Meade Educ. Ass'n v. Meade School Dist. 46-1

Decision Date11 February 1987
Docket NumberNo. 15364,15364
Citation399 N.W.2d 885,37 Ed.LawRep. 357
Parties125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2755, 37 Ed. Law Rep. 357 MEADE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Appellee, v. MEADE SCHOOL DISTRICT 46-1, Appellant.
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Linda Lea M. Viken of Finch and Viken, Rapid City, for appellee.

Bruce A. Hubbard of Morrill, Hansen, Hubbard & Brown, Sturgis, for appellant.

WUEST, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Meade School District 46-1 (District) appeals from a circuit court decision reversing a Department of Labor (Deputy Secretary) decision and holding the District had committed an unfair labor practice against Meade Education Association (MEA), appellee. We reverse.

In the Fall of 1983, the District's administrators learned that the South Dakota Board of Regents was considering new requirements for admission to South Dakota's colleges and universities and the State Board of Education was therefore considering a proposal to amend graduation requirements at South Dakota's high schools. The District administrators concluded that an extra classroom period should be created for the fall of 1984 to accommodate a new curriculum at the Sturgis high school. The additional class period would increase the number of available teaching periods from six periods to seven. With six periods the teachers were reporting at 8:30 a.m. and beginning classes at 9:00 a.m. There were six class periods of 55 minutes and a 30 minute lunch break. Classes ended at 3:10 p.m. and teachers could leave at 3:30 p.m. Seven periods could be created for the 1984-85 school year by beginning classes at 8:50 a.m., reducing class periods to 50 minutes, reducing the lunch period to 25 minutes, and dismissing classes at 3:30 p.m.

For twenty years a "full load" for teachers at the high school had consisted of five periods of instruction in a six-period day. Alternatively, the new system would change the "full load" to six periods of class time in a seven period day. While a teacher's day would still begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m., the number of minutes spent in a class would increase from 275 minutes to 300 minutes.

The teachers were concerned about this possible change and expressed their concerns at the first 1984-85 teacher contract negotiations on April 13, 1984. The teachers, through their official bargaining unit, the MEA, explained that they should receive additional compensation for the increased time teachers would be required to devote beyond the existing "full load." The MEA proposed that the 1983-84 contract be amended to limit instructional time and require the district to pay teachers for minutes taught in excess of the 275 minute limit. The Board took the position that the proposal was not negotiable and adopted the seven period day at its April 17, 1984 meeting.

At a special Board meeting on May 8, the Board asked its negotiators what input had been made by the teachers concerning the change and if the teachers had proposed any alternative schedules or salary changes. The Board was told that the MEA had concerns and various alternatives but there was no action taken at that meeting. Several more negotiation sessions occurred thereafter at which the MEA continued to press for a pro rata increase in pay. The MEA insisted that it would be an unfair labor practice if the Board should implement the seven period day without reaching some sort of agreement with the teachers.

By May 25, with no agreement in sight, the Board's negotiators and the MEA proposed to form a composite committee that would form mutually acceptable guidelines for implementation of a seven period day. At a May 29 meeting, the negotiators met to prepare the 1984-85 contract covering all areas agreed upon. It was agreed that the committee which was to solve the conflict should report back on January 15, 1985. The MEA was at first reluctant to agree on that date unless the seven period day would not begin in the fall. The MEA claims the Board's negotiators told them that it would not be implemented in the fall. The Board denies this. In any case, a negotiated agreement was written which included in Section 3.4 the creation of the composite committee as follows:

Teaching Loads--A nine member committee will be formed of three Board members, three administrators, and three teachers (selected by the Association). At the conclusion of their deliberations they will make a recommendation to the School Board regarding guidelines dealing with staffing and teacher loads at seven-twelve grade levels. The Committee should make its recommendations by January 15, 1985.

Also included was Section 3.2 which was identical to the provision in the 1983-84 contract stating:

Work Day--The work day shall not exceed seven (7) hours. Principals have the right to assign a work schedule with a total of not less than one (1) hour preparation time not including recess.

Communication between the parties deteriorated during the summer. The MEA wanted some wording changes to Section 3.4 to more accurately reflect their understanding of the purpose of that section. Obviously, Section 3.4 did not delay implementation of the seven period day or make implementation dependent upon the recommendations of the committee. Eventually, the MEA determined that the Board intended to implement the seven period day and at that point filed its unfair labor practice with the South Dakota Department of Labor.

The MEA complaint charged the District with a violation of SDCL 3-18-3.1(1), (5) and (6), and prior to the September 26, 1984 hearing the MEA sought to amend their petition to include violations of SDCL 3-18-7 and SDCL 3-18-8. The Department denied the motion to amend and concluded that the District had not committed an unfair labor practice. The Department's decision focused on Section 3.2 of the negotiated agreement, when it stated:

It should be noted that this provision provides for a seven (7) hour workday. Further, the provision indicates that the school principals have historically had the authority to assign work schedules within the confines of the seven hour workday. The only restriction attached to the right of assignment is that a teacher must be allowed one hour preparation time, which would not include a recess. The MEA, having previously negotiated the workday and the right of the principal to make work schedule assignments, cannot now claim that negotiation rights to a 'normal teaching load' have been somehow reserved.

The MEA proferred that assignment load affects "rates of pay, wages, hours or other conditions of employment" under SDCL 3-18-3 and was therefore a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Rock Creek Farms
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 14, 2012
    ...court); W. States, 459 N.W.2d 429 (failure to file a statement of issues in an appeal before this Court); Meade Educ. Ass'n v. Meade Sch. Dist. 46–1, 399 N.W.2d 885 (S.D.1987) (failure to file a statement of issues in an administrative appeal in circuit court); State Highway Comm'n v. Olson......
  • Baltzer v. Baltzer, 15641
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1987
    ... ... With her job experience and high school education, Joan is capable of earning $10,000 a ... ...
  • Oberle v. City of Aberdeen
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1991
    ... ...   First, we recognize that the decision in Meade Education Association v ... Page 242 ... ade School District, 399 N.W.2d 885, 889 n. 2 (S.D.1987), ... 289, 93 L.Ed.2d 263 (1986); Foley Educ. Ass'n v. Independent ... Page 243 ... l Dist. No. 51, 353 N.W.2d 917 (Minn.1984); National ... ...
  • Ryken v. Ryken
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1989
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT