Braun v. Appleton Area School Dist., 90-2226

• Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
• Citation: 473 N.W.2d 610,163 Wis.2d 966
• Docket Number: No. 90-2226,90-2226
• Parties: NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. Gordon J. BRAUN, Richard L. Cowles, James R. Denil, Bryan L. Hacker, Janet S. Holschbach, William S. Schultz, and Betty J. Werner, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLETON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT and Appleton Education Association, Defendants-Respondents.
• Decision Date: 04 June 1991

Page 610

473 N.W.2d 610 163 Wis.2d 966 NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. Gordon J. BRAUN, Richard L. Cowles, James R. Denil, Bryan L.
Hacker, Janet S. Holschbach, William S. Schultz,
and Betty J. Werner, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
APPLETON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT and Appleton Education
Association, Defendants-Respondents. No. 90-2226. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. June 4, 1991. ^d

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Outagamie county: Philip M. Kirk, Judge.

Circuit Court, Outagamie County.

AFFIRMED.

Before CANE, P.J., and LAROCQUE and SULLIVAN, JJ.

LaROCQUE, Judge.

Gordon Braun appeals a summary judgment dismissing his challenge to the Appleton Area School District salary schedules for the 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years and declaring that the collective bargaining agreements that embody these schedules are valid and binding. Braun contends that the schedules violate equal protection by discriminating against teachers for earning and reporting graduate credits before a specific date and that the schedules violate Wisconsin public policy of encouraging teachers to pursue further education. We reject Braun's arguments and affirm the trial court.

The Appleton Area School District employs approximately 800 full-time teachers, all of whom are represented by the Appleton Education Association (AEA). During the spring of 1987, the district and the AEA negotiated a contract for the period of August 1, 1987, through July 31, 1989. ¹ Agreement was reached between the AEA and the district on May 3, 1988, and the AEA membership ratified the collective bargaining agreement a few days later.

The major issue negotiated in this new contract was a restructured and expanded salary schedule. The 1988-89 salary schedule is set out in full in Appendix A. Placement on the grid is determined by the following process:

1. Using the horizontal axis, determine the lane to which the teacher belongs based on the number of credits he or she earned and reported before June 3, 1988;

2. Add $1,450 to the teacher's salary as of February 2, 1988;

3. Determine the lowest step in that lane paying a salary greater than this adjusted salary;

4. Add a step.

This salary schedule differs from the previous schedule in that four steps were added on the horizontal axis, fewer credits are necessary to move horizontally from one lane to another; all credits are allowed to be counted for purposes of horizontal axis movement whereas previously graduate level credits were required, the cap on salary increases was raised from a master's degree plus fifteen credits to a master's degree plus thirty-six credits and a new formula for placement on the grid was developed.

The controversy surrounding the salary schedule concerns the anomalous result that some teachers with more experience and/or more credits received a lower salary than teachers with less experience and/or less credits. For example, Gordon Braun, a teacher with thirty-four years' experience and a master's degree plus forty-five credits, earned $39,700 during the 1988-89 school year, while a teacher with nineteen years' experience and a master's degree plus twenty-one credits earned $40,221.

The 1988-89 salary schedule was the result of extensive negotiating between the school district and the AEA. The district was concerned with the overall cost of the new salary grid, while the AEA heavily bargained for getting salary increases for more teachers more quickly than in the past. One of the main items the AEA was negotiating for was an expansion of the horizontal axis so that teachers could move over lanes more quickly.

Prior to the ratification vote, the AEA membership was given a copy of the new salary schedule along with an explanation of how it worked. At some point in time, some of the membership, as well as the AEA, became aware of the fact that certain teachers with more experience and/or credits would earn less than some teachers with less experience and/or credits. ²

The AEA later sent a memo to the membership notifying them that credits earned were to be reported by June 3, 1988, in order to be counted for initial placement on the new salary schedule. The memo further stated that credits reported after that date could still be counted for a determination of salary, but that once initial placement on the grid had been determined, horizontal advancement would be limited to one lane change per school year.

Shortly thereafter, the AEA notified the membership that they should be cautious about reporting their earned credits, because in some instances teachers would receive a higher salary if they delayed reporting credits earned until after the June 3, 1988, cutoff for initial placement on the grid. The memo concluded that "[e]ach person's situation is unique, so, before turning in any additional credits, all possibilities should be considered." Some teachers, including Braun, had, however, already reported all their earned credits.

This is a review of a summary judgment and a declaratory judgment that the collective bargaining agreement is valid and binding. We review the granting of summary judgment using the same methodology applied by the trial court. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis.2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816, 820 (1987). This methodology is well known, and we need not repeat it here. See Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis.2d 332, 338-39, 294 N.W.2d 473, 476-77 (1980). We review the declaratory judgment under an abuse of discretion standard. WEAC v. WSEB, 156 Wis.2d 151, 161, 456 N.W.2d 839, 844 (1990).

Braun contends that the salary schedule denies him equal protection of the laws in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution by irrationally and unfairly...