Opinion ID: 1996299
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: August Actions

Text: The August 30, 2000, communication regarding the signing bonus, however, presents a different factual circumstance. On the date the signing bonus agreement was entered into, Hintz was an employee of the District and subject to the terms of the 2000 2001 negotiated agreement. By communicating with Hintz and thereafter entering into the bonus agreement, the District contracted for a different, higher starting salary. As a result, the agreement regarding signing bonuses clearly dealt with Hintz' wages. The CEA was not involved in the signing bonus agreement entered into between the District and Hintz, nor was it officially informed that such an agreement had been made. The District cites Toledo Typographical Union No. 63 v. N.L.R.B., 907 F.2d 1220, 1222 (D.C.Cir.1990), for the proposition that [a]n employer may deal directly with its employees over any lawful matter if it first obtains the consent of their union. This argument presupposes that the negotiations between the CEA and the District resulted in an understanding that signing bonuses could be paid, thus permitting the District to approach individual teachers to negotiate such a bonus. The CIR heard evidence pertaining to signing bonuses and the negotiation process and found that there was no understanding or agreement reached between the parties on that issue. Since we have earlier affirmed such finding, the District's argument that it had the consent of the CEA in that signing bonuses were negotiated, and thus did not act to the exclusion of the CEA, is without merit.