Opinion ID: 1996299
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Dealing With Hintz to Exclusion of CEA

Text: The District first argues that it did not engage in direct dealing with Hintz because direct dealing requires that the collective bargaining agent be excluded, and in this case, it contends, the CEA was not excluded. The CIR's order with respect to this issue found in relevant part: [T]he District met with Mr. Hintz and communicated with him directly for the purpose of establishing his wages. This communication was to the exclusion of the Association; the Association had absolutely no input before the District and Mr. Hintz agreed to a salary of $24,000 per year. After the collective bargaining agreement was entered, the District again met with Mr. Hintz on August 30, 2000 to set forth in writing that his annual compensation would total $24,000.... The CIR found that the District engaged in direct dealing with Hintz on two separate occasionsin April 2000 when Hintz and the District agreed to a contract for $24,000 and on August 30 when Hintz and the District entered into the signing bonus agreement.