Smith County Educ. Ass'n v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 20 August 1984
• Parties: SMITH COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe K. ANDERSON, Superintendent of Schools for Smith County, et al., Defendants-Appellants. 676 S.W.2d 328, 20 Ed. Law Rep. 762
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 328

676 S.W.2d 328

SMITH COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe K. ANDERSON, Superintendent of Schools for Smith

County, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

676 S.W.2d 328, 20 Ed. Law Rep. 762

Supreme Court of Tennessee,

at Nashville.

Aug. 20, 1984.

Charles Hampton White, William Prentice Cooper, Nashville, for plaintiff-appellee.

Jacky O. Bellar, Carthage, Henry Haile, Nashville, for defendants-appellants.

William B. Hubbard, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Michael W. Catalano, Asst. Atty. Gen., amicus curiae (for William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Reporter).

David H. Hornik, Kingsport, amicus curiae (for Tennessee Mun. Attys. Ass'n).

OPINION

DROWOTA, Justice.

This action arose from unsuccessful collective bargaining negotiations between the Smith County Education Association and the Smith County Board of Education. After months of negotiations, the SCEA sued the Board, its individual members, and Joe K. Anderson, the Superintendent of Smith County Schools, alleging the Defendants had committed acts made unlawful by the Education Professional Negotiations Act, T.C.A. Sec. 49-5-609, and had violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act, T.C.A. Sec. 8-44-102(a). Following a jury trial, the Chancellor took the case from the jury and dismissed the complaint, deciding that both sides were negotiating in good faith, that the Defendants had not engaged in any unlawful acts, and that the Defendants had not violated the Open Meetings Act. The Court of Appeals held the Chancellor acted properly in taking the case from the jury; however, the Court found the Board had not negotiated in good faith and had violated the Open Meetings Act.

In 1978, the Education Professional Negotiations Act was passed which provides that when a professional employee organization had been selected, the board of education shall bargain with that organization as the exclusive representative of all professional employees employed by that board of education. T.C.A. Secs. 49-5-605(d), 49-5-606. The parties are required to negotiate in good faith the following conditions of employment: salaries or wages, grievance procedures, insurance, fringe benefits, working conditions, leave, student discipline procedures and payroll deductions. T.C.A. Sec. 49-5-611. Section 49-5-609 proscribes certain unlawful acts for either the Board of Education or the employee organization. The Board cannot, among other things, use or threaten reprisals against a professional employee or discriminate against such employee for exercising the rights granted by the act; interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights granted under the act; or refuse to bargain in good faith. The employee organization cannot, among other things; refuse to negotiate in good faith; interfere with, coerce, or restrain professional employees or the board in the exercise of their rights granted by the act; or strike.

Following the selection of the SCEA as the representative of the Smith County Teachers, and the designation of Dr. Joseph C. Fields by the Board as its chief negotiator, the parties met on May 11, 1982, to negotiate for the first time. Dr. Fields informed the SCEA negotiators that insurance must be discussed before June 30, at which time the county commission would approve the new budget.

Since the 1976-1977 school year, the county had paid the total insurance premium for each teacher. In May, 1982, the monthly premium increased from $46.31 to $67.15 per teacher. The premium was paid by the Board during May and June despite the increase. After the first negotiation meeting, the SCEA negotiators attempted to discuss the insurance issue, but Dr. Fields refused to do so until other matters had been agreed upon. On June 28, the Board sent notice to all teachers that payment of insurance premiums would end on June 30.

This cause of action was filed on August 27, 1982, in an attempt to have the payment of the insurance premiums continued until negotiations could be concluded. A temporary restraining order was entered directing the Board to maintain the insurance in effect. Within a few days of the entry of that order, Dr. Fields announced that the Board would no longer deduct SCEA dues from the teacher's pay as had been the practice for several years prior to the 1981-1982 school year. There are no minutes of the meeting of the Board where this action was authorized. The Superintendent of Schools, Joe Anderson, testified that he took the action pursuant to advice from Board members.

On two occasions, September 3, and September 16, 1982, after the complaint in this action had been filed, the Board met privately, without notice, with its attorney and Dr. Fields. The SCEA filed a supplemental complaint on September 17, 1982, alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act and further acts on the part of the Board amounting to a refusal to negotiate in good faith. On October 27, 1982, the defendants filed their answer and demanded a jury to try the factual issues in this action.

The trial began on November 18, 1982, before the Chancellor and a jury pursuant to the defendants' demand. At the end of all the proof, ten special issues were submitted to the jury. The jury decided, among other things, that the Board had negotiated in good faith and that the SCEA had not negotiated in good faith.

The Chancellor entered a final decree on January 3, 1983, in which he concluded the jury verdict was merely advisory due to the inherently equitable nature of relief sought, and accordingly, the court should decide the issues. The Chancellor also made the following findings:

The court does find as a fact that both sides did honestly and sincerely try on many occasions to reach agreements upon the various problems and proposals which confronted them. This court further finds and holds that the plaintiffs did not establish by a greater weight of the evidence bad faith upon the part of the defendants, failure to negotiate in good faith upon the part of the defendants, or any other deliberate effort upon the part of the defendants or either of them to damage or destroy the organization known in the record as SCEA ....

This court finds as a fact that the defendants did not knowingly or wilfully engage in any unfair labor practice in connection with their effort to reach agreement with the plaintiffs.

This court finds as a fact that the proof fails to establish in any instance that the Board of Education violated the provisions of the Open Meetings Act.

Having so found, the Chancellor dismissed the complaint.

The issues raised on appeal are: (1) Does a public body engaged in litigation have the right to meet in private with its legal representatives? (2) Is a party to an action brought under the Education Professional Negotiations Act, T.C.A. Sec. 49-5-601 to 5-604, or the Open Meetings Act, T.C.A. Sec. 8-44-101 to 106, entitled to a jury trial and if so, what is the effect of the verdict? (3) Does the unilateral change of benefits during negotiations amount to an unlawful act under T.C.A. Sec. 49-5-609?

As noted above, the Court of Appeals held the parties are entitled to a jury trial but the effect of the jury's verdict is advisory only. The court further held that a unilateral change of benefits during negotiations amounts to a refusal to bargain in good faith. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the Court of Appeals with regard to the jury verdict issue and we affirm the Court's judgment of the effect of a unilateral change of benefits during negotiations. However, we will first address the question of whether the Board had the right to meet with its attorney in private for the purpose of discussing the lawsuit in which it was involved.

I. The Open Meeting Issue

The Court of Appeals held that the School Board violated the Tennessee Open Meetings Act, T.C.A. Sec. 8-44-101, et seq., when it met privately with its attorney and Dr. Joseph Field during the course of the present litigation.

Complaint is made of two particular meetings. The first occurred on September 3, 1982, when after a hearing in the case in Chancery Court, the Board, its attorney, and Dr. Fields met for twenty minutes behind closed doors in the second floor witness room at the courthouse. No notice of the meeting was given.

The second alleged violation occurred on the night of September 16, 1982, when the Board and Dr. Fields met with the Board's attorney at his office from 7:00 to 9:25 p.m. Rick Dringenburg, husband of the SCEA president, and Chris Baxter, a reporter for the local paper, watched Board members enter and leave the office and observed the meeting through the office window. Again, no notice was given of the meeting.

Section 8-44-101(a) of the Tennessee Open Meetings Act "declares it to be the policy of this state that the formation of public policy and decisions is the public business and shall not be conducted in secret." Section 8-44-102(a) then provides that "[a]ll meetings of any governing body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, except as provided by the Tennessee Constitution." There is no express exception to the Act permitting a public body to meet privately with its attorney and it is for this reason that the Court of Appeals determined that both of the Board's meetings with its attorneys violated the Act. This is a minority position among the courts in other jurisdictions that have considered the issue.

The majority of courts have fashioned an exception to their states' open meeting laws to permit private attorney-client consultation on pending legal matters even where the statute itself makes no such express exception. See Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 69 Cal.Rptr. 480, 487-492 (1968); Associated Students of the University of Colorado v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 189 Colo. 482, 543 P.2d 59, 61 (1975); Times Publishing Company v. Williams, 222 So.2d...