It appearing to the Director of Unfair Practices that the allegations of the amended charge, ^2/ if true, may constitute unfair practices within the meaning of the Act, a Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued thereon on October 24, 1979. By answer filed on November 5, 1979, the Respondent denied the allegations of unfair practice and averred that attendance at Parent Teacher conferences in the schools in question had been a past practice for ten years. As the collective agreement contains a provision expressly preserving all past practices and conditions, such required attendance has been a negotiated item, and the Charging Party is thus estopped to contravene its own contract and the Complaint should be dismissed. Hearing was held on January 8, 1980. Both parties were given full opportunity to examine witnesses, present evidence and argue orally. Both parties have filed post-hearing briefs, the Charging Party on January 23, 1980 and the Respondent on January 25, 1980 and they have been duly considered.

Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor I make the following:

Except as this Agreement shall otherwise provide, all terms and conditions of employment applicable on the effective date of this Agreement to employees covered by this Agreement shall continue to be so applicable during the term of this Agreement unless otherwise provided in this Agreement.

The same agreement also contains a provision concerning Teacher Evaluations, Article 15, which in subparagraph B.1 defines A evaluation @ to mean a written evaluation prepared by the Administrative/Supervisory Staff Member who visits the classroom for the purpose of observing a Teacher Staff Member = s performance of the instructional process. Subparagraph B.4 provides any teacher with the right to respond in writing to his evaluation within five school days.

2. Two K through five elementary schools in the Ridgefield School District are the Shaler Boulevard and Bergen Boulevard Schools. For some years Shaler has employed seven teachers and Bergen has employed 11 teachers. These two schools have a common Principal, August W. Vogel, who has functioned in that position for a period in excess of four years, since December 1975 at Bergen and since May 1975 at Shaler.

3. A Parent Teacher Association ( A P.T.A. @ ) has been in existence for many years at the Shaler Boulevard and Bergen Boulevard Schools. Over the years, the P.T.A. has held five meetings annually at each of the two schools. For each school year, in the chronological order of their occurrence, they are a Back to School Night at which teachers are introduced to parents, a meeting presenting the school program for the year, a Founder = s Day Program, a Cultural Arts Show presented by the students at an Exhibit Night at which the year = s academic work and growth are reviewed (T. 54-5). Only the Arts Show meeting is held during the day within the teachers = normal workday, the four others taking place in the evening.

4. During his tenure as Principal, Vogel has strongly urged the teaching staff at each school to attend all P.T.A. meetings. In the opening day bulletin issued to teachers at the beginning of each school year Vogel noted that he expected the teachers to attend (T. 52; 55-6). During his cross-examination, Vogel acknowledged that he, in effect, required such attendance. ^4/

5. Vogel testified, without contradiction, that during his tenure, close to 100% of the teachers attended all P.T.A. meetings, and those who did not attend invariably notified him ahead of time if they could not. Laurie Rau, a tenured teacher newly employed at the Shaler School for school year 1978-79, failed to attend the Back to School Night evening meeting at her school or to provide Vogel with an explanation for her failure. In a prior conversation with Vogel, Rau informed her Principal that she had no intention of coming to the meeting, she had no reason for not attending and she did not think attendance was part of her responsibility. Prior to this incident, no teacher had failed to attend a P.T.A. meeting without giving Vogel an explanation as to why he or she wasn = t attending (T. 54).

6. By memorandum dated October 25, 1978, Vogel informed Rau of his displeasure with her failure to attend and her failure to notify him in advance of her intent not to attend. Vogel noted, inter alia, A We have only five P.T.A. meetings during the school year, of which four are evening meetings. As an educational commitment, it is expected that teachers attend all P.T.A. meetings. @ The letter is reproduced in full and annexed hereto as Exhibit A A @ . A copy of the letter was placed in Ms. Rau = s personnel file.

7. The issuance by Vogel of the October 5, 1978 memorandum and a subsequent Association executive meeting in November where the discussion included Vogel = s activity in checking with teachers prior to P.T.A. meetings and his practice in requiring attendance resulted in the filing of a grievance on this subject, among others, on December 19, 1978. Prior to this grievance no complaint had been filed by the Association or any teachers regarding their attendance and participation in the meetings. The particular grievance claimed that requiring attendance at P.T.A. meetings or implying such a requirement by written criticism of those not attending is contrary to the terms and conditions of employment and to Article 24: Section B of the agreement between the parties previously quoted at paragraph 1. Principal Vogel denied the grievance at level one, the Superintendent of Schools denied the grievance at level two, and the Board denied it at level three, that being the final step in the grievance process pursuant to Article 3 of the parties = agreement. The gist of the denial was that there has long been a practice to have teachers at the schools in question attend P.T.A. meetings, that teacher attendance is necessary to insure parent-teacher dialogue to foster the needs of the children, and that the requirement is flexible to the extent that it includes acceptance of reasonable excuses for non-attendance. At the Board level, re jection was also grounded upon its exercise of a managerial prerogative not effecting terms and conditions of the contract.

2. Is the Board = s conduct of subjecting teachers to written criticism for the failure to attend all P.T.A. meetings a mandatory subject of bargaining?

I conclude that the record supports a finding that attendance at the P.T.A. evening meetings was an activity which the teachers and their Association recognized as a professional obligation which could only be avoided on the occasion of some overriding personal commitment, and even then, the obligation required advance notice of nonattendance be provided the Principal. In so concluding, reliance is placed on the following factors:

1. During the almost four years of his tenure, Principal Vogel had consistently made teaching personnel at the two schools aware of the education importance he attached to their participation in the regularly scheduled series of P.T.A. meetings, each carrying a theme intimately related to the curriculum and student achievement. The Principal = s expression of concern took the form of announcements at the opening of school and his expectation of their attendance was noted in the opening day bulletin to teaching staff.

2. In accordance with these announcements, most of the teachers attended consistently, and those who did not on occasion invariably provided the Principal with advance notice of the reason they could not attend. Even the sole teacher who testified for Charging Party recognized an obligation to provide notice, although it appears that she probably did not miss any meetings since Vogel = s tenure.

3. The requirement to attend was tempered by recognition of the fact that from time to time occasions would arise of a personal nature which could excuse nonattendance. Emergencies also provided another area of flexibility in the requirement.

4. The only teacher in a four year period who did not recognize the obligation was newly employed at one of the two schools. Her conversation with the Principal evidenced a total disregard for the parameters of the obligation to attend or provide advance notice of a reasonable excuse for failure to attend.

5. It was not until the Principal expressed his displeasure in writing to the teacher in the October 25 memorandum and retained the memo in the teacher = s file, that the Association grieved the requirement. Issue was joined not over the assignment (or teacher recognition of an educationally related responsibility) but evaluating teachers because of nonattendance. Until substantive evaluation was suggested the assignment was honored.

The foregoing recital establishes a consistent practice recognized by the teaching staff at the two schools of attending the P.T.A. meetings or providing advance notice if they could not. Since this practice continued over a four year period of at least, ^7/ the Association must be charged with knowledge of it, if only from the fact that its building representatives participated therein.

The teachers employed at Shaler and Bergen Boulevard Schools for at least the last four years having consistently attended the regularly scheduled P.T.A. meetings each dealing with a different aspect of the parent-teacher relationship, or on the infrequent occasions of their absences having provided advance notice of a reasonable excuse, and the Association having acquiesced in such practice without having made any demand for compensation, such conduct raises an implied, mutual understanding that attendance at the P.T.A. meetings was deemed a term and condition of employment which attaches to the position. ^8/ This conclusion is buttressed by reference to Article 24, subp. B of the parties 1978-81 agreement which may reasonably be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of both counsel as memorializing all terms and conditions of employment existing at the outset of the agreement, including the implied agreement pursuant to which teachers regularly attended P.T.A. meetings with some flexibility to be exercised by the Administration in monitoring compliance. ^9/

In view of the foregoing I recommend dismissal of the allegation of Charging Party that the Respondent refused to negotiate with respect to the decision to assign attendance, and compensation and related workload questions related to such attendance. ^10/

The second issue remains to be considered. Respondent argues that a school administrator cannot be restricted in his right to place an opinion or evaluative report in a teacher = s personnel file, citing In re Teaneck Board of Education, 161 N.J. Super . 75 (App. Div. 1978), reversing P.E.R.C. No. 78-3, 3 NJPER 224 (1977), ^11/ as controlling authority. At first blush, Teaneck seems to be dispositive. There, as here, the school administrator placed in certain teacher = s files negative comments relating to their non-participation in allegedly voluntary after- school activities, i.e ., Back to School Night and extracurricular activities. However, those comments had been made in mid-year evaluations, and the Association contended that they were not contractually includable in evaluation reports. The union was there contesting the employer = s right to comment at all about such matters in terms of evaluation, not the extent to which the employer = s comments may rise to the level of a sanction or a discipline. The Commission has since commented on the result reached in Teaneck as being limited to the adoption or the establishment of criteria to be utilized in evaluating employees. ^12/ Just as in Hazlet, id ., the Association is not contesting the right of the Board to establish nonattendance at P.T.A. meetings as a criteria for purposes of evaluating teacher professional performance. The Association is, however, claiming that the principal = s letter constitutes an application of that criteria which affects employees = terms and conditions of employment.

On the facts before me, I conclude that the letter placed in teacher Rau = s file constitutes a form of discipline. Reliance is placed on the following factors:

1. the letter was an ad-hoc response by the school administrator to an immediate encounter with a teacher in which his strongly held principals were challenged.

2. The letter was immediately prepared and placed in the teacher = s file without following the normal evaluation format envisioned by the parties in Article 15 of the agreement. It thus constituted adverse comment as to the teacher = s professionalism without regard to observation of the teacher = s performance in the instructional process.

3. Having been placed in the teacher = s file, without limitation as to its use, it may be utilized in the future by the Board in numerous ways, each of which could have an adverse impact upon the teacher = s tenure, assignment or earnings.

While Rau = s conduct may, in fact, warrant the sanction imposed, since it is a sanction for failure to meet a Board criteria of attendance and participation in P.T.A. meetings, it requires negotiations with the Association before it may be imposed. ^13/

The practice found in resolution of Issue No. 1 encompassed required attendance at P.T.A. meetings. Not until the school administrator for the first time wrote the letter to Rau criticizing her attitude of non-involvement in these meetings was the teaching staff or Association placed on notice that non- compliance would subject teachers to the penalty of notations in an employee = s personnel file. Since the Board implemented this penalty without notice to the Association so that it may negotiate the subject matter, the Board has engaged in conduct in violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(5), and derivatively, (1).

Upon the foregoing, and upon the entire record in this case, the Hearing Examiner makes the following:

2. The Respondent Board has not violated N.J.S.A . 34:13A- 5.4(a)(5) or (1) by regarding teacher attendance at such meetings as an integral part of the professional duties of the teachers as confirmed by the practice in the two schools over the last four years.

1. Cease and desist from:

a. Interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act by refusing to negotiate in good faith with the Ridgefield Teachers = Association concerning the discipline or penalties to be imposed for failure of teachers at the Shaler and Bergen Boulevard Schools to comply with a requirement of attendance at P.T.A. meetings or prior notice and reason why they could not attend.

2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:

a. Expunge from employee Laurie Rau = s personnel file, a letter critical of her refusal and failure to comply with the requirement described above and negotiate in the future concerning the discipline or penalties to be imposed for teacher refusal or failure to comply with the evaluative criteria regarding required teacher attendance at P.T.A. meetings for the Shaler and Bergen Boulevard Schools.

b. Post at its central offices in the School District of Ridgefield, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked A Appendix B. @ copies of said notice on forms to be provided by the Commission, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent = s representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent to ensure that such notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material.

c. Notify the Commission, in writing, within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Order of the steps the said Respondent has taken to comply herewith.

3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that so much of the Complaint as alleges a violation of N.J.S.A . 34:13A-5.4(a)(5) and (1) based upon a failure to negotiate the requirement of teacher attendance at P.T.A. meetings be dismissed in its entirety.

___________________________
Robert T. Snyder

Hearing Examiner
DATED: February 4, 1980
Newark, New Jersey
1/ These subsections prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: A (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act; (5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative. @
2/ By letter dated August 14 and September 13, 1979, the Charging Party amended the outstanding charge to eliminate certain other allegations which had been resolved. Accordingly, Complaint issued only on the allegation described herein.
3/ I find that the Association and the Board are an employee organization and majority representative of employees, and a public employer, respectively within the meaning of the Act.
4/ Charging Party= s two witnesses did not contradict the thrust of Vogel = s testimony. Association President Richard J. Brockel confirmed that based upon his conversations with teachers at the two schools, the Principal had made it a practice to require attendance at P.T.A. meetings, although he denied that Vogel = s predecessors as Principal had followed such a practice (T. 16). Ann Maksymiak, now retired, but a teacher at Bergen School from 1948 to 1978, testified that while she did not perceive attendance as a requirement, she had attended most P.T.A. meetings, Vogel had asked her to attend and believes she told the Principal in advance if she was going to miss a meeting for personal reasons and afterward if an emergency arose which prevented her from attending. (Vogel testified he did not recall her missing a meeting). She recalled attending A almost 100% @ and then, on re-direct examination recalled being out sick a few days which included a P.T.A. meeting night and not being asked by Vogel why she did not attend.
5/ In Carteret the Commission held that boards of education could not unilaterally impose an after-school workshop on teachers in contrast to their unilateral right to assign teachers to be advisors to extra or co-curricular student activities where student supervision is involved. In re Rutherford Board of Education, P.E.R.C. No. 77-22, 3 NJPER 37 (1976). The Commission reasoned that boards must be able to insure that student activities are properly supervised, while the workshop for teachers only did not have this aspect. An argument could be made that the interaction with parents at P.T.A. meetings furthers important education objectives, among them home reinforcement of curriculum and re-evaluation of curriculum in light of parental feedback, which boards may insure without being required to negotiate the requirement of teacher attendance. Of course, absent existence of the past practice, and assuming arguendo , that the decision to assign teachers to attend the P.T.A. meetings is non-negotiable, the Board may still be compelled to negotiate the effects on teachers = compensation and workload. Thus, the facts regarding the existence of a practice become even more significant.
6/ As to the one day meeting, as it was held during the teachers = regular in-school work day, even if no prior practice existed there was no extension of work day, and even a claim of added workload would appear to be de minimus.
7/ Whether or not the practice began under one or another principal who preceded Vogel is irrelevant to this conclusion. See In re Caldwell-West Caldwell Board of Education , P.E.R.C. No. 80-64, appeal pend. App. Div. Docket No. A-1727-79.
8/ See Central High School Dist. v. Teachers , 91 LRRM 2616 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Special Term, part III, 1975).
9/ When the Association sought and the parties agreed on additional compensation for special duties, they took care to include such understandings in their agreement (see Schedules, C, D, E, F and G of the current agreement, J-1).
10/ Note is taken of the fact that the record fails to contain any specific reference to Respondent = s position on negotiating workload other than its answer denying violation. In particular there is no evidence that the Association ever demanded or that Respondent ever failed to refuse to negotiate with respect to workload factors related to teacher attendance. Absent any evidence of a refusal to negotiate the subject matter, a finding of such refusal - necessary to a conclusion of violation of subd. (a)(5) - could hardly be considered on the record in this proceeding.
11/ The Court held that negotiation of evaluative criteria is against public policy, thus reversing the Commission which, at the time (prior to Ridgefield Park Ed. Assn. v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J . 144 (1978)) had concluded that negotiation of such subject matter was permissive.
12/ Hazlet Twp. Bd. of Ed. and Hazlet Twp. Teachers Assn ., P.E.R.C. No. 79-57, 5 NJPER 113 (para. 10066 1979), appeal pending App. Div. Docket No. A-2875-78.
13/ Demarest Board of Education and Demarest Education Association , P.E.R.C. No. 80-40, 5 NJPER 415 (para. 10217 1979), appeal pending App. Div. docket No. A-704-79; In re Glassboro Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 77-12, 2 NJPER 355 (1976); see discussion and cases cited, State of New Jersey and Local 195, I.F.P.T.E. and Local 518, S.E.I.U ., P.E.R.C. No. 80-7 at 7, 5 NJPER para 10161 (p. 299 1979), appeal pending App. Div. Docket No. A-4601-78.