Until a few years ago, there were not many black faculty members at Wilson High School, in
Question:
Until a few years ago, there were not many black faculty members at Wilson High School, in a suburb of Washington, D.C. Because of a court decision and of other factors, the situation began improving. Of 47 teachers assigned to that school since 1967, 33 were black, and although whites still outnumbered blacks in 1968, the imbalance was clearly not what it used to be.
Against this background, Mrs. W., a [black] teacher with about 15 years of seniority in the school system, transferred to Wilson High in 1968. Observing that there were 37 marked parking spaces on school grounds, she applied for one of them. She was told, however, that the faculty had decided a long time ago to let teachers have these spaces by building seniority. In other words, she would just have to wait her turn. Meanwhile, there were parking spaces to be had on the public streets around the school.
Mrs. W. didn’t like the answer and she said so. For one thing, this seniority system resulted in 33 parking spaces being given to white teachers and only four to black faculty members. Moreover, at least one of the 33 spaces occupied by whites belonged to a teacher who had less District of Columbia seniority than did Mrs. W. It didn’t seem right to Mrs. W that a teacher with no more than half her experience should outrank her as far as the parking privilege was concerned.
Mrs. W.’s fellow union members did not agree with her complaint, and they tried to appease her in some way. The school principal, himself black, suggested that she poll the teachers for an opinion as to whether their long-established policy should be changed. She declined that suggestion. One teacher––one of the four blacks who had an inside space—offered to give her his position and park his car outside the schoolyard. This offer, too, was rejected. Finally, without the union’s participation, she invoked the arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement, and she appeared at the hearing with her own attorney. The defending party, or respondent, was the District of Columbia Board of Education
At the hearing, Mrs. W. and her attorney argued strongly against the building seniority system, which they said discouraged black teachers from transferring to Wilson High. Going beyond that, they accused the Board of Education of not moving properly to encourage such transfers in order to correct racial imbalance.
One of the witnesses for the school board, the assistant superintendent, explained that the board had no rules or regulations governing parking space; such matters were. determined locally at the school level. He added, however, that most schools do follow a local seniority, or “first come, first served” system.
The principal of Wilson High testified about the origin of the parking arrangement. He said that many years ago, the teachers decided that building seniority was the right way to allot spaces, and that although no teacher ever complained about the arrangement, he thought it reasonable to suggest that they reconsider the policy in light of new developments. This is the reason why he suggested to Mrs. W. that she conduct the poll. Nevertheless, she turned down the idea, because she didn’t have time for that and would take it no further.
The principal also said there was ample parking space available on the surrounding streets, and the arbitrator took the trouble to confirm this fact in a personal survey of the area.
After hearing this testimony, and the testimony of other teachers who filled in some of the details about the history of the grievance, the arbitrator asked both sides if there was anything further, they wished to say. On getting negative replies, he closed the hearing. He phrased the issue to be decided as follows: “Is the assignment of parking spaces to teachers based on seniority at Woodrow Wilson High School an unfair practice under existing laws or Board of Education rules and regulations?”1
Decision:
The grievance was denied. Although the seniority system “is not free of imperfections,” the arbitrator wrote, and although it occasionally results in “a seeming inequity,” in the long run it serves a “useful and salutary purpose by giving priority status to employees with longer years of service.” Acknowledging that it was more convenient to have an assigned space than to take one of the available spaces on the street, he said, “Inconvenience does not necessarily bespeak discrimination.” As to the contention that the Board of Education had not moved properly to encourage transfers of teachers in order to correct racial imbalance, he concluded that this “is not a matter to be decided in this arbitration proceeding.” He did add: “The uncontradicted testimony is that there had been no policy to discourage transfers to Wilson, and no teacher has been discouraged from transferring to Wilson because of the parking situation.”
The arbitrator’s own observation and the testimony of a witness led him to the conclusion that there was parking space available to Mrs. W. on the street. If this were not the case, that is, if parking was hard to find, do you think he might have decided the case differently?
Expert Answer:
According to the case a couple of years prior there were very few dark employees at Wilson High Scho... View the full answer
