Culver Cmty. Teachers Ass'n v. Ind. Educ. Emp't Relations Bd.

153 N.E.3d 1130

CULVER COMMUNITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Decatur County Education Association, Smith Green Community Schools Classroom Teachers Association, and West Clark Teachers Association, Appellant-Petitioners,

v. INDIANA EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee-Respondent,andWest Clark Community Schools, Intervenor.

Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-PL-2989

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed August 12, 2020

Case Summary

[1] The Culver Community Teachers Association, Decatur County Education Association, Smith-Green Community Schools Classroom Teachers Association, and West Clark Teachers Association, (collectively "Teachers Associations"), appeal from the trial court's denial of their joint verified petition for judicial review of the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board's ("IEERB") final decisions regarding their respective collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs"). We reverse and remand.

Issue

[2] The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly denied judicial review of the IEERB's final decisions that the CBAs negotiated and ratified by the Teachers Associations and their respective school employers each included provisions that were contrary to law.

Facts

[3] For the 2017-2018 academic school year, the Teachers Associations' respective school corporations (the "School Employers") and the exclusive representatives¹ for the Teachers Associations negotiated and ratified CBAs. Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 20-29-6-6.1, the CBAs were submitted for review to an IEERB-appointed individual ("compliance officer") to ensure compliance with Indiana law.

[4] On May 30, 2018, the IEERB compliance officer issued compliance reports and recommendations regarding the four CBAs and found that each CBA included a provision that was non-compliant with Indiana Code Section 20-29-6-4, which enumerates the mandatory subjects of collective bargaining for teachers. See infra .

[5] The Teachers Associations appealed to the IEERB. On September 18, 2018, the IEERB entered individual final reports as to the Teachers Associations' respective CBAs. In each instance, as detailed below, the IEERB affirmed the compliance officer's finding of statutory non-compliance.

I. Culver CBA

[6] The IEERB compliance officer found the following provision from the Culver CBA to be non-compliant:

Article III

Compensation

* * * * *

J. Ancillary Duties. Ancillary Duties are defined as meetings, professional development trainings, and other school activities outside the contractual day or Contractual year. Ancillary Duties do not include lesson planning and the grading of student work. In a given school year teachers shall be required to perform a maximum of ten (10) hours of Ancillary Duties at a rate of $0 per hours [sic].

Teachers Associations' App. Vol. II p. 207. In affirming the finding of statutory noncompliance, the IEERB found that the provision above did not comport with Indiana law because the "parties may not bargain a limitation on the assignment of an ancillary duty." Id. at 24. In its final report, the IEERB adopted the following provision from the compliance officer's report:

Although the parties may bargain wages for an ancillary duty, they may not bargain what constitutes an ancillary duty. The parties have included a definition of "ancillary duties" specifying what does and does not constitute an ancillary duty. What constitutes an ancillary duty is not a bargainable subject pursuant to Indiana Code § 20-29-6-4 and 20-29-6-4.5 and, therefore, is not compliant.

Id. at 39-40.

II. Decatur CBA

[7] The IEERB compliance officer found the following provision from the Decatur CBA to be non-compliant:

Article IV

Salary Regulations

Chapter 1. Salary Requirements

A. The Teacher's Compensation Model for the 2017-18 school year is set forth in Appendix ‘A’, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein along with the salary schedules referred to therein. The attached salary schedule reflects the salary increases that were bargained for the 2017-2018 term as compared to the 2016 2017 schedule.

* * * * *

L. A teacher supervising Friday Night Detention shall be paid a flat rate of Seventy five Dollars ($75.00) for 12 students or less.

Teachers Associations' App. Vol. III, p. 32 (quotation omitted). In affirming the finding of statutory noncompliance, the IEERB stated: "[the] parties may not bargain a limitation on the assignment of an ancillary duty." Teachers Associations' App. Vol. II p. 24. In its final report, the IEERB adopted the following provision from the compliance officer's report:

Although the parties may bargain wages for an ancillary duty, they may not bargain any parameters, restrictions, or limitations on the school's assignment of an ancillary duty. The parties have bargained compensation for supervising Friday night detention "for 12 students or less." The conditions of the assignment, i.e. for 12 students or less, is not a bargainable subject pursuant to Indiana Code § 20-29-6-4 and 20-29-6-4.5 and, therefore, is not compliant.

Id. at 34-35.

III. Smith-Green CBA

[8] The IEERB compliance officer found the following provision from the Smith-Green CBA to be non-compliant:

Article III

Salary and Compensation

* * * * *

9. Every effort shall be made by the corporation to provide a substitute teacher when a teacher is absent. In the event a substitute is not available for a period of time, upon mutual agreement, a teacher may be requested to supervise a class's instructional time during his/her preparation period. The teacher shall be compensated with one additional leave day for:

• Each 6 periods in CJSHS

• Each 5 hours in CES

The teacher shall be compensated with one-half of an additional leave day for:

• Each 3 periods in CJSHS

• Each 2.5 hours in CES

Teachers are responsible for notifying the attendance secretary in CJSHS or the administrative assistant in CES for any instances of preparation period supervision.

Teachers Associations' App. Vol. III, p. 95. In affirming the finding of statutory noncompliance, the IEERB found that the provision did not comport with Indiana law because the "parties may not bargain a limitation on the assignment of an ancillary duty." Teachers Associations' App. Vol. II p. 24. In its final report, the IEERB adopted the following provision from the compliance officer's report:

The parties have impermissibly bargained restrictions on the school's assignment of a teacher to serve as a substitute for another teacher. Although the parties may bargain wages for an ancillary duty, they may not bargain any parameters, restrictions, or limitations on the school's assignment of the ancillary duty.

The parties have bargained that "mutual agreement" of the teacher is required before the school can assign the teacher to serve as a substitute for another teacher. This is not a bargainable subject pursuant to Indiana Code § 20-29-6-4 and 20-29-6-4.5 and, therefore, is not compliant.

Id. at 24-25.

IV. West Clark CBA

[9] The IEERB compliance officer found the following provision from the West Clark CBA to be non-compliant:

APPENDIX E

ANCILLARY DUTIES

* * * * *

Lead Teacher — If a teacher is asked to, and accepts responsibility for, writing lesson plans, grading assignments, and entering grades for these assignments in the absence of a certified teacher for a week or longer, the teacher will receive an additional four hours of pay per week. Rate of pay for this duty will be at row E, Career Level 1 or Career Level 2, depending on the teacher's current Career Level placement.

Teachers Associations' App. Vol. III, p. 167. In affirming the compliance officer's finding of noncompliance, the IEERB found that the "parties may not bargain a limitation on the assignment of an ancillary duty." Teachers Associations' App. Vol. II p. 24. In its final report, the IEERB adopted the following provision from the compliance officer's report:

Although the parties may bargain wages for an ancillary duty, they may not bargain any parameters, restrictions, or limitations on the school's assignment of an ancillary duty. The parties have bargained that as a condition of the Lead Teacher ancillary duty, the teacher must agree to accept the duty ("if a teacher is asked to, and accepts responsibility for ..."). The condition of accepting an assignment is not a bargainable subject pursuant to Indiana Code § 20-29-6-4 and 20-29-6-4.5 and, therefore, is not compliant.

The Compliance Officer notes that, if the conditioned acceptance was not bargained, but is function [sic] of school policy, the parties may avoid a future finding of noncompliance by including a statement to that effect.

Id. at 29-30.

[10] On October 17, 2018, the Teachers Associations jointly filed a petition for judicial review of the IEERB's final decisions affirming the compliance officers' findings of noncompliance. The IEERB filed its response on November 9, 2018. The Teachers Associations, IEERB, and intervenor West Clark Community Schools tendered briefs to the trial court, which heard argument on September 25, 2019. On November 25, 2019, the trial court entered its order, containing findings of fact and conclusions thereon, providing in part as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

* * * * *

2. In [ ] four [final] decisions, IEERB affirmed that a certain provision in each of the [Teachers Associations'] collective bargaining agreements ("CBA") was non-compliant with Indiana Code Section 20-29-6-4.

* * * * *

7. Specifically, in each of these four final decisions, IEERB found that the school and exclusive representative impermissibly bargained for a definition of, or limitation on, what constitutes an ancillary duty, in violation of Indiana Code section 20-29-6-4, which permits bargaining only for salary, wages, and salary and wage related fringe benefits.

* * * * *

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

12. According to Indiana Code section 20-29-6-1, [s]chool employers and school employees shall: (1) have the obligation and the right to bargain collectively the items set forth in section 4 [ IC 20-29-6-4 ]; (2) have the right and

...