Jefferson Area Teachers Ass'n v. Lockwood, 81-589

• Decision Date: 09 March 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-589,81-589
• Citation: 69 Ohio St.2d 671,433 N.E.2d 604
• Parties: , 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3813, 23 O.O.3d 543, 3 Ed. Law Rep. 380 JEFFERSON AREA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Appellee, v. LOCKWOOD, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 671

69 Ohio St.2d 671

433 N.E.2d 604, 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3813, 23 O.O.3d 543,

3 Ed. Law Rep. 380

JEFFERSON AREA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Appellee, v. LOCKWOOD, Appellant.

No. 81-589.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

March 9, 1982.

Syllabus by the Court

A teachers association, which has negotiated a collective bargaining agreement for all teachers employed by a local board of education, may assess and collect from a teacher who is not a member of the association a service fee fixed by the agreement.

Appellant, David H. Lockwood, executed a teaching contract with the Jefferson Area Local Board of Education ("board") on April 25, 1978, for the 1978-79 school year. Under that contract, appellant agreed "to abide by and maintain the rules and regulations adopted by the said Board * * *."

On May 16, 1978, the board unanimously approved its Master Agreement ("agreement") with appellee, the Jefferson Area Teachers Association. Under the agreement, teachers who were not members of appellee were to pay to appellee a service fee equal to 50 percent of the amount of dues required of members in recognition of appellee's services. Appellant refused to pay the 1978-79 service fee for non-members, $83.13.

Appellee filed a small claim complaint in the Ashtabula County Court and requested judgment in the amount of $83.13, plus interest and costs. The trial court ruled in favor of appellant after a trial to the court. The Court of Appeals reversed.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Green, Schiavoni, Murphy, Haines & Sgambati Co. L. P. A., Barry R. Laine, Dennis Haines and Hugh N. Helm, III, Youngstown, for appellee.

David T. Bryant, Rex H. Reed, Springfield, Harrington, Huxley & Smith and Jay Tims, Youngstown, for appellant.

LOCHER, Justice.

This cause presents one issue: whether Ohio law permits appellee to assess and collect from appellant the service fee stated in the agreement. ^* Appellant argues that the service fee does not apply to him because the board lacked statutory authority to agree to that provision and because he had executed a contract with the board prior to the execution of the agreement. We disagree.

This court has already held that a board of education may consummate a collective bargaining agreement. "A board of education is vested with discretionary authority to negotiate and to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with its employees, so long as such agreement does not conflict with or purport to abrogate the duties and responsibilities imposed upon the board of education by law." Dayton Teachers Assn. v. Dayton Bd. of Edn. (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 127, 323 N.E.2d 714, paragraph one of the syllabus. Therefore, we limit our inquiry to the propriety of the service fee provision.

In Rehor v. Case Western Reserve Univ. (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 224, 331 N.E.2d 416, certiorari denied, 423 U.S. 1018, 96 S.Ct. 453, 46 L.Ed.2d 390, Charles F. Rehor had been a tenured member of the faculty of Western Reserve University ("Western Reserve"). Western Reserve had a retirement age of 70. After the federation of Western Reserve and Case Institute of Technology, the retirement age of faculty at Case Western Reserve University ("CWRU") was 65 with an option of continued employment until age 68. After Rehor turned 68, CWRU refused to reappoint him to the faculty. This court held, in the first three paragraphs of the syllabus:

"1. Where a university faculty member is employed, using standard annual reappointment forms which do not set forth in full the terms and conditions of employment, the university's employment policies, rules and regulations become part of the employment contract between the university and the faculty member.

"2. The grant of tenure to a faculty member by a university does not preclude the university from thereafter changing the retirement age for all faculty members, including the tenured faculty member, provided the change is reasonable and uniformly applicable.

"3. A bylaw of a university, to the effect that its board of trustees shall from time to time adopt such rules and regulations governing the appointment and tenure of the faculty as the board deems necessary, includes a reservation of the right to change the university's retirement age." Each of these paragraphs of the syllabus provides guidance for the cause presently before this court.

R.C. 3313.20 provides, in pertinent part: "The board of education shall make such rules and regulations as are necessary for * * * the government of its employees * * *." Furthermore, appellant expressly agreed "to abide by and maintain the rules and regulations adopted by the * * * (Jefferson) Board * * *." In light of Rehor, therefore, the later execution of the agreement between the board and appellee does not necessarily exempt appellant from the terms of the agreement.

The board is empowered to enter into contracts, R.C. 3313.17, as well as to manage and control its public schools, R.C. 3313.47. See Dayton, supra (41 Ohio St.2d, at 131, 323 N.E.2d 714). In this case, the board elected to negotiate exclusively with appellee. We cannot quarrel with the reasonableness of that managerial decision. Negotiating with an exclusive representative streamlines labor relations and advances the governmental interest of avoiding " * * * (t)he confusion and conflict that could arise if rival teachers' unions * * * each sought to obtain the employer's agreement * * *." Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Edn. (1977), 431 U.S. 209, at 224, 96 S.Ct. 1782, at 1793, 52 L.Ed.2d 261.

After the agreement went into effect, appellant's salary increased from $14,880 to $16,440. His fringe benefits increased also. Appellee assessed a service fee of $83.13. In accordance with the agreement, this amount was 50 percent of that charged to members of the union and the same for all non-members. The board's change in policy was, therefore, "uniformly applicable." Rehor, supra, paragraph two of the syllabus. Appellee, therefore, is entitled to assess and collect from appellant the service fee established under the agreement.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, C. J., and WILLIAM B. BROWN, SWEENEY and CLIFFORD F. BROWN, JJ., concur.

HOLMES and KRUPANSKY, JJ., dissent.

HOLMES, Justice, dissenting.

The collective bargaining agreement between the Association and the Board for 1978-1979, which was ratified by the Board on May 16, 1978, contains the following provision entitled "Service Fee for Representation":

"In recognition of the Association's services to the bargaining unit, all members of the bargaining unit shall either be members of the Association or share...