National Ed. Association--Topeka, Inc. v. U.S. D. 501, Shawnee County

• Decision Date: 05 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 50401,50401
• Citation: 608 P.2d 920,227 Kan. 529
• Parties: , 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2279 NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION TOPEKA, INC., a corporation, Appellee, v. U.S.D. 501, SHAWNEE COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 920

608 P.2d 920

227 Kan. 529, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2279

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION TOPEKA, INC., a corporation, Appellee, v. U.S.D. 501, SHAWNEE COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant.

No. 50401.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

April 5, 1980.

Syllabus by the Court

1. This court is statutorily and constitutionally without authority to render advisory opinions in cases found to be moot. A case is moot when no further controversy exists between the parties and where any judgment of the court would be without effect.

2. In an action between a professional employees' association and a board of education wherein it is shown the parties entered into a negotiated contract between the time the appeal was taken and the hearing thereon, it is held, the appeal is dismissed because the case is moot.

William G. Haynes of Eidison, Lewis, Porter & Haynes, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Wesley A. Weathers of Crane, Martin, Claussen, Hamilton & Barry, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

HERD, Justice:

This is an appeal by Unified School District No. 501 (Board) from a trial court's finding that it had committed a prohibited practice by unilaterally issuing contracts for the 1978-1979 school year prior to the completion of negotiations between the Board and NEA-Topeka, the professional employees organization (Association).

On December 1, 1977, both parties exchanged their proposals for negotiation. Between that date and August, 1978, when the events giving rise to this appeal occurred, the parties negotiated, reached impasse and filed several actions against one another, most of which were eventually appealed to this court. This is the fourth appeal between these parties from trial court rulings regarding contract negotiations for the 1978-1979 school year. The history of the battles and skirmishes between the Board and the Association has been adequately documented in the prior three appeals (NEA-Topeka Inc. v. U. S. D. No. 501, 227 Kan. 290, 607 P.2d 40 (1980); NEA-Topeka, Inc. v. U. S. D. No. 501, 225 Kan. 445, 592 P.2d 93 (1979); In re NEA-Topeka, Inc., 224 Kan. 582, 581 P.2d 1187 (1978)); therefore, we will recite only those facts which directly pertain to this suit.

On August 16, 1978, at its regularly scheduled meeting, the Board adopted a salary proposal for members of the bargaining unit and authorized the district school administration to notify each individual member of the bargaining unit they could if they wished contact the school board office to discuss their individual 1978-1979 employment contracts for signing if they so desired. A memo, dated August 17, 1978, reflecting the Board's resolution was sent to all members of the bargaining unit. At that time, the negotiations had reached the mediation stage and the mediator had failed to resolve the impasse. Neither the Association nor the Board had filed a request with the Secretary of Human Resources to appoint a fact-finding board to assist in resolving the impasse, pursuant to K.S.A.1977 Supp. 72-5428. On August 21, 1978, the Association filed a petition against the Board to restrain it from contracting or offering to contract individually with any current member of the bargaining unit or with any new teachers employed to the extent that the offered contract was at variance with the 1977-1978 contract. On August 22, 1978, the trial court granted the temporary restraining order and a hearing was set for the Association's application for a temporary injunction for August 28, 1978. On August 31, 1978, the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court granted the Association's motion for a court order temporarily enjoining the Board from unilaterally contracting or offering to contract with members of the bargaining unit. In addition, the court found that mediation and fact-finding were mandated by the Collective Negotiations Act but not until after the report of the fact-finding committee had been made public, pursuant to K.S.A.1977 Supp. 72-5428(f), could the Board take such action as it deems in the public interest. That action would include contracting or offering to contract with members of the bargaining unit individually. The court found, however, that the Collective Negotiations Act contemplated that the "board and the association shall meet, confer, consult and discuss in a good faith effort to reach agreement with respect to the terms and conditions of professional service."

The trial...