anas STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ‘TRENTON, NEW JERSEY Docket 96:4/35 In the Matter of Tenure Charges Against Arnold Anderson, Respondent ‘led By THE C1TY OF NEW BRUNSWICK SCHOOL DISTRICT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY For the City of New Brunswick School Oistrict, Mi Me, George F. Hendricks, Esa. For Mr. Amold Anderson, Respondent: IM, Edward Cri, Esa, Arbitrator David L. Gregory ‘The Dorothy Day Professor of Law and ‘The Executive Director ofthe Center for Labor and Employment Law St John’s University Schoo! of Law 2000 Utopia Parkway Jamaica, Queens, New York 11439 aregorvd@stiohns.edy; 728 9906039 ‘August 19, 2015: Date of Arbitrators DecionArbitrators Cecsion {By the May 21, 2015 appointment letter from the Department of Education ofthe State of New Jersey, ! was appointed Aebitrator in the Matter of the Tenure Hearing of Arnold ‘Andewson, School District of the Cty of New Brunswick, Middlesex County, Agency Docket No, 6-4/5. Following extensive interlocutory briefing and argument by the partes, | granted Respendent’s Motion to dismiss the ineliiency charges. My Decision i Incorporated herein by reference ‘The balance ofthis proceeding involves Respondents chronic tardiness 2s conduct unbecoming. The Roosevelt School Principal meticulously tracked Respondent's cascades of tardiness, none of which i plausibly expisined by Respondent. At most, Respondent uses mmicroquibbles ofa few unpersuative explanations, with a macro-default position that even ‘when he is late he navertheless delivers a superb educational experience to his grateful students Ina recent period of chron tardiness in the 2013-201 academic year, Respondent was late 9 times after 8:0 a.m. and 16 late punch times of five or more minutes". forthe 2014-2015 school year 40 times after 8:40 a.m. and six adlitional ate punch in times ofS or more minutes as of March 20,2015." (tg, July, 2015) ind that the partes’ extreme positions are untenable, going forward. There fs no thatthe District has proven conduet unbecoming chronic tardiness, Assuming arguendo ‘that Respondent is “all busines" once e arrives, his el-serving inflated characterization of his substantive abilities mises the essential point. His students ae fll entitle to receive Respondents very best efforts forthe entire period, and not merely fr that remaining portic atthe perio following Respondent’: ehronicaly late arrivals out ' am intrigued by Respondent's innovative egal argument that Respondent's notorous tardiness record doesnot somehow warrant a severe sanction, Ultimately, however, abstract theory does not carry the day fr Respondent. He offers na credible explanations fr his proven tardiness record. withholsing increment inereases does not seemto have captured Respondent's atention sufficient to dramatically improve his punctality. Nevertheless, Respondent i entitle to due process and fundamental fimess. Due process is best understood as that which i due under the circumstances, With a decade and aha of service, progressive discipline and due procasssuficiontly militate agzinet summary dlscharge inthis case. Once charges are so well proven | believe that the Employer 's usualy entitled tothe imposition of the penalty sought. This is the established Elkourt Drinile, Ths case presents the rare exception tothe general rule, ands alsin full accord with the Elkouri principle.DECISION RESPONDENT SHALL RETURN TO WORK IN FULL PAY STATUS ON THE FIRST OAY OF SCHEDULED CLASSES FOLLOWING JANUARY 2, 2016. Ho chall bo in 2 no-pay ducplinary statue for the proven conduct unbecoming of chronic ‘ardines, until he returns to full pay status ae cet forth shove, So Ordered, David L.regory |, David. Gregory, affirm that have executed this document as my Decision as Arbitrator in thi matt 1 on this 19th Day of August, 2015. Dovid L GregorySTATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EOUCATION TRENTON, NEW JERSEY Docker 96.4/15, Inthe Matter of Tenure Charges Against Arnold Anderson, Respondent fled Ry ‘THE CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK SCHOOL DISTRICT, MHODLESEX COUNTY. Forthe City of New Brunswick School Distict, Middlesex County Me. George F. Hendricks, Es, For Mr. Arnold Anderson, Respondent Mr Edward Cridge, Esa, [Arbitrator David. Gregory The Dorothy Day Professor of Law and ‘Te Executive Director af the Center for Labor and tmployment Law Sk John's University Schoo! of Law £2000 Utopia Parkway Jamaica, Queens, lew York 11439 exeeeud@ationneedy 719 $90 6039Arbitrator’ Daciion ‘by the May 22, 2015 appointment letter fom the Department of Education of the State of New Jersey, {wat appolated Arbitrator inthe Matter ofthe Tenure Hearing of Arnold ‘Anderson, School District ofthe City of New Brunswick, Middlesex County, Agency Docket No. 96-4/15. Respondent's Motion to dismiss the inefficiency charges Is granted. He did not receive a formal natice of inefficency, and he dl not have the mandatory 90 day period to tendo to correct heen inafiiansiae. | find thatthe Ditrit fe foreclosed from both Section B and 25 See Respondent's superb, concise synthesis ofthe authoritative decisions inter alla, Arbitrator Simmelkjer), (Respondent's June 12,2015 letter brief in support of Motion to diemics the charges of ineficiency). and, most recently, Aebitrator Gerber in re Newark and in Leonard Yarborough, June 8, 2035, respectively. (and Pugliese, 2015 NJ. Super Lexis £83 notwithstanding) New Jersey has dramatically redesigned and rejuvenated Its teacher tenure dynamic. TEACH does not operate a vacuum. Overtime, and probsbly sooner than later, New Jersey should begin to realize impressive cost savings via the TERCHI) panel of distinguished Acbitrstors, The sve ia tis battery of analogous cases is especialy conducive to being determined with precedentiat effect, guiding atleast the institutional parties in any future cases wthout significant adaltonal costs. Although the decisions of fellow panel members do not formally have es judicata or collateral estoppel eect, thee prior decisions that routinely involve one ofthe institutional partes, focus onthe same particular statutory law, have closely analogous fats and corcesponding Arita elucidation are, atthe very least, aparaprately highly ifluential. the precedential value ofa prior award between the partiesis tobe determined by the subsequent “arbitrator.” Ohuur and Elhow, How Abitration Works (6 tition) at 388. Respondent has extensively cited 2 burgeoning litany of very persuasive decisions, Finding that “the District erred when it lscharged Respondent when it used 2012-13 as one of the to evaluation years.” Arbitrator Stephen M. Bluth, Sandra Cheatham and School District of theGity of Newark, Agency Okt Humber 226 8/14, at 14, October 16, 2014, Furthermore, having lost inthe Section 25 contest, the unsuccessful Schoo! Distt cannot then invoke Section 8, as Arbitrator Bluth explains at considerable length in his decision in CheathamDecision and Order The ineliiency charges are dismissed \We shall convene hearings forthwith e the conduct unbecoming chatges remaining. Sa Ordoced, David L. Gregory |. David . Gregory. affirm that have executed ths document a my Declson, Award, and Order on this” Day Of uly 2015,