Title: Harwood Union High School District v. Harwood Education Association

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Harwood Union High School District v. Harwood Education Association (99-173);
172 Vt. 167; 773 A.2d 277

[Filed 6-Apr-2001]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                No. 1999-173

Harwood Union High School District	  Supreme Court

                                          On Appeal from
     v.	                                  Labor Relations Board

Harwood Education Association	September Term, 2000

Richard W. Park, Chair

Steven F. Stitzel and Timothy M. Eustace of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher,
  P.C., Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joel D. Cook, Vermont-National Education Association, Montpelier, for
  Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ, and Gibson, J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       SKOGLUND, J.   Petitioner Harwood Union High School District appeals
  the majority  decision of the Vermont Labor Relations Board concluding that
  three administrative assistants  working for the district are not
  confidential employees, as defined in 21 V.S.A. § 1722(6), and thus  should
  be included in a bargaining unit represented by respondent Harwood
  Education Association.   Because we conclude that the Board did not commit
  clear error by refusing to classify the three  administrative assistants as
  confidential employees, we affirm its decision.

       The district operates a high school and middle school in the same
  building in Moretown,  Vermont.  The association is the exclusive
  bargaining representative for eligible employees of the 

 

  district, including secretarial staff.  The district reorganized its
  administrative structure several times  in the years leading up to the
  instant proceeding.  In 1995, the administrative staff included a 
  principal, an associate principal for each school, and a special education
  department head.  The  secretary to the principal was excluded from the
  bargaining unit, while the secretary for the two  associate principals and
  the secretary for the special education department head were included in
  the  bargaining unit.

       During the 1995-1996 academic year, the district's administrative
  structure changed to  include a high school principal, a middle school
  principal, a part-time special services coordinator,  and a part-time
  special education department head.  Pursuant to a memorandum of agreement
  that  followed a unit clarification petition, the secretaries for both of
  the principals were excluded from the  bargaining unit, while the secretary
  for the two special education positions was included in the  bargaining
  unit.  For the 1996-1997 academic year, the district consolidated the two
  part-time special  education positions, but otherwise the administrative
  structure remained the same.

       During the 1997-1998 academic year, the district reorganized the
  administrative positions  again by creating a principal, a high school
  administrator, a middle school administrator, and a  special services
  coordinator.  One of the primary reasons for the reorganization was to
  place a greater  emphasis on teacher development and evaluation.  Each of
  the four administrators was made  responsible for observing and evaluating
  approximately eighteen teachers on four occasions during  each school year.

       Under this administrative structure, the one in place at the time of
  the Board hearing, the  principal oversees the entire school operation,
  while the other three administrators retain nearly  complete authority over
  their areas of responsibility.  The administrative assistants (formerly
  called 

 

  secretaries) to the principal and the high school administrator were
  initially excluded from the  bargaining unit, while the administrative
  assistant to the special services coordinator was included in  the unit. 
  For the 1998-1999 academic year, the district retained its administrative
  structure but added  an administrative assistant position to support the
  middle school administrator.

       On August 19, 1998, the district filed a unit clarification petition
  with the Board requesting  that the administrative assistants to the high
  school administrator, the middle school administrator,  and the special
  services coordinator be excluded from the association's bargaining unit as 
  confidential employees.  The parties do not dispute that the principal's
  administrative assistant should  be excluded from the bargaining
  unit.(FN1)  Following an evidentiary hearing, the Board concluded,  in a
  two-to-one decision with the acting chair dissenting, that the three
  administrative assistants were  not confidential employees and thus were
  entitled to be part of the association's bargaining unit.

       The proceedings before the Board were governed by Vermont's Municipal
  Employee  Relations Act, 21 V.S.A. §§ 1721-1735.  Among the expressed
  purposes of the Act are to prescribe  the rights of municipal employees and
  employers in their relations to each other, to provide  procedures for
  preventing either group from interfering with the rights of the other, and
  to protect the  rights of individual employees to join employee
  organizations and to bargain collectively.  Id. §  1721.  The Act excludes
  "confidential employees" from its definition of "municipal employee."  Id.
  §  1722(12)(D).  A "Confidential employee" is defined under § 1722(6) as
  one "whose 

 

  responsibility or knowledge or access to information relating to collective
  bargaining, personnel  administration, or budgetary matters would make
  membership in or representation by an employee  organization incompatible
  with his official duties."

       Following the December 3, 1998 evidentiary hearing on the district's
  unit clarification  petition, the Board made the following undisputed
  findings.  Regarding matters of personnel  administration, all three of the
  administrative assistants do routine clerical work such as answering  the
  phone, opening and distributing mail, and typing documents for their
  administrator.  Each of the  assistants has unlimited access to teacher
  personnel files, which contain confidential documents,  including written
  evaluations and any disciplinary letters.  The assistants to the high
  school and  middle school administrators type the teacher evaluations
  written by their administrator, distribute  them to the teachers, and place
  a signed copy in the teacher's personnel file.  Those assistants also 
  occasionally type disciplinary letters.

       In addition to routine secretarial work, the administrative assistant
  for the special services  coordinator is responsible for maintaining staff
  schedules and planning the coordinator's  unannounced observations of
  approximately thirty-six teachers and paraeducators.  The coordinator 
  types evaluations and disciplinary letters, but the assistant places them
  in the teacher's file.  Because  the assistant is extensively involved in
  coordinating students and staff, she knows which teachers  may or may not
  receive a reduction-in-force (RIF) notice before those individuals
  themselves are  notified.

       Regarding matters related to the budgetary process, the Board found
  that the assistants to the  high school and middle school administrators
  compile publicly available statistical information for  the administrators
  to use in their budget proposals for their own areas of responsibility. 
  The way the 

 

  administrators use the information, however, is known only to the
  administrators, the assistants, and  the school board.  The assistant for
  the high school administrator also types budgetary memoranda  that might
  include proposed staffing changes.  The assistant for the special services
  coordinator  gathers and applies information for a service plan that may
  result in sending RIF notices to  paraeducators.

       Regarding matters related to collective bargaining, the Board found
  that the administrative  assistants for the high school and middle school
  administrators type reports containing the  administrators' comments on
  provisions of the current collective bargaining agreement that they 
  consider to be detrimental to instructional practices.

       The Board also found that the district, through its administrators,
  regularly consulted with  association representatives about personnel
  issues, including disciplinary and performance concerns  involving
  bargaining unit members, before notifying the affected employee.  Further,
  the Board  found that at least one of the department heads active in the
  association is extensively involved in the  budget process and maintains a
  continuing dialogue concerning the budget before a final budget plan  is
  adopted.  Moreover, the Board found that, before the most recent bargaining
  negotiations, the  principal and a union representative discussed
  recommendations for changes in the collective  bargaining agreements.

       Based on these and other findings, the majority of the Board
  determined that none of the  aforementioned duties warranted excluding the
  assistants from the bargaining unit.  Regarding  matters of personnel
  administration, the Board noted that the assistants had typed only a few 
  disciplinary letters, and that, in any case, association members are privy
  to disciplinary and  performance-related matters even before the affected
  employees are notified.  The Board concluded 

 

  that the district had failed to demonstrate how it is harmed or the
  association benefited as the result  of the assistants' clerical
  involvement in these matters.  The Board further noted that, through minor 
  procedural changes, the special services coordinator could easily address
  any concerns about  preventing teachers or paraeducators from learning of
  unannounced observations in advance.

       As for budgetary matters, the Board relied on its findings that the
  association is significantly  involved in the development of the budget
  before it reaches its final form, and that the statistical  information
  used in the budget process is available to the public and the association. 
  While  acknowledging that the association may not see every draft of every
  memorandum concerning  budgetary matters, the Board noted that the "highly
  consultative" process involves a "continuous  dialogue" between the
  district and the association.  The Board concluded that, given this
  climate, the  assistants' duties pertaining to budgetary matters are not
  sufficiently confidential to warrant the  exclusion of the employees from
  the bargaining unit.  Concerning the special services assistant's  advance
  knowledge of RIF notices, the Board stated that such notices are routinely
  handed out each  spring, that no paraeducator had ever lost an opportunity
  to work as the result of an RIF notice, and  that everyone knows that the
  RIF procedure, which is set forth in the collective bargaining  agreement,
  is based on seniority.

       Finally, the Board concluded that the assistants' rare access to
  confidential matters concerning  collective bargaining is too infrequent to
  make representation of the assistants in the Association  incompatible with
  their official duties.

       In his dissenting opinion, the chair agreed that the involvement of
  the three administrative  assistants in collective bargaining is too
  limited and infrequent to make representation by the  association
  incompatible with their official duties.  The chair also agreed that the
  assistants to the 

 

  high school and middle school administrators are not regularly involved in
  budgetary matters that  would warrant their exclusion from the bargaining
  unit.  The chair concluded, however, that the  special services assistant
  should be excluded from the bargaining unit because of her extensive 
  involvement in assisting the special services coordinator in formulating
  her budget.  Specifically, the  chair noted that the special services
  assistant was in a key position to know which persons may or  may not lose
  their jobs as the result of the budgetary process.

       The chair also concluded that all three of the assistants should be
  excluded as confidential  employees because of their involvement in matters
  of personnel administration.  The chair cited the  assistants' unlimited
  access to personnel files containing confidential information, as well as
  their  assistance in preparing drafts of written evaluations.  Further, the
  chair questioned the standard of  requiring the district to demonstrate
  harm to it or benefit to the association resulting from allowing  the
  assistants to be part of the bargaining unit.  According to the chair, the
  question should be  whether there is a reasonable possibility of harm if
  the assistants were allowed in the bargaining unit.  The chair concluded
  that there was such a possibility because the assistants' access to
  confidential  matters relating to personnel administration and the budget
  might well create divided loyalties  among those employees.

       On appeal, the district challenges the majority decision, arguing that
  the Board erred (1) in  failing to fairly consider the district's concerns
  regarding employee loyalty, (2) in evaluating the  assistants' regular
  duties solely on the basis of evidence of tasks actually performed as of
  the date of  the Board hearing, (3) in failing to consider the assistants'
  regular duties in their totality, and (4) in  requiring the district to
  demonstrate that the assistants' access to confidential information would 
  adversely affect its conduct of labor relations.

 

       To successfully challenge the Board's decision, the district must
  overcome a heavy burden.   Absent compelling indication of error, we will
  sustain the interpretation of a statute by the  administrative body
  responsible for its execution.  In re Duncan, 155 Vt. 402, 408, 584 A.2d 1140,  1144 (1990).  Determinations concerning the "appropriateness of a
  bargaining unit" are primarily for  the Board; our only inquiry is whether
  the Board "is operating within its statutory mandate."   Parkway Sch. Dist.
  v. Local 902/MNEA, 807 S.W.2d 63, 68 (Mo. 1991); see In re AFSCME, Local 
  490, 153 Vt. 318, 321, 571 A.2d 63, 65 (1989) ("When defining the
  bargaining unit, the Board need  not approve the most appropriate unit,
  only an appropriate unit."); Bd. of Educ. of Cmty. Consol.  High Sch. Dist.
  230 v. Educ. Labor Relations Bd., 518 N.E.2d 713, 727 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)
  (great  deference is normally accorded to board's establishment of
  appropriate bargaining unit because such  questions are particularly
  well-suited to board's expertise).

       Accordingly, if the record contains factual support for the Board's
  decision, we will uphold it.  AFSCME, Local 490, 153 Vt. at 321, 571 A.2d 
  at 65; see In re Local 1201, AFSCME, 143 Vt. 512,  517,