Boston Teachers Union, Local 66 v. School Committee of Boston

• Citation: 386 Mass. 197,434 N.E.2d 1258
• Parties: , 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2727, 4 Ed. Law Rep. 264 BOSTON TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 66, v. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF BOSTON et al. (and two consolidated cases 1 ).
• Decision Date: 12 May 1982
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 1258

434 N.E.2d 1258

386 Mass. 197, 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2727,

4 Ed. Law Rep. 264

BOSTON TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 66,

v.

SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF BOSTON et al (and two consolidated cases ¹).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Jan. 7, 1982.

Decided May 12, 1982.

James T. Grady, Boston, for Boston Teachers Union, Local 66.

Matthew E. Dwyer, Boston, for Boston Public School Bldg. Custodians' Ass'n, intervener.

Richard W. Coleman & Paul F. Kelly, Boston, for Boston Ass'n of School Administrators and Supervisors, Local 6, AFL-CIO, intervener.

Harold J. Carroll, Boston, Corp. Counsel (Marcia Seeler, Sp. Asst. Corp. Counsel, Boston, with him), for the city of Boston, intervener.

Allan W. Drachman, Boston (Philip Collins, Boston, with him), for School Committee of Boston.

James F. Kavanaugh, Jr., Boston (Chester A. Janiak, Boston, with him), for The City Council of Boston.

Margot Botsford & S. Stephen Rosenfeld, Boston, for Boston Teachers' Seniority Coalition, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS and LYNCH, JJ.

HENNESSEY, Chief Justice.

In these three cases, which have been consolidated at various stages of the proceedings, we must determine the rights and obligations of the parties in the second year of a collective bargaining agreement between the Boston Teachers Union, Local 66 (BTU), and the school committee of the city of Boston. In the first case, the BTU has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the layoff of approximately 2,261 tenured teachers and permanently appointed nurses, on the ground that such lay-offs would violate the terms of a job security clause in the collective bargaining agreement. The city of Boston was allowed to intervene in this action. In the second action, the school committee of the city of Boston has sought a declaration of the obligations of the city council of Boston (city council), the mayor of the city of Boston (mayor), and the school committee, with respect to the funding and implementation of the collective bargaining agreement. ² The BTU argues that these teachers are entitled to individual hearings pursuant to G.L. c. 71, § 42. The Boston Police Patrolmen's Association moved to intervene as a party defendant, but no action was taken on the motion. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 93, AFL-CIO, was allowed to participate as amicus curiae. In the third action the BTU seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the mayor to submit to the city council the school committee's request for an appropriation of $8.2 million to implement the salary increases for the second year of the collective bargaining agreement. ³ Three parties have intervened in the last action-the school committee, the Boston Public School Building Custodians' Association and the Boston Association of School Administrators and Supervisors, Local 6. ⁴ The latter two parties also entered into collective bargaining agreements with the school committee, and they seek to compel the mayor to submit requests to the city council for appropriations to fund the pay increases provided for by their respective agreements. In all three actions, the trial judge generally denied the relief requested by the BTU. ⁵

We conclude that the salary increases provided for in the collective bargaining agreement are enforceable, and that the mayor and city council should appropriate money to pay for them. We also conclude, however, that the job security clause is unenforceable for periods exceeding one year, and further, that hearings pursuant to G.L. c. 71, § 42, are not required where dismissals are due to budgetary considerations.

Before relating the facts of the case, it is helpful to explain briefly the unique system by which the Boston public school system is financed. Statute 1936, c. 224, as amended, empowers the school committee to appropriate for general school purposes amounts up to a limit set by a statutory formula. "That limit is, essentially, an amount equal to the amount of funds which was required to finance the school system in the preceding year." Pirrone v. Boston, 364 Mass. 403, 409, 305 N.E.2d 96 (1973). See School Comm. of Boston v. Boston, --- Mass. ---, --- - ---, Mass.Adv.Sh. (1981) 1296, 1301-1302, 421 N.E.2d 1187. If the school committee determines that additional funds are necessary, it must pursue funding through the usual municipal finance system, and request, through the mayor, a supplemental appropriation by the city council. Under St. 1909, c. 486, § 3, however, the mayor may decline to submit the request to the city council, provided such action does not contravene the provisions of G.L. c. 150E. Id. Boston Teachers Union, Local 66 v. Boston, --- Mass. ---, --- - ---, Mass.Adv.Sh. (1981) 387, 392-393, 416 N.E.2d 1363.

We briefly state the pertinent facts. On August 29, 1980, the school committee approved a three year collective bargaining agreement with the BTU, to be effective for the period September 1, 1980, until August 31, 1983, subject to appropriation of funds by the city council and the mayor. The collective bargaining agreement has a job security clause which provides that during the first two years of the agreement "any teacher or nurse with tenure or permanently appointed shall continue to be employed." Also on August 29, 1980, the school committee requested that the mayor transmit to the city council a request for a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $15.1 million to fund the incremental cost items in various collective bargaining agreements, including the BTU agreement. On October 1, 1980, pursuant to orders of the Suffolk Superior Court and the Appeals Court, ⁶ the mayor submitted a request to the city council for $15.1 million to fund collective bargaining contracts, and on that day the city council appropriated $15.1 million for that purpose.

On or about March 12, 1981, the mayor notified the school committee that he would not provide for fiscal year 1981-1982 any funds in addition to the amount the school committee may appropriate in its own right pursuant to St.1936, c. 224. That amount is approximately $210 million. See Board of Educ. v. Boston, 386 Mass. ---, --- n.5, 416 N.E.2d 1363 (1982). ⁷ Maintenance of staffing levels in fiscal year 1980-1981 required an approximate expenditure of $236 million, or $26 million more than the amount available to the school committee under St.1936, c. 224, for the current fiscal year 1981-1982. The reason for the discrepancy between the amount required to finance the schools in 1980-1981 and the amount available under St.1936, c. 224, is not stated in the record. However, it is apparent that at least some, if not all, of the difference is a result of the school committee's action in spending in excess of appropriations during 1980-1981, the excess not being included in the school committee's St.1936, c. 224, appropriation for 1981-1982. See Board of Educ. v. Boston, supra at --- n.17, 416 N.E.2d 1363. In addition, approximately $12.1 million in increased funding will be required to fund negotiated salary increases under the collective bargaining agreement with the BTU.

On May 1, 1981, the school committee caused 2,261 tenured teachers and permanently appointed nurses to be notified that the school committee would vote on the recommendation of the acting superintendent of schools to lay off or dismiss these employees effective August 21, 1981. The parties agree that such a termination violates the job security clause of the collective bargaining agreement. The judge found it probable that a substantial number of the persons who received notice would be laid off. ⁸ The necessity of laying off tenured teachers appears to be increased in part by an outstanding Federal District Court order under which the school committee must maintain the current ratio of black and other minority teachers in the faculty. The ratio of black and other minority teachers is much higher among nontenured teachers; thus any significant reduction of the nontenured faculty may violate the Federal District Court's order.

On July 23, 1981, the school committee formally requested that the mayor and city council appropriate $9.73 million ⁹ to implement salary increases for the second year of various collective bargaining agreements, including those entered into with the BTU and the other union intervenors. No action has been taken on this request.

1. Enforceability of Provisions for Salary Increases. ¹⁰

The school committee contends that the salary increases for the second and third years of the collective bargaining agreement are unenforceable in the absence of an appropriation by the city council to fund those increases. It argues that in enacting G.L. c. 150E, the Legislature intended to preserve the annual appropriation process so as to require an appropriation by the city council as a condition precedent to the enforceability of any part of a collective bargaining agreement entered into pursuant to c. 150E that would require an appropriation of funds. We disagree.

General Laws c. 150E, § 7, reproduced in the margin, ¹¹ authorizes collective bargaining agreements for up to three years duration. We think that the requirement in § 7(b ), that the employer submit a request to the appropriate legislative body for an appropriation sufficient to fund the cost items of the agreement, applies only to funds needed in the first year of the agreement, and that an appropriation funding the first year of the contract constitutes an approval by the legislative body of the entire agreement. The context of this provision suggests that this is the proper interpretation. Section 7(b ) states that a request for an appropriation is to be submitted "within thirty days after the date on which the agreement is executed by the parties." It further states that if the legislative body rejects the request, "such cost items shall be...