Opinion ID: 2821955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Educational Policy vs. Working Conditions

Text: [¶17] The MPELRL imposes upon school boards and teachers’ associations the obligation “[t]o confer and negotiate in good faith with respect to wages, hours, working conditions and contract grievance arbitration.” 26 M.R.S. § 965(1)(C). This provision “empowers a school committee to enter into binding arbitration agreements in the areas of hours and working conditions and, within those areas, to make adequate provisions for contract grievance arbitration.” Superintending Sch. Comm. v. Portland Teachers’ Ass’n, 338 A.2d 155, 157 (Me. 1975). [¶18] By contrast, matters of educational policy are excluded from mandatory bargaining by the provision that “public employers of teachers shall meet and consult but not negotiate with respect to educational policies.” 26 M.R.S. § 965(1)(C) (emphasis added). This exception “prohibits the school district from negotiating with teachers about educational policy,” and accordingly, 10 “educational policy decisions are not subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure.” Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 58 v. Mount Abram Teachers Ass’n (MSAD 58), 1997 ME 219, ¶ 5, 704 A.2d 349. [¶19] We have further held that the mere inclusion of a matter of educational policy in a collective bargaining agreement does not make that educational policy subject to arbitration.4 See Bd. of Dirs. of Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 36 v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 36 Teachers Ass’n (MSAD 36), 428 A.2d 419, 422 (Me. 1981) (holding that a school board “could not lawfully limit its statutory responsibility for choosing teachers through a collective bargaining agreement, even though entered into voluntarily”). One rationale behind the educational policy exception is that “the [L]egislature deemed ‘educational policies’ to involve value choices so fundamental that binding decisions concerning them should be made essentially unilaterally and by persons directly responsible to the people.” City of Biddeford v. Biddeford Teachers Ass’n, 304 A.2d 387, 414 (Me. 1973) (Wernick, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 4 Although some bills have been introduced in the Legislature in recent years that would more clearly open issues of educational policy up to collective bargaining, see L.D. 1344, § 1 (121st Legis. 2003) (providing that school boards “may negotiate with respect to educational policies”); L.D. 158, § 1 (122nd Legis. 2005) (providing a clarification that “[p]rovisions in collective bargaining agreements that are later found to control matters of educational policy are neither void nor voidable for that reason but are enforceable only for the term of the agreement”), these proposals have not been enacted. 11 [¶20] Neither “educational policies” nor “working conditions” is defined by the MPELRL, except that “educational policies may not include wages, hours, working conditions or contract grievance arbitration.” 26 M.R.S. § 965(1)(C). The two areas are not compartmentalized; rather, they exist on a continuum and often blend together, and determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. See City of Biddeford, 304 A.2d at 413, 420 (Wernick, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). [¶21] A balancing test has been applied to these determinations by the courts and the MLRB. In MSAD 58, we held that a district’s imposition of a curriculum plan to teach from a book with some sexually explicit content was an educational policy not subject to mandatory bargaining, stating that “[a]lthough the conditions may affect a teacher’s preparation of a lesson plan, this incidental effect on teaching techniques does not transform an educational policy into teacher working conditions.” 1997 ME 219, ¶¶ 2, 7, 704 A.2d 349. [¶22] The MLRB has held that supervision of school buildings and playgrounds during recess, lunch periods, and before school is a matter of educational policy not subject to mandatory bargaining. See Peru Teachers Ass’n v. Peru Sch. Comm., No. 78-IR-01 at 1, 3 (Me. Labor Relations Bd. July 10, 1978) (interpretive ruling stating that such supervision involves “a substantial ‘managerial’ consideration—over and above encroachment upon managerial 12 supervision, organization, direction and distribution of personnel”); Ingerson v. Millinocket Sch. Comm., No. 77-39 at 4 (Me. Labor Relations Bd. Oct. 14, 1977) (“[P]re-school and noon playground duties relating to the attendance of teachers at school at times when students will be in attendance are matters of educational policy and intended to remain outside the scope of mandatory collective bargaining.”). By contrast, the MLRB has held that nonprofessional or purely administrative duties, such as collecting milk and lunch money and distributing lunch to students, are working conditions subject to mandatory bargaining. See Peru Teachers Ass’n, No. 78-IR-01 at 1-2 (Me. Labor Relations Bd. July 10, 1978). [¶23] Appropriate student supervision is necessarily a matter of significant importance to school boards during times when students are present at school. See id. at 3. Student supervisory duties affect parent-teacher and student-teacher relations and may assist in improving transitions between periods and promoting student safety. The fact that the ten-minute requirement may touch upon teacher working conditions in some respects does not render it automatically subject to mandatory bargaining. See MSAD 58, 1997 ME 219, ¶¶ 5-7, 704 A.2d 349. [¶24] Our conclusion that the Superior Court correctly determined that the parties did not intend to collectively bargain the requirement that teachers be available to address student and parent needs in classrooms as those students are 13 arriving at school is bolstered by the language of the collective bargaining agreement. Pursuant to article 9(B), provisions involving teacher “planning and preparation time” and the “amount of teaching time” that takes place are defined as matters of educational policy. Article 4 further provides that the Board has “the exclusive right to take any action it deems appropriate” to manage the work of teachers and establish their work schedules. Article 27(A) vests RSU No. 5 with the authority to adjust such requirements as needed, subject to the meet and consult provisions. [¶25] Before this dispute arose, article 9(E) already provided that “[a]ll educators will be in the building ten . . . minutes before the beginning of their defined instructional day.” RSU No. 5 did not, by voluntarily including this provision in the collective bargaining agreement, relinquish its own authority to adjust this portion of the teacher workday to improve student supervision. See MSAD 36, 428 A.2d at 422-23. The elementary school principal’s decision interpreting the ten-minute requirement to ensure that teachers are in the classroom during these ten minutes in order to best meet students’ needs was an educational policy determination that was within RSU No. 5’s discretion.