GRIEVANCE FORM

Name of Aggrieved: Hillsborough CTA on Behalf of 107 Non-Renewed Annual Contract Teachers

Work LocaDon: Various Hillsborough County Public Schools Telephone: (813) 272-4000

PosiDon Held: InstrucDonal

Grievance Level: 1 2 3 4 Date Filed: 4/18/21

Name of Person(s) and Job Title against Whom Grievance is Filed: Addison Davis, Superintendent

DESCRIBE GRIEVANCE:

On Friday, April 16, 2021, HCPS Superintendent Addison Davis terminated the contracts of 107 teachers effecDve June 1,
2021. These employees received a generic, unsigned e-mail staDng they would not have instrucDonal posiDons for the
2021-22 school year due to unit reducDons in their areas of cerDficaDon. The Dming and manner of this acDon violate
the plain language and spirit of the InstrucDonal Contract between HCTA and the District.

1. Timing ViolaDons

While the Florida Legislature may believe that students are best served when every teacher lacks even reasonable
job security, both the Union and HCPS have historically recognized the damages and costs that come from constant
turnover in our schools. Teaching is a cra_ that individuals perfect over Dme with training, guidance, support, and
dedicaDon. Students and the school community as a whole benefit from the consistency and familiarity of long-term
staff. As such, annual contract teachers enjoy an expectaDon of conDnued employment in Hillsborough County
(Instruc(onal Contract [IC] 22.2.B) Although this right may be subject to District budget concerns, there is no
contractual agreement on or even insDtuDonal past pracDce of terminaDng a class or category of annual contract
teachers outside of the individual Non-RenominaDon rules and procedures specified in the contract. (IC 22.2.B; IC
21.3.1). Specifically, the Contract requires wriben administraDve noDficaDon of non-renominaDon of an annual
contract teacher to be made by March 30 of their contract year (IC 21.3.1).

In the event the employer abempts to argue that March 30 is not the appropriate date to use, the only other raDonal
date to choose would be Friday, April 9, 2021. By contract, principals must provide all teachers their tentaDve
assignment for the following year prior to the opening of the spring transfer period (IC 2.8.1). Pursuant to the
published HR calendar and the Principal Weekly NewsleAer for April 2, 2021, tentaDve assignments were due April 9,
and spring transfer began Monday, April 12. The collecDve understanding of the Union, teachers, and administrators
is evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the 107 teachers were provided a wriben leber or e-mail
welcoming them for the 2021-22 school year and providing their assignment on April 9.

Using any date a_er April 9 does not meet the requirement of the InstrucDonal Contract because it would lead to the
very situaDon we now have, where employees were told they had a job for the following year by their principals one
week and terminated by an Employee RelaDons form leber the following week.

2. Carryover Pool

HCPS addiDonally failed to apply the complete contractual Unit Loss Transfer rules, specifically disregarding the
procedure for “carryover pools,” when personnel temporarily outnumber available posiDons, outlined in the
InstrucDonal Contract (IC 11.4.6.G). While the District may believe it will not have enough available posiDons, the
Contract specifically envisions this exact circumstance and provides affected employees a two-year period in the
carryover pool.

Further, several employees on the list were given pool rights in the Spring 2020 pool and, as such, they must be
granted two years of carryover pool rights.
3. Failure to Comply with Layoff Language

While the Union believes arguments 1 and 2 are clearly disposiDve in this case, Superintendent Davis also declined to
comply with the layoff procedures delineated in the contract, even though his acDon clearly falls within the definiDon
of a “layoff.” Although the form leber received by employee and the e-mail sent to principals links the terminaDon of
the affected teachers’ annual contracts to budgetary concerns, the employees were denied the following rights (IC
15.1.1):
• The right to enter vacancies in areas of cerDficaDon they hold other than those to which they are currently
assigned (IC 15.1.1.C),
• The right to enter Agreements to Earn in areas of cerDficaDon other than those which they currently hold (IC
15.1.1.D),
• The right to reemployment in vacancies that open in the area of cerDficaDon to which they are currently
assigned for a period of 2 years (IC 15.1.1.E),
• The right to restoraDon of salary, benefits, and seniority upon reemployment (IC 15.1.2), and
• The right to maintain group life and hospitalizaDon insurance at full premium payment for a period of 2 years (IC
15.1.3).

4. General Welfare of our Employees

The grievance procedure exists, in part, to handle problems that impact the general welfare of HCPS employees. We
believe that it would be impossible to understate the harm this acDon has had, not just for the 107 employees at
issue, but for all employees of HCPS. Over the last year, many employers have had to make difficult decisions, but it
is the way in which such decisions are handled that defines the culture of an organizaDon.

Superintendent Davis is very parDcular about communicaDon and appears to send most, if not all, important
communicaDons himself. These terminaDons consDtute an unprecedented acDon in HCPS history, and it is lost on no
one that the acDon came in the form of an e-mail that was addressed generically and signed by no one. The e-mail
was sent on a Friday a_ernoon, was vague, offered no details on important items like insurance coverage or EAP
informaDon, and failed to show any graDtude for the employee working through a pandemic or regret for “having to”
take such a drasDc acDon. This callous disregard for our employees as human beings is appalling and without
comparison. While we may disagree as to whether this acDon is, in fact, necessary, there can be no disagreement
that this should have been handled beber, with even the barest minimum of appreciaDon, compassion, or
responsibility. On Superintendent Davis’ orders, HCPS terminated 107 people, but they sent a powerful message to
every level of the organizaDon about how lible their employer values any of them.

In conclusion, because Superintendent Davis and HCPS misapplied and denied the affected annual contract teachers
their rights under the secDons listed above, as well as any other applicable provision of the InstrucDonal Contract, HCTA
files this Level II Grievance against him on behalf of the aggrieved (IC 24.2.1, 24.9).

AddiDonally, given this grievance is filed against the Superintendent and involves the Human Resources department, who
generally handle Level II grievances, the Union requests that the parDes agree on suitable subsDtute hearing officers.
AlternaDvely, the Union requests that the parDes exchange relevant evidence and allow the grievance to proceed to
Level III.

REMEDY: The annual contracts and teaching assignments of the affected teachers will be reinstated for the 2021-22 year,
with no break in service or change in seniority for the teachers.

Rob Kriete, President, HCTA

Stephanie Baxter-Jenkins, ExecuDve Director, HCTA

Signatures

DECISION RENDERED ON GRIEVANCE:

Date Decision Was Filed With Aggrieved:___________________ With Human Resources:___________________________

Name of Person Rendering Decision:________________________________________________________________________________________

Decision:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Signature

APPEAL

I Hereby Appeal The Decision Rendered To:

Level Date Of Appeal Signature For Each Level

2

Appeal decision shall be abached to this grievance form indicaDng date of decision, signature and Dtle of person rendering decision and grievance
level. A copy of the wriben report concerning the decisions reached at each level will be filed with the Chief Officer for Human Resources.

c: General Manager for Employee RelaDons (Level II, III), Grievant, AssociaDon