Case Title: STATE EX REL B E A v DISTRICT CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-08-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12836 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1974 STATE EX REL BILLINGS E D U C A T I O N ASSOCIATION, I N C , , a non-profit Montana corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Relator, T H E DISTRICT COURT O F T H E THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , i n and f o r the County of Yellowstone, and the HON. B, W. T H O M A S , presiding D i s t r i c t Judge, Defendants and Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relator : Pedersen, Herndon and Harper, Billings, Montana Donald R. Herndon argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Moulton, Bellingham, Longo and Mather, Billings, Montana William Bellingham argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: August 19, 1974 Decided: August 26, 1974 3 -. ,- F i l e d : JE i S ' ',9/4 Dissent Filed: December 12, 1974 Hon. Gordon R. Bennett, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell, dissenting: I cannot concur e n t i r e l y with t h e order of t h e majority o r t h e reasoning behind t h e order because it denies a l l e f f e c t t o t h e "Professional Negotiations Act f o r Teachers", s e c t i o n s 75- 6115 through 75-6128, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s " t h e Act". It must be presumed t h a t t h e Legis- l a t u r e intended t h e Act t o make a t l e a s t some substantive changes i n t h e e x i s t i n g law i n order t o accomplish t h e Legislative dec- l a r a t i o n of policy and purpose expressed i n s e c t i o n 75-6116, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 . I n holding t h a t t h e board of education has " f i n a l a u t h o r i t y " a s t o negotiations with its teachers t h e majority has stripped t h e Act of i t s meaning and returned t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e i r former posi- t i o n s a s i f t h e Act had never been passed. S t a t u t e s of t h i s s t a t e a r e t o be construed according t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . Courts may only a s c e r t a i n and d e c l a r e what i s contained i n s t a t u t e s and must give e f f e c t t o every provision i f possible. The Act expressly made major changes i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between teachers and t h e i r employing school boards. For t h e f i r s t time i n t h e h i s t o r y of t h i s s t a t e , teachers were given t h e r i g h t t o bargain c o l l e c t i v e l y a s t o negotiable conditions of employment through representatives of t h e i r choice who function a s t h e s o l e representatives f o r a l l teachers i n the 'appropriate u n i t " . Direct negotiations between represented individual teachers and t h e i r employer a r e prohibited. Both t h e representative of t h e teachers and t h e school board have a duty t o negotiate and bargain. The intended r e s u l t of t h e negotiations i s t o a r r i v e a t a master agree- ment which must be reduced t o writing and r a t i f i e d . A l l individual teacher c o n t r a c t s must conform t o t h e master agreement. It i s an u n f a i r labor p r a c t i c e f o r employing boards of education t o i n t e r f e r e with, r e s t r a i n o r coerce teachers i n t h e i r r i g h t of self-organ- i z a t i o n o r s e l e c t i o n of a representative,or t o refuse t o negotiate i n good f a i t h . D i s t r i c t c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e a r e granted j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o enjoin u n f a i r labor p r a c t i c e s a s defined i n t h e Act. I cannot construe t h e foregoing provisions a s giving boards of education " f i n a l authority". These sections expressly g r a n t teachers of t h i s s t a t e additional l e g a l r i g h t s not previously recognized by s t a t u t e and t o t h e e x t e n t granted t h e a u t h o r i t y of boards of education is diminished. The Act r e q u i r e s good f a i t h c o l l e c t i v e bargaining. Good f a i t h bargaining can only occur between r e l a t i v e equals and is inherently impossible i f e i t h e r s i d e has " f i n a l authority". The Act does not r e q u i r e agreement. What i s required i s continued good f a i t h negotiations between t h e p a r t i e s u n t i l a master agree- ment is agreed upon. The r e l a t o r teachers i n t h i s proceeding a r e attempting t o enjoin t h e school board from issuing individual teacher c o n t r a c t s before a master agreement has been negotiated and r a t i f i e d by t h e p a r t i e s . I f such issuance of individual teacher c o n t r a c t s con- s t i t u t e s an u n f a i r labor p r a c t i c e within t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 75-6120, R.C.M. 1947, it may be enjoined. This is t h e s o l e i s s u e before t h e Court and both p a r t i e s agree t h a t t h e unresolved i s s u e s preventing agreement a r e not relevant t o t h i s question. There i s a l s o no dispute concerning t h e f a c t t h a t t h e school board i s attempting t o r e q u i r e teacher acceptance of individual c o n t r a c t s within a specified period of time a t t h e penalty of f o r f e i t u r e of t h e t e a c h e r ' s position. Section 75-6102, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s w r i t t e n individual teacher contracts. Section 75-6122, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s master agreements t o be reduced t o writing and r a t i f i e d . N o s t a t u t e d i r e c t l y provides t h a t e i t h e r type of c o n t r a c t should precede t h e other. It i s t h e duty of t h i s Court t o provide a construction which gives both provisions e f f e c t , i f possible, c o n s i s t e n t with t h e expressed l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . Individual c o n t r a c t s p r i o r t o r a t i f i c a t i o n of a master agreement serve no u s e f u l o r l e g i t i m a t e purpose. The o f f e r and acceptance functions of contracting is now accomplished by "notices of re-election" of tenure teachers pursuant t o s e c t i o n 75-6105, R.C.M. 1947, and of nontenure teachers pursuant t o s e c t i o n 75-6105.1, R.C.M. 1947. Both sections require t h e teacher t o accept t h e "re- e l e c t i o n " i n writing within 2 0 days o r f o r f e i t t h e position. By reason of these s e c t i o n s school boards a r e f u l l y advised a s t o t h e i d e n t i t y of each teacher who agrees t o teach during t h e forthcoming year within 2 0 days a f t e r t h e teacher has received t h e notice. The terms and conditions of t h e employment a r e required t o be controlled by t h e master agreement. Individual teacher c o n t r a c t s cannot con- form t o a master agreement not y e t i n existence. Therefore, both s t a t u t o r y provisions requiring individual teacher c o n t r a c t s and master agreements a s t o teachers represented by a bargaining agent, respectively, a r e s a t i s f i e d by requiring master agreement t o precede t h e individual contracts. I a l s o disagree with the conclusion of t h e majority opinion t h a t t h e respondent school board negotiated i n good f a i t h . Uni- l a t e r a l l y o f f e r i n g represented teachers with t h e option of contract- ing individually with respect t o negotiable conditions of employ- ment o r f o r f e i t i n g t h e i r job does not even c o n s t i t u t e bargaining, l e t alone "good f a i t h " bargaining. It is a bare ultimatum and an absolute r e j e c t i o n of t h e c l e a r i n t e n t and purpose of t h e Act. The majority f a i l s t o recognize t h e s t a t u t o r y d i s t i n c t i o n between conditions of employment s u b j e c t t o "negotiations and bargaining" and a l l o t h e r matters and i s s u e s which remain within t h e s o l e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e school board and a r e considered " m e e t and confer" items only. Section 75-6119, R.C.M. 1947, defines and limits negotiations as follows: "It shall be the duty of all employers acting as a board, or acting by and through a bargain- ing agent designated or employed by the employer, and all teachers, or a representative of teachers, to meet and confer for professional negotiation purposes at the request of either, except as pro- vided by this act, to discuss matters relating directly to the employer-teacher relationship such as salary, hours and other terms of employ- ment, and to negotiate and bargain for agreement on such matters. The matters of negotiation and bargaining for agreement shall not include matters of curriculum, policy of operation, selection of teachers and other personnel, or physical plant of schools or other facilities, however nothing herein shall limit the obligation of employers to meet and confer as provided in section 75- 6118. * * *" The ratification of a master agreement is the only con- clusion provided in the Act to the duty to bargain in good faith as to negotiable conditions of employment. It contains no binding procedure to be used in the event that the parties should reach an impasse. This may be a serious weakness in the Act but courts are not permitted to pass on the wisdom of legislation. Union Carbide v. Skaggs Drug Center, Inc., 139 Mont. 15, 359 P.2d 644; Yellowstone Bank v. Bd. of Equal., 137 Mont. 198, 351 P.2d 904; Willett v. State Examiners, 112 Mont. 317, 115 P.2d 287. Article X, Section 8, of the Constitution of Montana creates school. boards as a constitutional entity but beyond that fact has no further relevance to the issues in this matter. The respondent school board has not argued that the Act is unconstitutional or that the school board is autonomous with respect to the state legis- lature. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the district court which have, in effect, been affirmed by the majority did not rule on the constitutionality of the Act. This Court should have accepted jurisdiction in this pro- ceeding and held that issuance and offering individual teacher c o n t r a c t s t o teachers represented by a bargaining agent p r i o r t o r a t i f i c a t i o n of a master agreement i s an enjoinable u n f a i r Labor p r a c t i c e under t h e Act. The l e g i s l a t u r e must decide whether the Act requires amendment. The Court should enforce t h e Act according t o its t e r m s . Honorable Gordon R. Bennett s i t t i n g i n place of M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell.