Title: Milton Education & Support Assn. v. Milton Board of School Trustees
Citation: 171 Vt. 64, 759 A.2d 479
Docket Number: 
State: Vermont
Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court
Date: July 14, 2000

Milton Education & Support Assn. v. Milton Board of School Trustees Annotate this Case Milton Education & Support Assn. v. Milton Board of School Trustees (97-218); 171 Vt. 64; 759 A.2d 479[Filed 14-Jul-2000] 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. 97-218Milton Education and Support Association Supreme Court On Appeal from v. Labor Relations BoardMilton Board of School Trustees March Term, 1998Catherine L. Frank, ChairJoel D. Cook, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.Christopher D. Roy and Dennis W. Wells of Downs Rachlin & Martin PLLC, Burlington, for Defendant-Appellant.PRESENT: Amestoy, C.J., Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ. SKOGLUND, J. This case involves the obligation of parties to a collective-bargaining agreement to exhaust available contractual remedies before a statutory unfair-labor-practice charge will lie under the Vermont Municipal Relations Act. The Milton Board of School Trustees (school board) appeals from a decision of the Vermont Labor Relations Board (Labor Board), which held that the school board violated 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(5) by failing to bargain in good faith with the Milton Education and Support Association (association) over the decision to lay off bargaining-unit employees and to subcontract for custodial services. On appeal, the school board claims that, because the scope of its management rights under the collective-bargaining agreement is a question of contract interpretation, the Labor Board erred by refusing to defer to the arbitration process provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement. Further, the school board claims that the Labor Board erred in concluding that the association did not waive its right to bargain over the subcontracting decision. We agree with the school board's first argument; however, we disagree with its second argument. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for the Labor Board to reconsider its decision in light of the result of the parties' arbitration. I. The association is the exclusive bargaining representative for the teachers and support personnel, including custodial staff, employed in the Milton Town School District. The parties, pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 1725, have engaged in collective bargaining periodically over the years and have entered into several successive collective-bargaining agreements for non-teacher employees. A brief review of the parties' negotiation history and prior bargained agreements is helpful to this discussion. Article III of the parties' 1992-94 collective-bargaining agreement contained the following language enumerating management rights: It is herein agreed that except as specifically and directly modified by the express language in a specific provision of this Agreement, the Board retains all rights and powers that it has, or may hereafter be granted by law, and may exercise such powers at its discretion. The parties continued to be governed by the 1992-94 agreement into 1995 while they negotiated a successor agreement. In the spring of 1995, the school board openly considered, and decided against, subcontracting the school district's custodial and maintenance services to a non-bargaining-unit