Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations v. Board of Ed. of Town of West Hartford
| Decision Date | 13 March 1979 |
| Citation | 411 A.2d 28,177 Conn. 68 |
| Parties | , 100 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3065 CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Russell L. Post, Jr., Avon, with whom was O. Bradford Griffin, Jr., Litchfield, for appellant (defendant).
William R. Darcy, Gen. Counsel, Wethersfield, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and PETERS, JJ.
The proceedings which led to this appeal were initiated by the filing of a complaint with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations in which the West Hartford Education Association alleged that the West Hartford Board of Education had unilaterally changed the working conditions of summer school teachers in violation of § 10-153e(b)(4) of the Teacher Negotiation Act (General Statutes §§ 10-153a to 10-153j, inclusive). At the hearing before the State Board of Labor Relations held on May 18, 1977, the parties submitted joint exhibits but presented no witnesses. The parties did, however, file a stipulation of facts. 1 On June 28, 1977, the labor board found the employer in violation of § 10-153e, holding that teachers employed during the summer were covered by the act. The labor board subsequently filed a petition in Superior Court for enforcement of its decision and order. The court affirmed the labor board's decision and the defendant has appealed to this court.
The issue raised by this appeal is whether summer school teachers are excluded from coverage under the Teacher Negotiation Act.
The board of education argues that employment in summer school or curriculum workshops is not subject to mandatory collective bargaining because summer school personnel need not be certified; that the employer's requirement of certification for summer school personnel does not create an obligation to bargain where no such obligation is imposed by statute; and that only as to school programs mandated by statute, i. e., the regular 180-day school year, is there a statutory duty to bargain collectively with teachers.
The association, in turn, contends that the teacher bargaining statute governs All labor relations between local boards of education and certified members of the teaching profession and therefore that teachers employed by school boards during the summer are covered by the collective bargaining statute. The association argues that the summer school program, where courses are taught for credit and where the curriculum for the ensuing year is developed and planned, 2 is but an extension of the regular school year; that the same skills, experience and competence required for the regular year are required for summer school; that labor problems arising during the summer, and involving members of the same staff as employed during the regular school year, would inevitably cause labor problems to extend into the regular year, and that both the bargaining and certification statutes recognize this continuity by covering the entire employment relation between teachers and school boards; and that no exception as to the statutory requirements of collective bargaining with teachers exists as to summer school personnel.
We note first that Connecticut has a specific act governing labor relations between local boards of education and their professional employees, §§ 10-153a to 10-153j, inclusive, and that the following comprehensive language appears at the very beginning of the act: "Members of the teaching profession shall have and shall be protected in the exercise of the right . . . to negotiate . . . through representatives of their own choosing with respect to salaries and other conditions of employment . . . ." General Statutes § 10-153a. (Emphasis added.)
The school board, nonetheless, contends that the duty to bargain collectively imposed upon it by the above statutes applies only to those school programs mandated by statute, i. e., the regular 180-day school year. The board, however, has been unable to point to anything in the applicable statutes which expressly so limits the duty to bargain.
In this connection we note that chapter 166 of the General Statutes, which contains the "Teacher Negotiation Act," provides for the establishment of two different bargaining units, i. e., an administrators' unit and a teachers' unit, and that the duty to bargain collectively applies to both such units. General Statutes §§ 10-153b(a)(1) and 10-153b(a)(2). Since it is common knowledge that administrators work more than 180 days a year, it is highly unlikely that the legislature intended to limit the duty to bargain to the 180 days of the regular school year.
Moreover there are strong reasons of public policy for not reading such a limitation into the statute. As pointed out by the association, disputes and controversies arising during a summer school session can be as productive of labor strife as disputes arising during the regular school year. Such disputes will also inevitably tend to spill over into the regular school year, adversely affecting the employment relations between the parties. By enacting the Teacher Negotiation Act the legislature gave teachers the right to bargain collectively and imposed upon school boards the duty to negotiate with the representatives of the teachers. In so doing the legislature expressed the view that by requiring that disputes between the parties be submitted "to the mediating influence of negotiations" it was eliminating any need for resort to illegal and disruptive tactics, and that disputes between school boards and teachers were "more likely" of resolution and agreement by negotiation than by strike or otherwise. West Hartford Education Assn., Inc. v. DeCourcy, 162 Conn. 566, 584-85, 295 A.2d 526 (1972).
Under these circumstances, this court cannot "infer from the statute an exception to its provisions which the legislature has not prescribed either by word or implication." Busko v. DeFilippo, 162 Conn. 462, 471, 294 A.2d 510, 514-515 (1972).
The school board next contends that summer school personnel are excluded from coverage under the Teacher Negotiation Act by § 10-153(b)(a)(2) which defines the teachers' bargaining unit as "the group of certified professional employees who are employed by a town or regional board of education in positions requiring a teaching or special services certificate . . . ."
The board contends that summer school personnel are not required by statute to be certified and therefore that the requirement of position certification in § 10-153b(a)(2) excludes such summer school personnel from the teachers' bargaining unit.
The short answer to the board's claim that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay and Lesbian Law Students Ass'n at University of Connecticut School of Law v. Board of Trustees, University of Connecticut
...and "in furtherance of this principle, exceptions and exclusions are to be strictly construed." State Board of Labor Relations v. Board of Education, 177 Conn. 68, 74, 411 A.2d 28 (1979). Accordingly, as long as the military discriminates against gay men and lesbians it will be barred from ......
-
R.A. Civitello Co. v. City of New Haven, 3310
...68, 73, 230 A.2d 36 (1967); State v. Springer, 149 Conn. 244, 248, 178 A.2d 525 (1962)." Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations v. Board of Education, 177 Conn. 68, 73, 411 A.2d 28 (1979). Finally, if construction of a statute is necessary, " 'a court considers its legislative history, ......
-
State v. James
...it.' " Grievance Committee v. Trantolo, 192 Conn. 15, 22, 470 A.2d 228 (1984), quoting Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations v. Board of Education, 177 Conn. 68, 73, 411 A.2d 28 (1979). The requirements of the rule are clear. We do not mandate that a trial court, in making the determin......
-
Board of Educ. of Town of Thomaston v. State Bd. of Labor Relations
...Hartford Principals' & Supervisors' Assn. v. Shedd, supra, 202 Conn. at 503, 522 A.2d 264; Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations v. Board of Education, 177 Conn. 68, 74, 411 A.2d 28 (1979). "[R]eviewing courts should uphold reasonable and defensible constructions of an agency's enablin......