Decision No. 13,217
Appeal of KATHLEEN V. HENDERSON from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, Sonia Calvo, Diane Blau, Janet Petrocinio, Cynthia List, Irving Gross, Rene Graves, Barbara Ourvan, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Schwartz and Ray Legac regarding termination from employment.
Decision No. 13,217
(July 14, 1994)
Hon. Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondent board, Elizabeth J. Palladino, Esq., of counsel
James R. Sandner, Esq., attorney for respondent Ray Legac, Donald Congress, Esq., of counsel
SOBOL, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the decision of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York ("respondent board") to terminate her position. The appeal must be dismissed.
Effective September 8, 1992, respondent issued a preparatory provisional teaching (PPT) certificate to petitioner. On or about September 8, 1992, respondent hired petitioner as a PPT teacher of special education at the Jane Addams Vocational High School for the 1992-93 school year. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between respondent board and its teachers union, PPT teachers have less job retention rights than certified teachers.
Because of budgetary restrictions, respondent board reduced staff at the Jane Addams school for the 1993-94 school year. Eight teachers, including petitioner, were notified that they would not be rehired for that school year.
In this appeal, petitioner contends, in a conclusory manner, that she is entitled to be rehired with back pay. Respondent denies those allegations and raises a procedural issue. It asserts that the petition is barred because the issues raised here were litigated in another forum.
The record indicates that the issues raised by petitioner in this appeal were the subject of a grievance filed by petitioner pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between respondent board and its teachers union. It is well settled that a school employee who elects to submit an issue for resolution through a contractual grievance procedure may not elect to bring an appeal to the Commissioner of Education for review of the same matter (Matter of Bd. of Educ., Commack UFSD v. Ambach, 70 NY2d 501; Appeal of McCall, 32 Ed Dept Rep 367; Appeal of Garod, 31 id. 526). Since the very issues that are the basis of the appeal before me were the subject of the grievance, I must decline to review petitioner's claim.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE