Court Opinion

ID: 9678150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:12:59.658508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:02.264759
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(specially concurring).
PROCEEDINGS BELOW/SCOPE OF REVIEW
Appellant filed an Unfair Labor Practice Complaint which led to a decision of the Department of Labor consisting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Department of Labor concluded that the proposals, set forth in the majority opinion, were not mandatorily negotiable and thus dismissed the Unfair Labor Practice Complaint. The rationale of the Department of Labor was that the proposals by appellant did not materially affect working conditions or wages or hours of employment; the Department of Labor also reasoned that the appellant’s proposals would significantly interfere with the exercise of inherent management prerogatives concerning the appellee’s power to determine governmental policy.
The decision of the Department of Labor was affirmed by the circuit court, the circuit court likewise holding that the aforementioned proposals were not “other conditions of employment” within the ambit of statutory language, i.e., SDCL 3-18-3. The circuit court likewise determined and held that it was not convinced that a mistake had been committed or the Department’s decision was against the clear weight of the evidence.
As I review this record, I cannot see where there is any great dispute over any facts. Rather, with the facts spread on the record, the parties cannot agree on an application of the facts to the existing law, namely, the Aberdeen Education Ass’n case, decided in 1974 in this Court, cited in the majority opinion. It is my opinion that this Court, which it has not done in the majority opinion, must review the decision below to determine whether or not the decision of the South Dakota Department of Labor was clearly erroneous. We must ask ourselves whether or not the agency below, affirmed by the circuit court, erred as a matter of law in its application of the facts to the existing law.
MERITORIOUS APPEAL
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, *566made 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.
*567Accordingly, I specially concur and would likewise reverse and remand in this administrative appeal believing that the scope of review in this ease must, of necessity, be addressed.