Opinion ID: 2571612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Issue 2: Did the school district properly deny KANAAE use of the district's internal mail system to distribute its membership materials?

Text: Once the KANAAE has been determined to be a PEO, the question shifts to whether the Negotiations Act nevertheless allows it to use the mail system concurrently with the other PEO, the ONEA. Our appellate review of the district court's conclusion to deny such use is based upon the same standard as applied in issue 1 above: to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence and whether those findings are sufficient to support the conclusions of law. We begin by again examining various provisions of the Negotiations Act. As mentioned, it is a statutory system based upon the concept of two separate groups  the board of education as the employer and a PEO on behalf of the professional employees  engaging in professional negotiations to reach agreement for their mutual benefit by establishing, maintaining, protecting, or improving the terms and conditions of the employees' professional service. K.S.A. 72-5413(e), (f), and (g); K.S.A. 72-5414; K.S.A. 72-5421; K.S.A. 72-5430(b)(5) and (c)(3). Consistent with this concept, the Act also states that when a majority of the professional employees in the bargaining unit select a representative for the purposes of professional negotiation, such representative shall be the exclusive representative of all the professional employees in the unit for such purpose. K.SA 72-5415(a). While employees, either individually or collectively, may still present or make known their positions or proposals to the board, the right to actually negotiate remains exclusively with the bargaining unit. KANAAE concedes that the right to negotiate has been the exclusive domain of the ONEA since 1970. The Act sets forth the terms and conditions of professional service, i.e., those numerous issues which are negotiable between the PEO and the board of education. See K.S.A. 72-5413(l). Included is the following privilege granted to the recognized PEO: Dissemination of information regarding the professional negotiation process and related matters to members of the bargaining unit on school or college premises through direct contact with members of the bargaining unit, the use of bulletin boards on or about the facility, and the use of the school or college mail system to the extent permitted by law. K.S.A. 72-5413(l)(1)(B). Through ONEA's give and take process of professional negotiations with the school district, it has been granted the privilege of disseminating such information through the district's mail system as allowed by the statute. Accordingly, the school district is statutorily prohibited from granting this privilege to any other PEO. K.S.A. 72-5413(l)(1)(B) and (2). Granting the privilege concurrently to another PEO can be characterized as a prohibited practice and evidence of the school district's bad faith in professional negotiations. See, e.g., K.S.A. 72-5430(b)(2) (Assisting or interference in the formation or existence of any professional employees' organization) and (b)(6), (denying the rights accompanying recognition of a professional employees' organization as the exclusive representative). Since the district court determined the KANAAE was a PEO, it determined that the Negotiations Act prohibited KANAAE from concurrently using the mail system for disseminating such information. In response, KANAAE asserts that the district court erred because the material it wished to distribute was not regarding the professional negotiation process and related matters as defined in K.S.A. 72-5413(l)(1)(B). Few matters are more related to the professional negotiation process, however, than the KANAAE brochures that openly encourage the dropping of membership in the recognized exclusive bargaining representative and increasing the membership in an alternative organization. In KANAAE's brief it candidly acknowledges that it competes with ONEA for membership and additionally acknowledges that the two organizations compete for membership dues dollars, because as a practical matter both organizations offer similar benefits . . . and one would not expect teachers to pay two sets of dues for similar benefits. Its argument that it does not compete with ONEA as the Olathe teachers' exclusive bargaining representative, however, is disingenuous because once the teacher numbers favor KANAAE, then ONEA will no longer be the bargaining representative. Since the Act provides for negotiations via bargaining units, as opposed to individual employees negotiating their own contracts, the decertification of ONEA would virtually guarantee that survivor KANAAE would fill that void as the exclusive bargaining representative for all terms and conditions of employees' professional service. We hold that the district court's legal conclusion  denying KANAAE access to the mail system because using it for disseminating negotiations information or related matters was the exclusive privilege of another PEO, the ONEA  is sufficiently supported by factual findings which are based upon substantial competent evidence. Unrau, 271 Kan. at 747.