectivetoparticipateincounselingandlearnedtousetools totemperhisresponsesindifficultsituations. EmployerWitness,EmmaHixsonsopinionondischargeoftheGrievantis irrelevantasshewasnotemployedatthetimeoftheGrievantwas recommendedfordischarge. TheGrievantstestimonywasuncontrovertedbyanydirecttestimonyandhe isacreditablewitness. TheGrievantunderstandstheconcernabouthiscommentswithrespectto thetapeincidentandwouldnotmakesuchastatementagain.

17 TheGrievanthasdemonstratedthathehasnotrepeatedincidentsforwhich hehasbeendisciplined. TheGrievanthassupportfromothersexperiencedinhisfield.Retired PrincipalDawnAllanandretiredMusicInstructorFayeWashington providedwrittentestimonytotheteachingqualitiesoftheGrievant.The Grievantalsointroducedaletteroffromastudentsfamilypraisinghis commitmenttotheirsonseducation. ItisnoteworthythatonlyoneoftheEmployersadministrativewitnesses providedanyevidencethattheyhadconcernsaboutanythingtheysawinthe Grievantsclassroom. TheEmployerhasnotmetitsburdenofshowingtheGrievantsconduct unbecomingateacher. TheGrievantrespectfullyrequestsheberetainedasateacherinthe MinneapolisPublicSchoolDistrictandthathispayandbenefitsberestored. DISCUSSION

Theissuestobeaddressesareasfollows: WhatcanbededucedfromtherecordregardingtheGrievantsconductinthe tapeincidentofJanuary29,2009? DoestheGrievantsconductintheJanuary29,2009tapeincidentconstitute conductunbecomingateacher,asallegedbytheEmployer? IftheGrievantsconductintheJanuary29,2009tapeincidentconstitutes conductunbecomingateacher,whatistheappropriatediscipline? What,ifany,effectshouldtheGrievantspriordisciplinaryrecordhaveon anydisciplinewarrantedintheJanuary29,2009tapeincident?

TherecordshowsthattheGrievantwasemployedduringthe20082009school yearattheAnneSullivanSchool,wherehetaughtgeneralmusictokindergarten througheighthgradeandbandtosixth,seventhandeighthgradestudents.The GrievantssupervisorwasPrincipal,GregBeyer. ThematterofthetapeincidentcametoBeyersattentionviaaparent,whohad heardaboutitfromastudent.Beyerfollowedupwiththestudentandlearnedthat

18

theallegedincidenthadoccurredintheGrievantsseventhgradebandclassroomon January29,2009. Beyerthenmadeaninvestigationoftheallegedincident.Heinterviewedtenofthe 19students,whowereintheGrievantsclassroom,andscheduledameetingwith theGrievantandhisUnionrepresentative. Althoughthestudentsgavevaryingaccountsofwhathadhappened,Beyer concludedthattheGrievanthadcommentedtoastudentwhowouldnotsitdown thathewouldtapehimtothechair.TheGrievantacknowledgedthatsomestudents interpretedthecommentasajokewhileotherstookitasaseriousthreat.15 InthemeetinginvolvingBeyer,theGrievantandhisUnionRepresentative,the GrievantacknowledgedtoBeyerthatheprobablydidmakethatstatement,butit waskindofajoke.TheGrievantalsoacknowledgedthatYes,IgottapehereIhave some.16 Inhistestimonyatthehearing,theGrievantsaidhiscommentwas:Youvegottosit down,orIllprobablyhavetotapeyoutothatchair.TheGrievantfurthertestified that,Thesecondtimehe[student]wasnotpayingattention,andsoIhadtoI grabbedtherollofmaskingtapeandIshowedthestudents...thefirsttimewasa joke.Thefirsttimeishumor,thesecondtimeisveryserious,becausethenyoure goneafterthat.Thereisnomore. TheUnionobjectstoanyrelianceonthestatementsfromstudentsashearsay,as theywerenotsubjecttocrossexamination.Asnotedearlier,thestudentsgave varyinginterpretationsofwhathadhappened,butconfirmedwhattheGrievanthas acknowledgedhimself,thathethreatenedtotapethestudenttothechairandhad tapeinhishands.

15Grievantstestimonyatpp.149. 16EmployerExhibit#1,5thparagraph.

 TheinvestigationintothetapeincidentalsobroughttoBeyersattentiontoother issuesinvolvingtheGrievantsconduct. Notfollowingsiteprocedureswhenstudentsaremisbehaving.

19

Concernsregardingjudgmentandcommunicatingwithstudents;ie. Inappropriatejokingandyellingatstudents. NotfollowinglessonPlancreatesplananddoesntgooveritwith students. TheSullivanStaffHandbook20082009containsasectiontitledStudent Support/ClassroomManagement.ThissectioncontainstheSchoolWideBehavior Plan,CitywideDisciplinePolicy,MandatoryReportingandTipsforAvoiding PowerStruggleswithStudents.17TheprovisionsoftheHandbookarereviewed withteachersinstaffmeetingsatthebeginningoftheschoolyear.TheGrievant testifiedthathewaspresentforthisreview,wasgiventheHandbook. TheHandbookcontainsamatrixofbehaviorsandteachersarerequiredtoprovide BeyerwithaBehaviorPlanidentifyinghowthey[teacher]willaddressstudent behaviorissues.TheGrievantprovidedaplan,whichBeyerapproved.18 TheGrievantshandlingofthestudentsbehaviorinthetapeincidentwasnotin compliancewiththebehaviorplanintheHandbookandwasnotincompliancewith theBehaviorPlansubmittedtoBeyerbytheGrievant.19 TheinvestigationBeyerconductedrevealedinformationregardingtheGrievants generalconductintheclassroomthatconcernedBeyer.Beyerfoundthatthe Grievantattimesshouted/yelledatstudentsratherthanissueanormalverbal warningbeforetakingfurtheraction.20TheGrievantinhistestimony acknowledgedyellingwhenhethoughtasafetyissuewasinvolved.TheGrievant
17EmployerExhibit#8. 18TestimonyofBeyeratpp.1820&146. 19TestimonyofBeyerartPP.2122. 20EmployerExhibit#1.

 alsoacknowledgedthathehadbeentalkedtoonthreeoccasionsregardinghis classroommanagement.21

20

BeyeralsofoundthattheGrievantsdemeanor(yelling/joking)intheclassroomwas aconcerntostudents.22 TheGrievantsownstatementsprovidesomeinsightintohisclassroomdemeanor: Expectationthatdoclassworkismineisabouthearingandlistening rehearse.IwantpreparekidsforH.S.RaisemyvoiceIdonotlikemy behavior.OneofthethingsIamintheclassroom.Iamlargerthanlife.IfI amfirmtheprincipalisyellinginappropriate.[Emphasisadded]23 Itellthem,Kids,Imthekingoftheclass,andthatsthewayitisandtheres adoor.Imgoingtotellyouthatrightnow.Andweregoingtohavefunand youregoingtolearn.Anyquestions?24 FINDINGS TheArbitratorfindsthepreponderanceofevidencesupportsthechargethatthe Grievantthreatenedtotapeastudenttohischairandrepeatedthethreatasecond time,afterlocatingtapeanddisplayingittothestudent.TheArbitratorfindsthis conductconstitutesconductunbecomingateacher.AlthoughtheGrievantmay haveintendedthefirstthreatasajoke,theGrievantsowntestimonyrevealsthat thesecondthreatwasnotajoke. ...AsIwentovertotalktohimformysecondintervention,saying,that,you know,thefirsttimewasajoke.25

21Grievantstestimonyatpp.149150. 22TestimonyofLockettatpp.43. 23EmployerExhibit#4,pp.2. 24Grievanttestimonyatpp.49. 25Grievantstestimonyatpp.53.

 Inadditiontothetapingincident,therecordshowstheGrievantmaking

21

intimidatingcommentstostudentsbyexaltinghimselfintheclassroom.i.e.Iam kingoftheClassandIamlargerthanlife. AlthoughtheArbitratorfindstheJanuary29,2009tapeincidentconduct unbecomingateacherandwarrantingdiscipline,theArbitratordoesnotfinditto be,inandofitself,sufficientcausefordischarge.However,othermitigatingfactors aretobeconsidered. Indeterminingtheappropriatediscipline,isthetapeincidentaonetimeoccurrence ofconductunbecomingateacher,oraretheremitigatingcircumstancesthat indicateapatternofsuchconduct,whichislikelytoberepeated? MitigatingfortheGrievantishislengthofemploymentwithMinneapolisSchools. Therecordshowsthathehasaboutseventeenyears,countingparttime,fulltime andpreviousemployment. MitigatingagainsttheGrievantishispreviousrecordofdiscipline.Therecord showsthefollowingdisciplineadministeredtotheGrievant,noneofwhichwas appealed/grieved.26 June2005twodaysuspensionforconductunbecomingateacher. October2007NoticeofDeficiencyandWrittenReprimandfor inefficiencyinteachingandinsubordination. June2008threedaysuspensionforconductunbecomingateacher. September2008threedaysuspensionforconductunbecomingateacher.

TheGrievantsrecordofconductindicatesthatthetapeincidentisnotanisolated occurrenceofconductunbecomingateacher,butarepeatofapatternofconduct unbecomingateacher.

26Oncrossexamination,theGrievantacknowledgedthathehadUnionrepresentationatall

oftheLoudermillhearingsandchosenottoappealthediscipline.

22

TheGrievanttestifiedthathewasonnoticefrompreviousdisciplinethatcontinued conductunbecomingateacherwouldcausehimtolosehisjob. BecauseIhadjustreceivedasuspensionforsomething,anditis suspensionsareserious,andatthatsuspensionmeetingIwastoldthatWe dontwanttoseeyouagainorelseyouregoingtoloseyourjob.27 TheArbitratorfindsthat,althoughthetapeincidentisnotsufficientinandofitself toconstitutecausefordischarge,theGrievantsrecordofdiscipline,when consideredwiththetapeincidentconstitutescausefordischarge.TheGrievants employmenthistoryindicatesthatcorrectivedisciplinehasnotbeeneffectivein forestallinghistendencytoexhibitconductunbecomingateacher. AWARD Thegrievanceisdenied. Thepreponderanceofevidenceshowsthatcauseexiststodischargethe Grievantforconductunbecomingateacher,inaccordancewithMinnesota Statutes122A.41, CONCLUSION ThePartiesarecommendedontheprofessionalandthoroughmannerwithwhich theypresentedtheirrespectivecases.Ithasbeenapleasuretobeofassistancein resolvingthisgrievancematter. Issuedthis16thdayofJanuary2010atEdina,Minnesota. ________________________________________________ RollandC.Toenges,Arbitrator

27Grievantstestimonyatpp.97&98.