Membership Services
Over the fiscal year 2015 – 2016 ASASP has continued to work diligently to represent its hard working and dedicated members in Unit II and Unit III.
During the year, ASASP and its members faced 21 Loudermills for termination. ASASP worked with the Administration and the Board of Education to overturn 11 terminations. The circumstances surrounding some of the terminations were to egregious to be overturned. However, ASASP was able to navigate and negotiate with the Administration to award substantial monetary settlements, including buyouts of earned leave for members separated from the system.
ASASP worked with Human Resources, Labor Relations and management to remove Letters of Reprimand and other recommendations of discipline given to a number of its members.
ASASP applied intervention and facilitation between Unit II and Unit III members and their immediate supervisors as a means to provide support and resolve issues at the lowest level.
When members make ASASP aware of issues and concerns, it is then ASASP can be most effective and produce and perform at its best.
ASASP is proud of all of its loyal members, and can think of no higher compliment than the level of trust you have bestowed upon us to protect and support your rights and livelihood.
During the year, ASASP and its members faced 21 Loudermills for termination. ASASP worked with the Administration and the Board of Education to overturn 11 terminations. The circumstances surrounding some of the terminations were to egregious to be overturned. However, ASASP was able to navigate and negotiate with the Administration to award substantial monetary settlements, including buyouts of earned leave for members separated from the system.
ASASP worked with Human Resources, Labor Relations and management to remove Letters of Reprimand and other recommendations of discipline given to a number of its members.
ASASP applied intervention and facilitation between Unit II and Unit III members and their immediate supervisors as a means to provide support and resolve issues at the lowest level.
When members make ASASP aware of issues and concerns, it is then ASASP can be most effective and produce and perform at its best.
ASASP is proud of all of its loyal members, and can think of no higher compliment than the level of trust you have bestowed upon us to protect and support your rights and livelihood.
Political Action and Legislative Affairs
You may have seen or heard about it already, but in the “most progressive” County in Maryland, County Council President Nancy Floreen is introducing an extremely anti-union bill that would devastate collective bargaining for firefighters, school nurses, county employees, and many more working people in Montgomery County.
The bill is modeled right out of the playbook of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and you can imagine that if it passes in Montgomery County, it won’t be long until it spills over into other parts of the region - creating an anti-labor climate that puts our future as a labor movement at risk.
ASASP will be joining forces with Labor to prevent such legislation and stop politicians from railroading this type of legislation in Prince George's County.
The bill is modeled right out of the playbook of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and you can imagine that if it passes in Montgomery County, it won’t be long until it spills over into other parts of the region - creating an anti-labor climate that puts our future as a labor movement at risk.
ASASP will be joining forces with Labor to prevent such legislation and stop politicians from railroading this type of legislation in Prince George's County.
RIF Update
In June 2011, PGCPS implemented a reduction-in-force that resulted in twenty-seven (27) employees in ASASP Units 2 and 3 losing their jobs. Those employees were selected for termination not based on seniority and they were not accorded the right to bump into other positions for which they were qualified, in violation of both collective bargaining agreements. ASASP timely grieved that action, but that grievance was denied by former PGCPS’s Superintendent William Hite.
Subsequently, ASASP filed an appeal to the Board of Education of the Prince George’s County Public Schools (“BOE”). On April 4, 2012, a hearing pursuant to § 4-205 was held before Hearing Officer, Robert Troll, Esq. Both parties elicited testimony and submitted exhibits.
On October 12, 2012, the Hearing Examiner issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommendations regarding ASASP’s appeal. The Hearing Examiner upheld the Superintendent’s action. On October 30, 2012, ASASP’s attorney filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommendations. Subsequently, the Hearing Examiner denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
After the parties briefed the issues, the BOE held oral arguments on ASASP’s appeal from the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Subsequently, on December 18, 2013, the BOE issued its Final Order.
In Spring 2011, the BOE was considering another round of reductions in force. Rather than follow the language of the collective bargaining agreement, however, former Superintendent Hite did not use seniority as the sole determinant. Rather, based on the administration’s unprecedented interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement language, seniority was ignored, resulting in the arbitrary and capricious application of its provisions. As a result, 27 bargaining unit members with greater seniority than others in the collective bargaining unit were terminated while those bargaining unit members with less seniority were retained. The administration’s inaccurate interpretation read into the applicable contract language a two-stage process and ignored the clear language of that provision that mandates that seniority be followed.
The Hearing Examiner’s decision ultimately was adopted by the BOE, which erroneously upheld the administration’s application of § 3.13B to the 2011 reduction in force. ASASP’s attorney argued profusely that in doing so, the Hearing Examiner and the BOE ignored the language of the contract, erroneously applied the rule to ignore unrebutted record evidence that seniority always was considered by the parties to be the sole determinant in effecting reductions in force and the parties’ past practice of applying seniority in 2010 reduction in force.
The BOE’s final order was based upon the Hearing Examiner’s flawed construction of the collective bargaining agreements, is inconsistent with the language of the collective bargaining agreements, and is contrary to the parties’ bargaining history and past practices.
ASASP appealed the State’s decision to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland. Unfortunately, in May 2016, the Court affirmed the BOE’s and Hearing Examiner’s decision.
Subsequently, ASASP filed an appeal to the Board of Education of the Prince George’s County Public Schools (“BOE”). On April 4, 2012, a hearing pursuant to § 4-205 was held before Hearing Officer, Robert Troll, Esq. Both parties elicited testimony and submitted exhibits.
On October 12, 2012, the Hearing Examiner issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommendations regarding ASASP’s appeal. The Hearing Examiner upheld the Superintendent’s action. On October 30, 2012, ASASP’s attorney filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommendations. Subsequently, the Hearing Examiner denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
After the parties briefed the issues, the BOE held oral arguments on ASASP’s appeal from the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Subsequently, on December 18, 2013, the BOE issued its Final Order.
In Spring 2011, the BOE was considering another round of reductions in force. Rather than follow the language of the collective bargaining agreement, however, former Superintendent Hite did not use seniority as the sole determinant. Rather, based on the administration’s unprecedented interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement language, seniority was ignored, resulting in the arbitrary and capricious application of its provisions. As a result, 27 bargaining unit members with greater seniority than others in the collective bargaining unit were terminated while those bargaining unit members with less seniority were retained. The administration’s inaccurate interpretation read into the applicable contract language a two-stage process and ignored the clear language of that provision that mandates that seniority be followed.
The Hearing Examiner’s decision ultimately was adopted by the BOE, which erroneously upheld the administration’s application of § 3.13B to the 2011 reduction in force. ASASP’s attorney argued profusely that in doing so, the Hearing Examiner and the BOE ignored the language of the contract, erroneously applied the rule to ignore unrebutted record evidence that seniority always was considered by the parties to be the sole determinant in effecting reductions in force and the parties’ past practice of applying seniority in 2010 reduction in force.
The BOE’s final order was based upon the Hearing Examiner’s flawed construction of the collective bargaining agreements, is inconsistent with the language of the collective bargaining agreements, and is contrary to the parties’ bargaining history and past practices.
ASASP appealed the State’s decision to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland. Unfortunately, in May 2016, the Court affirmed the BOE’s and Hearing Examiner’s decision.