Mindemann v. Independent School Dist. No. 6 of Caddo County

• Decision Date: 04 April 1989
• Docket Number: No. 6,No. 67163,6,67163
• Citation: 771 P.2d 996
• Parties: 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3216, 53 Ed. Law Rep. 270, 1989 OK 49 Chris MINDEMANN, President of the Apache Education Association; and the Apache Education Association, an unincorporated association, on behalf of Kathy Stricker, an individual, and Terry Stricker, an individual, Appellants, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 OF CADDO COUNTY, Oklahoma, a/k/a Apache Public Schools; Lee Lewis, Jimmy D. Hunter, Charles McDaniel, James Roberts, and Leon Sawyer, as members of the Board of Education of Independent School Districtof Caddo County, Oklahoma; and Earl Myers, as Superintendent of Independent School Districtof Caddo County, Oklahoma, Appellees.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 996

771 P.2d 996

134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3216, 53 Ed. Law Rep.

270, 1989 OK 49

Chris MINDEMANN, President of the Apache Education Association; and the Apache Education Association, an unincorporated association, on behalf of Kathy Stricker, an individual, and Terry Stricker, an individual, Appellants, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 OF CADDO COUNTY, Oklahoma a/k/a Apache Public Schools; Lee Lewis, Jimmy D. Hunter Charles McDaniel, James Roberts, and Leon Sawyer, as members of the Board of Education of Independent School District No 6 of Caddo County, Oklahoma; and Earl Myers, as Superintendent of Independent School District No. 6 of Caddo County, Oklahoma, Appellees.

No. 67163.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 4, 1989.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Oklahoma City Divisions.

Local school board refused to process two grievances filed by a probationary teacher whose contract was not renewed by vote of the board and by a tenured teacher who was relieved of his extra-duty coaching assignment by vote of the board. The district court denied the teachers' petition for writ of mandamus finding a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the school board and the educators' association, requiring as the last level of the grievance procedure for grievances to be submitted to binding grievance arbitration, was void as restricting the board's final and nonappealable decision to nonrenew probationary teaching contracts under 70 O.S.1981 § 6-103.4(E) of the Oklahoma School Code, and limiting the board's statutory duty to fix the duties of teachers under 70 O.S.Supp.1983 § 5-117A(15). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case with instructions to issue the writ of mandamus. Certiorari is granted.

CERTIORARI GRANTED; THE COURT OF APPEALS' MEMORANDUM OPINION IS VACATED, AND THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.

Richard B. Wilkinson, Oklahoma Educ. Ass'n, Oklahoma City, for appellants.

Mills, Whitten, Mills, Mills & Hinkle by Earl D. Mills, Michael W. Hinkle and Barbara K. Buratti, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

and Wade & Mackey, By: C.E. Wade, Jr., Lawton, for appellees.

HODGES, Justice.

Kathy Stricker, a probationary teacher, and Terry Stricker, a tenured teacher, (appellants) are employed by the Independent School District No. 6 of Caddo County, Oklahoma, a/k/a Apache Public Schools (Public Schools or appellee). On March 3, 1986, the Apache Board of Education (Board) voted to discontinue Terry's extra-duty coaching assignment for the 1986-87 school year. On April 1, 1986, the Board voted to nonrenew Kathy's teaching contract for the 1986-87 school year.

Thereafter, Terry and Kathy each filed grievances alleging the Board's actions violated a provision of the collective bargaining agreement (Agreement) dealing with disciplinary actions against professional employees. The Agreement had been entered into between the Board and the Apache Education Association (Association), the designated bargaining representative of the professional educators employed by Apache Public Schools, and ratified by Kathy and Terry. The employees asserted the Board's actions were taken without just cause as required by the Agreement. Public Schools refused to process the purported grievances of Terry and Kathy arguing the binding arbitration provision of the Agreement was void ¹ and nonrenewals and the discontinuance of extra-duty assignments were not disciplinary actions as contemplated by the Agreement. ²

Association, its president, Terry and Kathy sought mandamus in the District Court of Caddo County against the Public Schools, members of the Board and the Superintendent of the Public Schools to compel the Board to comply with the terms of the Agreement. The district court denied appellants' petition for a writ of mandamus adopting appellees' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court found the binding arbitration provision contained in Article IX of the Agreement was void as against public policy because it subjects the execution of appellees' statutory duties relating to nonreemployment of probationary teachers and to fixing of teacher duties to the absolute discretion of a nonstatutory arbitrator.

The Court of Appeals in a memorandum opinion reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded with instructions to issue a writ of mandamus compelling appellees to follow the grievance procedures set forth in the Agreement. It found the Board did not delegate its authority to decide whether a probationary teacher's contract is to be nonrenewed but rather entered into a contract The precise issues presented in this case are of first impression in this jurisdiction: (1) Whether a local board of education may voluntarily enter into a collective bargaining agreement providing for binding arbitration which supersedes the statutory mandate under 70 O.S.1981 § 6-103.4(E) of the Oklahoma School Code that the decision of the board on the question of a probationary teacher's dismissal or nonreemployment is final and nonappealable and (2) Whether such agreement may supersede the statutory mandate under 70 O.S.Supp.1983 § 5-117(A)15 that local boards of education shall have power to fix the duties of teachers. We answer both questions in the negative and find statutory enactments either expressly or implicitly limit the ability of a local school board to include certain terms in a collective bargaining agreement which result in the delegation of decisions by binding arbitration which are statutorily vested in the exclusive authority and discretion of the school board.

which merely exceeds the statutory minimum requirements for nonrenewal of a probationary teacher, relying on Attorney General Opinion No. 87-20 ³ and Central Point School District v. Employment Relations Board, 27 Or.App. 285, 555 P.2d 1269 (1976). The opinion however did not address the second issue concerning the arbitrability of school board decisions to change a teacher's extra-duty assignment such as coaching.

By legislative enactment of 70 O.S.1981 § 509.6 local boards of education and representatives of both professional and nonprofessional educators have a legal duty to negotiate in good faith on items affecting the performance of professional services. The 1986 amendment to § 509.6 now requires such parties to negotiate in good faith on wages, hours, fringe benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.

We acknowledge the stated legislative purpose of the School Employees and Districts Negotiations Act, ⁴ is "to strengthen methods of administering employer-employee relations through the establishment of an orderly process of communications between school employees and the school district." ⁵ We also recognize this Court has looked with favor upon arbitration statutes and contracts as a shortcut to substantial justice with a minimum of court interference. ⁶ The statutory right of a board of education to collectively bargain is not, however, unlimited. It must be construed together with other statutory provisions relating to the same subject and reconciled so as to give effect to each. Inexco Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission, 628 P.2d 362 (Okla.1981).

As noted by the Court of Appeals of New York in Board of Ed., G.N.U.F.S.D. v. Areman, 41 N.Y.2d 527, 394 N.Y.S.2d 143, 362 N.E.2d 943 (1977), public school matters differ from private matters where freedom to contract is virtually unlimited as public school matters are frequently subject to restrictive policies which reflect governmental interests and public concern. The Areman court observed that boards of education are merely representatives of the public interest and the public interest must, certainly at times, bind these representatives and limit or restrict their power to, in turn, bind the public which they represent. The New York courts have taken the position that a term in a public school collective bargaining agreement is "limited 'by plain and clear, rather than express, prohibitions in the statute or decisional law' as well as in some instances by 'public policy, whether derived from, and whether explicit or implicit in statute or decisional law, or in It has been judicially observed that the public policy limitation on public sector collective bargaining statutes is necessary in order that the collective actions of public employees do not distort the normal political process for controlling public policy. ⁸ The New Jersey Supreme Court observed in Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 163, 393 A.2d 278, 287 (1978):

neither.' " ⁷

A private employer may bargain away as much or as little of its managerial control as it likes. However, the very foundation of representative democracy would be endangered if decisions on significant matters of governmental policy were left to the process of collective negotiation, where citizen participation is precluded. This Court would be most reluctant to sanction collective agreement on matters which are essentially managerial in nature, because the true managers are the people. Our democratic system demands that governmental bodies retain their accountability to the citizenry.

Id. at 163, 393 A.2d at 287 (citations omitted). Similarly, the Kansas, Illinois and Massachusetts courts have held a school board cannot negotiate a term in a collective bargaining agreement which involves the delegation of a statutory duty or the surrender of discretion vested in the board by statute. ⁹

We find the approach taken by these jurisdictions persuasive and hold today a local board of education may not negotiate a term in a collective bargaining agreement resulting in binding arbitration which would restrict its nondelegable statutory authority.

I. NONREEMPLOYMENT OF A PROBATIONARY TEACHER

Title 70 O.S.1981 § 6-103.4(E) ¹⁰ as construed by this Court, expressly provides that the school board's decision on questions of nonreemployment of a probationary teacher shall be final and...