The four-year battle by the Plainedge Educational Secretaries Unit against the Plainedge School District has ended, with the unit winning a final victory in their long bid over vacation issues.

On April 12, Plainedge district officials complied with various court decisions and made payments to school district secretaries that had earlier been denied to them, all over vacation time disputes.

Union members agreed to be paid for half of the vacation days that they should have received, plus 9 percent on the total amount. For most members, that meant three days per year for four years.

Members also agreed to use the other half as future vacation days. Retired members were paid in full.

In addition, the secretaries are now negotiating a new contract with the district. The old contract expired on June 30, 2004.

All this has brought closure to a long legal battle that had its origins in a contract first agreed to in 2000.

In June of 2000, the secretaries' union and the Plainedge district agreed that the clerical staff would work a four-day week in July and August of that year, and vacation days would be charged at the rate of one-and-a-quarter days for each vacation day taken. The agreement was applicable only to that summer.

Later that year, the union and district negotiated a new agreement. The district proposal on vacations said union members would have either 10 working days (two weeks) or 15 working days (three weeks) off, depending on length of service.

The union negotiators gained the district's agreement to remove the words "two weeks" and "three weeks" from the clause, so the contract set vacations solely in terms of days.

In the spring of 2001, the district sent vacation request forms to the secretaries and indicated that vacation time would be charged at one-and-a-quarter days for each day of vacation in the summer. The union objected, saying the day and one-quarter rule applied only in 2000.

And so, the legal merry-go-round began. In 2002, the union won an advisory arbitration decision that ruled that the secretaries were entitled to the number of days set forth in the collective bargaining agreement and compensation for the days they had not received.

The Plainedge Board of Education rejected the arbitrator's determination. The union then took the matter to court, seeking implementation of the arbitrator's finding.

Again, the courts ruled in favor of the union. In a June 30, 2003 ruling, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Covello disposed of the district's claims. He found the June 2000 agreement clearly stated it applied only during the summer of 2000, and denied any intent by negotiators to extend the provision past that period.

Covello also rejected the district's claim that the union had been deceptive or misleading at the bargaining table. He noted the district was represented by experienced and able negotiators.

"The district was free at all times to request the inclusion of whatever provisions it deemed advisable to protect the rights and to ensure that the collective bargaining agreement ultimately conformed to its understanding of the bargain struck," he stated.

Covello "ordered and declared that the parties' collective bargaining agreement does not authorize the district to deduct vacation time at a rate in excess of one day for each single vacation day taken."

"Most of the ladies are entitled to three more days vacation for the year," said Barbara Fisch, president of the union, commenting of Covello's ruling. "The newer employees, two days a year. So it's six to nine days vacation for each member, depending on the length of service."

Louis G. Stober, Jr., CSEA's regional attorney in Nassau County said, "We had our interpretation of the contract confirmed," added Louis G. Stobrer, Jr., CSEA's regional attorney. "The employee will get either a sum of money or the time."

However, the school district had not yet exhausted the appeals process. On Oct. 15, 2003, the district filed a notice of appeal to the court's Appellate Division. Over a year later, on Nov. 8, 2004, that division also ruled in favor of the union.

The next appeal was to the State Supreme Court, which, on Nov. 3, 2005 ruled once again on the union's side.

On March 22, 2006, a demand for compliance with judgment was filed by Louis D. Stober. And on April 12, the district complied and the secretaries received their payment.