Aberdeen Ed. Ass'n v. Aberdeen Bd. of Ed., Aberdeen Independent School Dist., 11225
Decision Date | 19 March 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 11225,11225 |
Citation | 88 S.D. 127,215 N.W.2d 837 |
Parties | , 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2801, 73 Lab.Cas. P 53,284 ABERDEEN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ABERDEEN BOARD OF EDUCATION, ABERDEEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Political Subdivision of the State of South Dakota, Defendant and Respondent. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Maloney, Kolker, Kolker & Fritz, Dennis Maloney, Aberdeen, for plaintiff-appellant.
Siegel, Barnett, Schutz, O'Keefe & Ogborn, Terence A. O'Keefe, Aberdeen, for defendant-respondent.
In this opinion we refer to the plaintiff as 'Association' and the defendant as aides, (3) elementary planning, (4) class size, (5) audio-visual expansion, (6) budget allowances, (7) school-wide guidance and counseling program, and (8) mandatory retirement of administrators. The Board, through its answer, affirmatively alleged that SDCL 3--18 is unconstitutional, and that even if SDCL 3--18 is constitutional, the eight items mentioned are not proper subjects of negotiation under the provisions of that chapter. It is the contention of the Association that the items relate to 'other conditions of employment' and are therefore proper subjects of negotiation.
The constitutionality issue framed by the pleadings was thereafter neither argued nor briefed by either of the parties. This court will not pass on the constitutional issues or questions if the merits of the case may otherwise be decided. House of Seagram, Inc. v. Assam Drug Co., 83 S.D. 320, 159 N.W.2d 210. We have also held that no statute should be held unconstitutional unless its infraction of constitutional principles is so plain and palpable as to admit of no reasonable doubt. Application of Nelson, 83 S.D. 611, 163 N.W.2d 533.
In Head v. Special School District No. 1, 288 Minn. 496, 182 N.W.2d 887, we find their court saying:
We do not decide this case on constitutional grounds, nor foreclose the issue nor intimate what our views might be when it is properly before us for decision. 1 The sole question for our determination is whether the trial court erred in determining that the above items are not proper subjects of negotiation under SDCL 3--18 and that the Board was entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm the lower court's holding.
The authorization for negotiation between public employees and public employers is contained in the Public Employees' Unions Law, SDCL 3--18. Sec. 3--18--1 defines a public employee as any person 'holding a position by appointment or employment in the government of the State of South Dakota or in the government of any one or more of the political subdivisions thereof, or in the service of the public schools, * * *'. It is stipulated that plaintiff is the bargaining association on behalf of the 'classroom teachers, nurses and counselors employed by Defendant', and has negotiated with the defendant 'for the past three years and specifically for the school year 1972--73'. Sec. 3--18--3 of the act provides in part:
'Representatives designated or selected for the purpose of formal representation by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes shall be the exclusive representatives of all employees in such unit for the purpose of representation in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; * * *.'
It is the last phrase quoted above, 'other conditions of employment', which gives rise to the present controversy. In Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 1967, 4 Cir., 387 F.2d 542, the court had before it the question of whether increases in food prices (a penny for carry-out coffee and five cents for hot food entrees) established by an independent contractor operating cafeterias in Westinghouse plants was a mandatory subject for collective bargaining between Westinghouse Electric Corp. and Salaried Employees Association, a union representing some of the Westinghouse employees. A majority of the N.L.R.B. held that cafeteria prices were "conditions of employment' and a mandatory subject of bargaining'. In effect the N.L.R.B. held that the statutory wording, 'terms and conditions of employment', was intended by Congress to be used in its "broadest sense' and encompasses virtually everything which bears on the employment relationship and to which workers seek management's agreement.' The court held, however, that 'At best, the history merely shows that Congress did not desire to enumerate specific bargaining subjects; it does not show that the phrase was meant to embrace every issue that might be of interest to unions or employers.' The court held:
Other courts interpreting the same phrase have reached conclusions that employers are not required to negotiate every item affecting employment. The following is a list taken from the Attorney General's Report, 1971--72, at page 184:
The Legislature has the duty to establish and maintain public schools and to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education. Art. VIII, § 1, South Dakota Constitution. They have delegated a part of this authority which they have to school boards, giving them general powers. SDCL 13--8--39. Throughout the Code there are many other delegations of power by the Legislature in the management of the school system. In Wichita Public Schools Employees Union Local 513 v. Smith, 1964, 194 Kan. 2, 397 P.2d 357, the Supreme Court of Kansas said:
In Dahl, et al. v. Independent School District, 1922, 45 S.D. 366, 187 N.W. 638, this Court held:
Cases cited.
The Association points out that it is significant It is true that SDCL 3--18--2 states in part: 'Such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession but shall require a statement of rationale for any position taken by either party in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Canton Lutheran Church v. SOVIK, MATHRE, ETC.
... ... T. V. A., 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., Concurring); Sullivan v. Meade Independent School District No. 101, 530 F.2d 799 (8th Cir ... Aberdeen Educational Assn. v. Aberdeen Board 507 F. Supp ... ...
-
Montgomery County Educ. Ass'n, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of Montgomery County
... ... (BNA) 3250, ... 43 Ed. Law Rep. 720 ... MONTGOMERY COUNTY EDUCATION ... (1) of Education Article, empowers a public school employer and its employees' designated ... Relations Act, West Hartford Education Assn., Inc. v. DeCourcy, 162 Conn. 566, 578, 295 A.2d ... v. School Dist., 290 Or. 217, 235-236, 621 P.2d 547, 559 (1980) ... 507, [534 A.2d 987] 337 A.2d at 268; Aberdeen Ed. Ass'n v. Aberdeen Bd. of Ed. Ind. Sch. D., ... ...
-
State v. Big Head
... ... Aberdeen Ed. Ass'n. v. Aberdeen Bd. of Ed., Ind. Sch. D., ... Independent Community Bankers Ass'n v. State, 346 N.W.2d 737 ... ...
-
Opperman v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... the loader was a vehicle being "process[ed]" or "warehous[ed]" in the building. 1 The trial ... See, e.g., Sioux Falls Sch. Dist. v. Koupal, 526 N.W.2d 248 (S.D.1994) (applied ... to general term "other just causes"); Aberdeen Educ. Ass'n v. Aberdeen Bd. of Educ., 88 S.D ... ...