School Committee of Burlington v. Burlington Educators Ass'n

• Decision Date: 14 February 1979
• Citation: 385 N.E.2d 1014,7 Mass.App.Ct. 41
• Parties: , 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2478 SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF BURLINGTON v. BURLINGTON EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION. 1
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 1014

385 N.E.2d 1014

7 Mass.App.Ct. 41, 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2478

SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF BURLINGTON v. BURLINGTON EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION. ¹

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued Jan. 9, 1979.

Decided Feb. 14, 1979.

Brian A. Riley, Boston, David Berman, Town Counsel, Medford, for defendant.

Before GRANT, BROWN and PERRETTA, JJ.

GRANT, Justice.

This is an application brought by the school committee of the town of Burlington (committee) under the provisions of G.L. c. 150C, § 2(b ), to stay the arbitration of two grievances advanced by the Burlington Educators Association (association) under the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties which covered the period from September 1, 1972, through July 1, 1974. The case was heard and determined by a judge of the Superior Court on the association's motion for summary judgment. The judge denied the motion and, acting under the provisions of the last sentence of Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974), entered judgment staying both arbitrations. The association has appealed. See School Comm. of Agawam v. Agawam Educ. Assn., 371 Mass. ---, --- ^A, 359 N.E.2d 956 (1977).

The following undisputed facts may be gleaned from admissions in the pleadings and from the opposing affidavits on which the motion was heard and determined. The teachers employed in the Burlington school system commenced the school year 1972-1973 without a collective bargaining agreement. On September 19, 1972, a majority of the members of the association voted to go on strike to enforce their contract demands. The strike commenced on September 20, which was a scheduled school day. On September 29, which was the eighth scheduled school day following the commencement of the strike, a judge of the Superior Court, acting at the behest of a group of parents of children enrolled in the school system, issued a temporary restraining order which required the committee to close the schools for the duration of the strike. The schools were closed on October 2 and 3. The restraining order was dissolved on the latter date, which was the tenth scheduled school day following the commencement of the strike. On the same day the association and the committee entered into a collective bargaining agreement which, by its terms, was retroactive to September 1 and (subject to an exception not here material) was to run through July 1, 1974. The teachers returned to work on October 4.

The agreement contained a salary schedule which expressed all the various teachers' salaries on an annual basis. Article III B ("Work Year") provided (with an exception not here material) that "(f)or the duration of this contract, the work year of teachers covered by the salary schedule . . . shall be no more than . . . one hundred and eighty-five (185) (work days) . . . and not more than one hundred eighty-two (182) student school days." Article VII F provided that in calculating deductions from salaries for unauthorized absences "one (1) day will be considered 1/185 of the annual contract amount." A supplement, entitled "Problems Resulting from the Strike," forbade certain kinds of disciplinary reprisals against teachers who had participated in the strike and contained the following: "4. All questions concerning the number of days a Burlington School should be open henceforward in 1972/73 in order to provide a satisfactory educational program shall be submitted to the State Board of Education. All parties shall abide by the Board's determination." ² Article II of the agreement established a four-step grievance procedure, culminating in binding arbitration to be conducted under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). ³

In January of 1973 the committee docked the pay of each teacher who had participated in the strike an amount equal to 10/185Ths of his annual rate of pay. At some point (the actual sequence of events is not clear from the record) the committee requested the State Board of Education (Board) to "waive" ten of the school days required by the regulations referred to in note 2 hereof. On April 27, 1973, the Board denied the committee's request but granted an exemption of five school days with respect to the school year 1972-1973. The record contains a memorandum from the superintendent of schools dated April 26, 1973, which advised the teachers that the committee had decided to hold 175 days of classes in the high and junior high schools and 180 days of classes in the elementary school. The memorandum advised that the teachers in the elementary school who had participated in the eighth day of the strike would not be paid for either of the two succeeding days on which the schools had been closed pursuant to the temporary restraining order. The record is silent on the question whether any of the striking teachers was paid for working on any of the days which the committee may have tacked onto the originally scheduled school closing dates.

Sometime following the action of the committee in docking each striking teacher the equivalent of ten days' pay (again the actual sequence of events is not clear from the record) the association processed two separate grievance claims through the grievance procedure to the point of filing written demands for arbitration with the AAA. The committee countered by filing the present application to stay both arbitrations.

We now proceed to a consideration of the two demands for arbitration, having in mind the rule that the provisions of G.L. c. 150C, § 2(B )(2), authorize a judge of the Superior Court to stay a proposed arbitration if it is clear that an award which the arbitrator is requested to make would impinge directly on some power or duty which a school committee cannot lawfully delegate to an arbitrator. See Berkshire Hills Regional Sch. Dist. Comm. v. Gray, 5 Mass App.Ct. ---, --- - --- ^B, 369 N.E.2d 736 (1977), id., --- Mass. ---, --- - --- ^C, 377 N.E.2d 940 (1978). Contrast School Comm. of Danvers v. Tyman, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- ^D, 360 N.E.2d 877 (1977).

1. The first grievance complains of the committee's holding back ten days' salary from each teacher following what the association euphemistically characterizes as a "ten (10) day work stoppage because of a breakdown in communication with the Burlington School Committee." The ten-day period is specifically identified as the one "(f)rom September 20, 1972 to October 3, 1972." The "Remedy Sought" is stated in the following language: "1. The Association seeks a decision which would allow teachers to Work their guaranteed 183 (sic) to 186 Days this year per Article III.B. 2. The Association seeks a decision which would allow each teacher to Obtain his guaranteed annual salary as specified in (the aforementioned salary schedule). 3. The Association seeks a decision which would mandate that the School Committee and Association Negotiate a rescheduling of a sufficient number of days to accommodate the first two remedies" (emphasis supplied).

We construe the first request above as calling for the arbitrator to determine the number of days which the striking teachers should be permitted to work during the 1972-1973 school year. The power to determine the number of days that the schools shall be open in any school year is specifically reserved to a school committee by the second sentence of G.L. c. 71, § 37. ⁴ Compare Berkshire Hills Regional Sch. Dist. Comm. v. Berkshire Hills Educ. Assn., --- Mass. ---, --- ^E, 377 N.E.2d 940 (1978). It has been repeatedly held that matters of educational policy which are committed or reserved to a school committee by § 37 cannot be lawfully delegated to an arbitrator for decision by him. In addition to the Berkshire Hills case, see School Comm. of Hanover v. Curry, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 151, 155-158, 325 N.E.2d 282 (1975), id., 369 Mass. 683, 685, 343 N.E.2d 144 (1976), and School Comm. of Braintree v. Raymond, 369 Mass. 686, 689-690, 343 N.E.2d 145 (1976).

The quality of education can be rendered meaningless if the quantity is subject to manipulation. It would seem that the association acceded to this proposition when it expressly agreed to abide by the Board's determination of "the number of days (the schools) should be open . . . in order to provide a satisfactory educational program." We conclude that the question of the number of days the schools are to be open is one of educational policy which cannot lawfully be delegated to an arbitrator. ⁵ It follows from this conclusion that the committee could not lawfully be required to negotiate with the association over the same question, with the result that the third request of this particular demand for arbitration also falls. ⁶

The second request of this demand appears to be susceptible to two different interpretations. ⁷ One is that the teachers are seeking payment of their full scheduled salaries without regard to the fact that they were on strike during a portion of the complete work year with reference to which those salaries were determined. Strikes by public employees have always been illegal under our law. See Director of the Div. of Employee Relations of the Dept. of Admin. & Fin. v. Labor Relations Commn., 370 Mass. 162, 167-168, 346 N.E.2d 852 (1976); G.L. c. 149 §§ 178F(10), 178M and 178N, as in effect prior to St.1973, c. 1078, § 1; G.L. c. 150E, §§ 1 ("Strike") and 9A(A ), inserted by St.1973, c. 1078, § 2. A necessary corollary of that proposition is that it would be unlawful because against public policy (see School Comm. of Hanover v. Curry, 369 Mass. at 685, 343 N.E.2d 144; Watertown Firefighters, Local 1347 v. Watertown, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- ^F, 383 N.E.2d 494 (1978) for the committee to compensate the teachers for the scheduled school days they were on strike. See and compare Board of Educ. of Community High Sch. Dist. No. 218 v. Falk, 8 Ill.App.3d 696, 699, 290 N.E.2d 667 (1972); Board of Educ. of Marshallton-McKean Sch. Dist. v. Sinclair, 373 A.2d...