The incident that sparked the dispute between two public authorities was the dismissal of a school nurse who was an employee of the Howard County Board of Education, Called. Because the employee was covered by a collective agreement that “[n]o is terminated without cause,” his staff representative – Howard County Education Association – ESP, Inc., complainant – filed a complaint, claiming that there was insufficient reason to impose the final disciplinary sanctions of the dismissal. The district training authority rejected the worker`s complaint and drew the attention of the staff representative to the fact that, despite the fact that the collective agreement had provided for such matters to be subject to the claims procedure, the dismissal of an uns certified employee such as the school nurse “is an illegal subject of negotiation and is therefore not treatable”. From our point of view, the Council of State focused on the wrong issue. In this case, the question is not whether the power of appointment of a superintendent, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, implies the power to dismiss an employee. Rather, the question is whether it was illegal under Maryland law for the Howard County Board of Education to have dealt with a collective agreement in which it was expressly agreed that a worker`s claim was an arbitration. The answer to this question can be found in subtitle 5 of Title 6 of the article on education, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Public School Labor Relations Board. Another component of the proposed legislation is also worrying. It would require negotiating discipline and firing unlicensee employees for a just reason. At present, the discipline and dismissal of non-certified staff is not subject to collective bargaining. The question was raised in Livers v.
Charles County Board of Education in the early 1990s, where the State Board, and then the courts of appeal, upheld the dismissal of Mr. Livers, a school administrator arrested for drug-related offenses. The union requested that the dismissal result in mandatory arbitration under the collective agreement. The State Office and the courts ruled that the dismissal was not legally negotiable and therefore did not subject the dismissal to arbitration. The MSTA has repeatedly tried to overturn this judgment by law, but the General Assembly has never passed what is commonly known as the Livers Act. Although the Labour Relations Committee maintained the language clear enough to be reluctant, it also viewed the legislative history of the legal provisions as support for its interpretation. . . .