By KERI CHAMPION
Staff Reporter
|
|
Arbitration is the last step in an effort to avoid bringing the case to court before a jury. Both parties will be required to look at a list of arbitrators, or mediators, who will act as a neutral party to make a decision in the case.
The class action suit was filed by members of the St. John Association of Educators (SJAE) who claim that their labor rights were violated when St. John Parish Schools implemented the biometric scanning system that requires employees to put their thumbprint on an electronic scanning device to better track attendance.
The plaintiffs claim that because the bio-metric scanning is a mandatory procedure that was not brought to the bargaining table for discussion, the board violated labor agreements with the union by not allowing them a say in the matter.
(See CASE, Page 2A)
Julie Richards-Spencer, attorney for the SJAE said, “The board and the superintendent acted unilaterally in the decision to implement the bio-metric system and did not adhere to the collective bargaining agreement which states that the SJAE is to participate in all changes in mandatory procedure.”
The two personal grievances were brought to the board by Herman Clayton and Sandra McCrae based on religious beliefs that the scanning of the swirls and whirls of a thumbprint are ‘God's number' for you and that to participate in this action is to bring the end times into being.
Both McCrae and Clayton have refused to use the system and were being allowed to sign in and out with the swipe card system until March 15. The board had allowed them non-compliance of the procedure to adjust to the system until that date. When they were asked to sign in using the new system they refused. They have not been to work since that time.
McCrae's beliefs are even stronger. She believes that to put her thumbprint into the scanner will allow the devil access to her unique number given to her by God.
Both plaintiffs have asked to be exempted from the swipe card system and given another alternative to signing in and out.
Kevin Kleibert, the attorney representing the administration said that allowing these two people to be exempted could present undue hardship on the school board because inaccurate recordkeeping of time could result in monetary losses such as the ones incurred by the board in their recent struggle with labor issues.
Kleibert also claimed that if they make an exception for these two employees that many other people would ask for the same exclusion ultimately wasting more than $80,000 already invested to put the bio-metric system into place.
Richards-Spencer and Kleibert were both quick to take opposing opinions on a finance committee meeting in which there was a question as to whether or not the biometric system was discussed. It was an important question because an officer SJAE member does sit on the finance committee. However board member Matthew Ory said even if they did discuss this at the finance meeting he questioned whether that is the proper forum to begin collective bargaining.
Superintendent Michael Coburn said that the SJAE was informed of the decision, and did not protest it or begin forming a formal complaint until several months after the system was in place, and that the board acted within its rights.
Ironically, neither Richards-Spencer or Kleibert had the minutes of the meeting in question on hand, nor did they have documentation of Title 7 of the Civil Labor Laws they cited in their possession which both lawyers used to argue their case.
Board member Russ Wise pointed that out to them both, saying that neither lawyer had shown one piece of solid evidence to support their case and that they should be ashamed of themselves for asking the board to make a decision without any proof.
Board president Gerald Keller said that he expects to go to arbitration within 30 -45 days.
“We believe that because of the complex issues associated with this case, our best option is to call in a neutral party and take the case out of the political arena,” he said.
Richards-Spencer said that she is confident that the entire bio-metric scanning system will be thrown out in arbitration.
a
Comments
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The L'Observateur is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in The L'Observateur reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of L'Observateur. L'Observateur does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized L'Observateur spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!