Missoula County High School Dist. v. Board of Personnel Appeals of State of Mont.
| Citation | 224 Mont. 50,727 P.2d 1327 |
| Decision Date | 13 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-42,86-42 |
| Parties | , 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3045, 35 Ed. Law Rep. 1240 MISSOULA COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner and Respondent, v. BOARD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS OF the STATE OF MONTANA, and Missoula County High School Education Association, M.E.A., Respondents and Appellants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
Hilley & Loring, Emilie Loring, Great Falls, Mary Anne Simpson, Bd. of Personnel Appeals, Helena, for respondents and appellants.
Worden, Thane & Haines, Molly Shepherd, Missoula, for petitioner and respondent.
The Montana Board of Personnel Appeals (the BPA) and the Missoula County High School Education Association (MCHSEA) appeal a Missoula County District Court order which ruled that the Missoula County High School District (the School District) did not commit an unfair labor practice in violation of Sec. 39-31-401, MCA. The District Court order reversed a BPA decision that the School District violated Sec. 39-31-401, MCA, by paying certain non-striking teachers for eighteen days of work where those teachers had agreed to work eighteen days but actually worked only one day. The issues on appeal are whether the District Court erred by reversing; (1) the BPA's conclusion of law that the School District's conduct was not justified by a legitimate, substantial, business necessity; (2) the BPA's conclusion of law that the School District's action was inherently destructive of protected labor rights; and (3) the BPA's finding of fact that the non-striking teachers were not available and on-call after June 4, 1981. We affirm.
MCHSEA is the recognized exclusive bargaining representative of the School District's non-supervisory certificated or licensed employees. On May 11, 1981, MCHSEA went on strike against the School District. The School District did not attempt to operate the Missoula schools during the first week of the strike. On June 1, 1981, the School District superintendent sent a letter to all members of the bargaining unit. In pertinent part, that letter stated:
The school district has just received definite legal advice that our schools must be open for 180 days in the 1980-81 school year or we will lose $1.275 million in state aid.
... A $1.275 million cut would necessarily mean much larger class sizes, reduced curricular and extra-curricular offerings.
Schools must open June 4, 1981 if this community is to maintain the quality of our school program for next year ...
High schools will open on June 5th for freshman, sophomore and junior classes ... All high school teachers should notify their principal by 4:00 p.m. June 3, 1981 indicating a willingness to work commencing with a PIR day at 8:00 a.m. June 4, 1981 ...
Teachers returning June 4th to completion of the school year shall receive for the 1980-81 school year an average 10.6% increase as per the attached salary schedule which includes increments and horizontal changes. This payment will be retroactive to August 27, 1980. All fringe benefits including insurance for June will be paid.
Twenty teachers notified the School District's administration that they would return to work if the School District attempted to operate. The School District opened the Missoula schools on June 4, 1981. Three teachers who had agreed to return did not do so because of either illness or family emergency. After the first day and with what is described as good and sufficient reasons, the School District's Board of Trustees determined it would be inappropriate to continue the operation of the schools. The School District made no further attempt to operate the schools for the balance of the 1980-81 school year.
In April 1982, a Missoula attorney, representing one of the teachers who returned to work, sent a letter to the Missoula County High School Board of Trustees. The letter stated that the School District superintendent's June 1 letter was an offer of employment for a specific term; that the School District did not reserve the right to terminate the offer or any agreement arising therefrom; that, in the attorney's opinion, a contractual relationship existed between the School District and the teacher for employment for a specific number of days commencing on June 4, 1981, and ending on the 180th day of the 1980-81 school year; and that the School District breached the agreement by refusing to pay the teacher for work he was prepared to perform. In July 1982, the attorney sent another letter to the School District on behalf of the same teacher. That letter again explained the basis of the teacher's claim and stated that the teacher was seriously contemplating legal action.
In September 1982, upon the advice of its attorney, the School District paid the twenty returning teachers for the remaining eighteen days they had agreed to teach. The School District did not pay any of the striking teachers for this period.
In October 1982, the MCHSEA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the BPA alleging that the School District had discriminated against those teachers who had supported the strike. The union sought: (1) reimbursement of all amounts deducted from the striking teachers' salaries because of their participation in the strike, and (2) corresponding contributions to the teachers' retirement system. In June 1983, counsel for MCHSEA and counsel for the School District agreed to a stipulation of facts which was submitted to the BPA. In December 1983, a hearing officer from the BPA issued his findings of fact, conclusion of law and order ruling that the School District had committed unfair labor practices violating Sec. 39-31-401(1) and (3), MCA.
Specifically, the hearing officer ruled that the School District's conduct was inherently destructive of the public employees' self-organizational rights; that there was no substantial and legitimate business justification for the School District's actions; and that the non-striking teachers were not on-call during the seventeen days in question. The School District filed exceptions to the hearing officer's decision with the BPA. The full BPA held an oral argument on this case in March 1984. In June 1984, the BPA issued its final order adopting the hearing examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The BPA ordered the School District to stop violating Sec. 39-31-401(1) and (3), MCA, and fashioned two alternative remedies to compensate the striking teachers.
In July 1984, the School District filed a petition for judicial review and for declaratory judgment with the Missoula County District Court. The BPA and the MCHSEA filed answers and the District Court, sitting without a jury, heard oral arguments in June 1985. In November 1985, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order. The court made the following conclusions of law: in view of the evidence, the BPA clearly erred in finding that the teachers did not make themselves available and did not remain on-call after June 4, 1981; the BPA abused its discretion and committed an error of law by concluding that the School District was under no obligation to pay the teachers for more than one day of work; the BPA abused its discretion and committed an error of law in concluding that the payment to the teachers was inherently destructive of protected rights and, therefore, no proof of anti-union motivation was required; and that the BPA abused its discretion and committed an error of law by concluding that the School District's conduct was clearly prohibited under Sec. 39-31-401, MCA. This appeal followed.
Section 39-31-401, MCA, provides in part:
It is an unfair labor practice for a public employer to:
(1) interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in 39-31-201;
* * * (3) discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization; however, nothing in this chapter or in any other statute of this state precludes a public employer from making an agreement with an exclusive representative to require, as a condition of employment, that an employee who is not or does not become a union member, must have an amount equal to the union initiation fee and monthly dues deducted from his wages in the same manner as checkoff of union dues; ...
Section 39-31-201, MCA, provides:
Public employees shall have and shall be protected in the exercise of the right of self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing on questions of wages, hours, fringe benefits, and other conditions of employment, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection free from interference, restraint, or coercion.
These statutes are virtually identical to parts of the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 157 and Sec. 158. This Court and the BPA both look to National Labor Relations Board and federal court interpretations of the NLRA for guidance in interpreting the equivalent Montana statutes. Teamsters, Etc. v. St. Ex rel. Bd. of Personnel (1981), 195 Mont. 272, 635 P.2d 1310; State v. Dist. Court of Eleventh Jud. Dist. (1979), 183 Mont. 223, 598 P.2d 1117.
Where, as here, a district court reviews an agency decision, the standard of review is set forth in the Montana Administrative Procedure Act at Sec. 2-4-704, MCA. The relevant portions of that statute state:
(2) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial