Iowa Ass'n of School Boards v. Iowa Public Employment Relations Bd., 86-241

• Decision Date: 18 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-241,86-241
• Citation: 400 N.W.2d 571
• Parties: 37 Ed. Law Rep. 691 IOWA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS and Iowa State Education Association, Appellants, v. IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 571

400 N.W.2d 571

37 Ed. Law Rep. 691

IOWA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS and Iowa State Education Association, Appellants, v. IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee.

No. 86-241.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 18, 1987.

Edgar H. Bittle and Donna L. Hylarides of Ahlers, Cooney, Dorweiler, Haynie, Smith & Allbee, Des Moines, for appellant Iowa Ass'n of School Boards.

Charles E. Gribble of Sayre & Gribble, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant Iowa State Educ. Ass'n.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Amy J. Mills and James H. Gilliam, Public Employment Relations Bd., Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and McGIVERIN, LARSON, SCHULTZ and WOLLE, JJ.

McGIVERIN, Justice.

Petitioners Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB) and Iowa State Education Association (ISEA) separately appeal from the district court's judicial review decision affirming a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) declaratory ruling relating to coverage of substitute teachers under the Public Employment Relations Act, Iowa Code chapter 20. Specifically at issue here is the interpretation of Iowa Code section 20.4(5) concerning temporary public employees and its application to substitute teachers.

The decision and ruling held that a substitute teacher was a public employee covered under the Act if some service was rendered by the teacher in more than four consecutive months during the school year. Upon consideration of the issues raised on appeal, we affirm the decisions of the district court and PERB.

I. Background facts and procedures. On March 20, 1984, ISEA filed a petition for declaratory ruling with PERB. See Iowa Code § 17A.9 (1983); 621 Iowa Admin. Code 10.1-.2. ¹ The petition set forth the following hypothetical facts:

a. That the school district maintains a list of 40 substitute teachers.

b. That the substitute teachers hold teaching certificates, have stated that they are available for substitute teaching, have requested and have subsequently been placed on the substitute teaching list by the District.

c. That the school year consists of 180 days and school is in session commencing in August and running through the first part of June.

Based on these facts, ISEA asked PERB to answer whether the following situations would trigger coverage under the provisions of the Public Employment Relations Act, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 20.3(3) and 20.4(5). The questions were whether:

a. Substitute teachers performing teaching services for the District at least one day per month in at least five different months in the school year (August through June) are excluded from the provisions of the Public Employment Relations Act by virtue of section 20.4(5), Code of Iowa (1983).

b. A substitute teacher performing substitute teaching services for the District at least one day a month during the school year (August through June) for five consecutive months is excluded from the provisions of the Public Employment Relations Act under section 20.4(5), Code of Iowa (1983).

c. A substitute teacher, substituting 90 days, working at least one day during a minimum of five months of the school year (August to June) is excluded from the provisions of the Public Employment Relations Act, pursuant to section 20.4(5), Code of Iowa (1983).

d. A substitute teacher, substituting 90 days, and substituting at least one day per month in a minimum of five consecutive months during the school year (August to June) is excluded from the provisions of the Public Employment Relations Act, pursuant to section 20.4(5), Code of Iowa (1983).

e. A substitute teacher, substituting 63 days, at least one day in each of a minimum of five months during the school year (August to June) is excluded from the provisions of the Public Employment Relations Act, pursuant to section 20.4(5), Code of Iowa (1983).

IASB filed a petition to intervene. See 621 Iowa Admin.Code 2.4, 10.6. Intervention was granted. IASB's request to add additional facts was denied by PERB because the requested facts were actually conclusory statements.

PERB issued its declaratory ruling, holding that substitute teachers are public employees and are not excluded from the Act if the substitute performs any service during each of more than four consecutive months during the school year. ²

IASB then filed a petition for judicial review in district court of the PERB ruling. See Iowa Code § 17A.19. By its petition, IASB challenged PERB's conclusion that any service in more than four consecutive months was sufficient for coverage under the Act, seeking to severely restrict the class of substitute teachers entitled to coverage under the Act. Thus, IASB disagreed with PERB's answers to questions (b) and (d).

ISEA also filed a separate petition for judicial review. See Iowa Code § 17A.19. ISEA claimed that PERB erred in concluding that service must be rendered in more than four consecutive months as opposed to any four months during the school year to avoid exclusion under the Act. Therefore, ISEA challenged PERB's answers to questions (a), (c) and (e).

PERB answered the petitions and requested that the actions be consolidated. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 185. The district court granted the motion for consolidation.

After submission, the court stated that the agency ruling on the meaning of a statute the agency administers should be affirmed unless the interpretation is unreasonable or the agency exceeds its authority. The court determined PERB was correct in its rulings; therefore, the court entered its decision dismissing the judicial review petitions and affirming PERB's ruling.

IASB and ISEA separately appeal from the district court's judicial review decision. Petitioner IASB asserts: (1) that continuous employment within a month is required for purposes of determining whether a substitute teacher has been employed for four months; and (2) that a reasonable expectation of continued employment test should be adopted and that, under such a test, substitute teachers are subject to a blanket exclusion from coverage under the Act unless they have been continuously employed for more than four months.

Petitioner ISEA asserts: (1) that service in more than four months, as opposed to four consecutive months, makes a substitute teacher eligible for coverage under the Act; (2) that any service, rather than continuous full-time service, rendered in more than four months is to be determinative of whether a substitute teacher is eligible for coverage under the Act; and (3) that a reasonable expectation of the substitute teacher's continued employment need not exist to avoid exclusion from the Act's coverage under Iowa Code section 20.4(5).

II. Are substitute teachers covered under the Public Employment Relations Act? The ultimate question underlying this declaratory judgment proceeding concerns the meaning of Iowa Code section 20.4(5). "Public employees" are given numerous rights under the Act, including those of organizing and bargaining collectively. Iowa Code § 20.8. "Public employee" is defined as "any individual employed by a public employer, except individuals exempted under the provisions of section 20.4." Iowa Code § 20.3(3). The provision of section 20.4 relevant to this case states, "The following public employees shall be excluded from the provisions of this chapter: ... 5. Temporary public employees employed for a period of four months or less." Id. § 20.4(5).

A. For a period of four months or less. ISEA challenges PERB's conclusion that a substitute teacher must render service in consecutive months to become eligible for coverage under the Act. ISEA argues that the legislature could have included the word "consecutive" between the words "four months" to statutorily require service in consecutive months; however, in the absence of the word "consecutive," ISEA claims the statute must be construed to mean service in any four months.

PERB concluded that the legislature intended a consecutive month standard. PERB based its conclusion on the fact the legislature did not designate the total time frame during which the four months of service could be rendered and it would be absurd to interpret the statute to allow a temporary employee rendering one month's service per year for five consecutive years to be covered by the Act. Cf. Metier v. Cooper Transport Co., 378 N.W.2d 907, 913 (Iowa 1985) (court should presume legislature intended a reasonable result and in construing a statute should avoid an absurd result).

Although we give weight to the interpretation by PERB, we are not bound by the board's interpretation of Iowa Code chapter 20, and we must make an independent determination of the meaning of the statute in question. See Charles City Community School District v. Public Employment Relations Board, 275 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Iowa 1979). The construction we ultimately give to the words of the statute should be fair and sensible in light of the intent of the legislature. West Des Moines Education Association v. Public Employment Relations Board, 266 N.W.2d 118, 125 (Iowa 1978).

We look to the specific words of the statute when we attempt to construe a provision and we give each word effect. See 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46.06, at 104 (Sands 4th ed. 1984); Maguire v. Fulton, 179 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Iowa 1970). Section 20.4(5) deals with employment "for a period of four months or less." (Emphasis added.) The legislature could have deleted the words "a period of" and intended the result urged by ISEA. "A period of" is included in the statutory language, however, and must be given meaning.

Three courts have looked at the meaning of the words "period of" when the words precede terms of time. In Bradshaw v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 208 N.C. 214, 179 S.E. 665 (1935), a jury was asked to apply the terms of an insurance policy to the facts of the case. In instructing the jury, the trial court stated the policy language as "for a period of ninety days," when, in fact, the...