Opinion ID: 1755944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: meritorious appeal

Text: This is a meritorious appeal, in my opinion, under SDCL 1-26-36(4) and (5). I believe the Aberdeen Education Ass'n case is distinguishable. The proposals here, made by this education association, do not appear to me to restrict any prerogative of management to set class size, determine class schedules, or assign students or teachers to particular classes. Rather, the proposals are designed to provide compensation for those teachers who, because of the exercise of the board's prerogative, have been asked or would be asked to perform more work for the same amount of pay. Therein lie the crucial difference in the Aberdeen Education Ass'n case and this case. If one reads through these proposals carefully, one will note that each one provides for annual compensation, i.e., they pertain to money and pay. Thus, when the Department of Labor found as a fact that the proposals submitted by appellant were not proposals or matters which materially affected working conditions or wages or hours of employment, the agency was clearly erroneous as a matter of law. A fair reading of these proposals reflects that appellant association was not asking to negotiate the class sizes or the makeup in teaching load but, rather, the annual compensation. I cannot see where the management prerogative was stripped away from the school district. There is no question or doubt that these proposals impact the budget. Can it therefore be logically said that impacting the budget spills over into a concept that management prerogative has been tainted? I think not. The budget is surely a topic which must be left open to the democratic decision. But the fair wage for hours in classroom teaching and preparation for teaching is simply addressing the payment for the amount of work done. Surely, that is protected and is a negotiable item. These proposals, E through H, are not proposals which significantly interfered with the exercise of the inherent management prerogative. Thus, the Department of Labor was clearly erroneous, as a matter of law, in its decision to the contrary. Finally, I wish to state that the New Jersey authority was either implicitly adopted or applied by this Court in the Aberdeen Education Ass'n case. In these type of cases, the proposals for negotiation must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We must concern ourselves, as we review and test these proposals, in the light of whether the dominant concern involves an educational goal or the work and welfare of the teachers. Ramapo-Indian Hills Educ. Ass'n v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 176 N.J.Super. 35, 43, 422 A.2d 90, 94 (1980). Viewing these various proposals, in futuro, should they pertain to an educational goal, they should not be negotiable and are strictly a part of the democratic process; if, on the other hand, they involve the work and welfare of the teachers, so far as their pay, wages, hours of employment, or working conditions of employment are concerned, they should be negotiable. There is no finite line. We perceive two theories of attainment confronting one another in these type of cases. We behold two conflicting goals, i.e., managerial rights versus employee rights. In Ramapo, 176 N.J.Super. at 43, 422 A.2d at 94, quoting an earlier case, the court expressed this sensitive, legal tightwire as follows: Logically pursued, these general principlesmanagerial prerogatives and terms and conditions of employmentlead to inevitable conflict. Almost every decision of the public employer concerning its employees impacts upon or affects terms and conditions of employment to some extent. While most decisions made by a public employer involve some managerial function, ending the inquiry at that point would all but eliminate the legislated authority of the union representative to negotiate with respect to terms and conditions of employment. Conversely to permit negotiations and bargaining whenever a term and condition is implicated would emasculate managerial prerogatives. (Citations omitted.) I also agree with that portion of the majority opinion holding that item I is not a mandatory subject of negotiation, for it significantly interferes with management prerogatives. Accordingly, I specially concur and would likewise reverse and remand in this administrative appeal believing that the scope of review in this case must, of necessity, be addressed.