Grand Forks Ed. Ass'n v. Grand Forks Public School Dist. No. 1, 1
| Decision Date | 25 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 9623,1,9623 |
| Citation | 285 N.W.2d 578 |
| Parties | 103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2945 GRAND FORKS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, a Public Corporation, and Dr. Raymond Fischer, Jack Kramer, F. John Marshall, Mrs. Barbara Norby, Mrs. Niomi Phillips, Michael Polovitz, Peter Porinsh, Roy Trueblood, Dr. D. Jerome Tweton, and Major Sidney Hoekstra, as members of the Grand Forks Public School District, a Public Corporation, Appellants and Cross-Appellees. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Chapman & Chapman, Bismarck, for appellee and cross-appellant; argued by Daniel J. Chapman, Bismarck.
Shaft, McConn, Fisher & Thune, Grand Forks, for appellants and cross-appellees; argued by Gary R. Thune, Grand Forks.
In the early part of July 1978 the Grand Forks Education Association (Association) negotiated and executed a master contract with the Grand Forks Public School District No. 1 (Board). In the latter part of July the assistant superintendent of the Grand Forks school system met with principals of the two high schools in Grand Forks regarding a stepped-up program of pupil discipline designed to meet problems with regard to vandalism and excessive noise during class periods. As the result of the meeting between the assistant superintendent and the principals of the two high schools a plan was developed which in essence provided that each teacher be assigned one hour of hall monitoring supervisory duties in addition to duties performed otherwise. The teachers had no prior notice on this subject nor did they participate in the meeting.
In the early part of November two teachers filed a complaint alleging that the new supervision policy severely changed working conditions and took away preparation time. The teachers' immediate supervisor responded 1 by stating that it was management's prerogative to make these types of assignments which improved the school climate and that they do not violate the negotiated agreement or school board policy. The Board agreed with the supervisor (administration). The Association then commenced injunctive proceedings to prohibit the Board from instituting the changes in working conditions at the two high schools, specifically the requirement that the teachers be assigned one hour of hall monitoring duty each day and that the injunction continue until such time as the Board has complied in good faith with the provisions of Ch. 15-38.1 of the North Dakota Century Code.
At the trial, after the Association introduced testimony of two witnesses and rested, the Board moved for a dismissal of the proceedings. The court granted the motion for dismissal but also ruled that the issue was arbitrable and was a matter to be presented as a grievance under the Grievance and Complaint Procedure No. 2450. The Board appealed and the Association cross-appealed.
The Board, on appeal, basically agreed that the dismissal was proper but asserted the ruling that supervisory work (hall monitoring) by the teachers constituted a grievance under the Grievance and Complaint Procedure was error. The trial court's ruling apparently served as a basis for the dismissal of the proceedings.
The Association contended that the appeal of the Board should be dismissed and that judgment of the district court should be reversed and that the supervisory policy (hall monitoring) not be implemented until it has been made the proper subject of negotiations, as the statutes require. Sections 15-38.1-09, 15-38.1-08, and 15-38.1-12(1)(a), NDCC.
The Association also argued that the appeal should be dismissed on the legal grounds that the Board had received everything it had asked for, and in support of this argument the Association cited Graven v. Backus, 163 N.W.2d 320 (N.D.1968); Application of Hvidsten Transport, Inc., 113 N.W.2d 73 (N.D.1962); 4 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 185, that only an aggrieved party may appeal and that the Board was not an aggrieved party. We, however note that the court in dismissing the complaint ruled that the basic issue was a matter to be resolved by proceedings under the Complaint and Grievance Procedure, 2450, which the Board claimed was error. This case is readily distinguishable from the cited authorities.
We believe the court's ruling on the grievance procedure was the basis for granting the Board's motion to dismiss and is one of the basic issues in this appeal, and conclude that the Board had a right to appeal, which appeal we will consider on its merits.
The principal issue is whether or not the supervisory program (hall monitoring) adopted in July of 1979, which had not been placed on the negotiation table by either side, made the working conditions better or less favorable to the teachers than they were the previous year, and, therefore, should have first been placed on the negotiation table for approval before implementing it. In brief, the Association contends that the teachers had two preparation periods the year before, but under the new supervisory program they have only one, which makes the working conditions less favorable.
The district court found as a fact that the president of the Grand Forks Education Association and the chairman of the Grievance Committee recognized the Grievance and Complaint Procedure, 2450, as the procedure for handling grievances and complaints from teachers within the school district.
Significantly, the Association, in its brief, stated:
". . . the trial court was correct in holding that this was a grievance, subject to binding arbitration."
Under the Grievance and Complaint Procedure, 2450, a teacher may proceed by either complaint or grievance, as the case may be. Furthermore, any decision reached by either the complaint or grievance process will not deprive the party of any legal rights nor will it preclude either party from taking any legal action in regard to the matter involved.
Under Section II, Definitions, of 2450, we find that:
Under Section III, General Procedures and Guidelines, of 2450, we find that:
From this provision it appears that the labeling of a document is not critical, and that substance, rather than form, will prevail even though 2450 provides separate procedures for complaints and for grievances.
Section 15-38.1-01, NDCC, sets out the purpose of the Teachers Representation and Negotiation Act. It states that teachers have the right to join organizations of their own choice and to be represented by the organizations selected in matters pertaining to their professional and employment relationship with the school board.
Sections 15-38.1-08 and 15-38.1-09, NDCC, give the selected representative organizations the right to negotiate on matters relating to terms and conditions of employment on behalf of the teachers who are represented. From the tenor of Ch. 15-38.1, particularly § 15-38.1-12, some of the negotiations contemplated by the Act are those arising out of the renewal of contracts under § 15-47-27, NDCC.
Section 15-38.1-12, NDCC, setting out basic good faith requirements, also provides that the representative negotiating unit and the school board may formulate an agreement which may contain provisions for binding arbitration. It also provides that either party to a contract negotiated under this section may modify or terminate the contract on the annual anniversary date by giving notice of its desire to modify or terminate the contract to the other party not less than sixty days prior to the annual anniversary date.
We also note that § 15-38.1-14(2), NDCC, provides that nothing contained herein is intended to or shall conflict with, contravene, abrogate, or diminish the powers, authority, duties, and responsibilities vested in the boards of education by the statutes and the laws of the state of North Dakota.
Section 15-29-07, NDCC, provides that the schools of a public school district shall be under the supervision of the school board which may appoint a school superintendent to supervise the schools within the district, and when no superintendent is appointed by the board the school...
To continue reading
Request your trial