Opinion ID: 1587319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Mandatory Topic of Bargaining

Text: We turn first to the question of whether the contract continuation language is a mandatory or permissive topic of bargaining. The CIR is an administrative agency empowered to perform a legislative function and, as such, has no power or authority other than that specifically conferred on it by statute or by a construction thereof necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act establishing the CIR. [2] And under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-818 (Reissue 2004), orders of the CIR may establish or alter the scale of wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment, or any one or more of the same. In other words, the CIR may decide mandatory topics of bargaining, but has no authority to determine permissive topics of bargaining. The issue presented in this case is whether the contract continuation clause ordered by the CIR deals with hours, wages, or terms and conditions of employment such that it is mandatorily bargainable. We conclude that it is. This court, in Hyannis Ed. Assn. v. Grant Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 38-0011, [3] addressed the issue of whether deviation from a salary schedule was mandatorily bargainable. We concluded that it was, noting that [t]eacher salary schedules have historically been the basic framework for teacher contracts and the method by which teacher wages are determined. ... Deviation from the salary schedule pursuant to a deviation clause affects those wages. [4] We find Hyannis Ed. Assn. helpful in reaching our conclusion that the contract continuation clause in this case is mandatorily bargainable. In the same way that deviation relates to wages, we conclude that contract continuation relates to hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment, because such a clause keeps in effect previously agreed-upon (or ordered) contract terms, including those which are mandatorily bargainable, until a new agreement can be reached. And this conclusion is supported by other case law. The court in Mtr. of Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook v. PERB [5] concluded that the issue of a `continuation of benefits clause' was mandatorily bargainable and not a violation of public policy. And private sector cases have concluded that the duration of a collective bargaining agreement is mandatorily bargainable. [6] Lending further support to our conclusion is this court's decision in Metro. Tech. Com. Col. Ed. Assn. v. Metro. Tech. Com. Col. Area, [7] where we noted: A matter which is of fundamental, basic, or essential concern to an employee's financial and personal concern may be considered as involving working conditions and is mandatorily bargainable even though there may be some minor influence on educational policy or management prerogative. However, those matters which involve foundational value judgments, which strike at the very heart of the educational philosophy of the particular institution, are management prerogatives and are not a proper subject for negotiation even though such decisions may have some impact on working conditions. However, the impact of whatever decision management may make in this or any other case on the economic welfare of employees is a proper subject of mandatory bargaining. We conclude that a contract continuation clause, because it continues the provisions of an existing contract until a new contract can be reached, including the salary schedule of the preceding agreement, is of fundamental, basic, or essential concern to an employee's financial and personal concern. [8] Moreover, we conclude that the contract continuation clause at issue is not a matter which involve[s] foundational value judgments, which strike at the very heart of the educational philosophy of the particular institution. [9] Matters that have been found to be of this nature include an employer's decision to hire, retain, promote, transfer, or dismiss employees [10] ; the establishment of a pension plan [11] ; a change in a school calendar [12] ; or teacher appointment determinations. [13] We conclude that the contract continuation clause at issue was mandatorily bargainable. The District's argument to the contrary is without merit.