South Bend Federation of Teachers v. National Ed. Association--South Bend

Decision Date25 April 1979
Docket NumberNo. 2-677,2-677
Citation389 N.E.2d 23,102 L.R.R.M. 2007,180 Ind.App. 299
Parties, 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2007 The SOUTH BEND FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, Indiana Education Employment Relations Board, Victor P. Hoehne, Cleon H. Foust, Jr., George Gardner, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION SOUTH BEND, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). A 222.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court
Leonard Opperman, Hopper & Opperman, Indianapolis, for appellant, South Bend Federation of Teachers

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., William G. Mundy, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellants, Indiana Education Employment Relations Board, Victor P. Hoehne, Cleon H. Foust, Jr., George Gardner.

Wayne O. Adams, III, Richard J. Darko, Bingham, Summers, Welsh & Spilman, Indianapolis, for appellee.

BUCHANAN, Chief Judge.

CASE SUMMARY

Defendants-Appellants, The South Bend Federation of Teachers (the Federation) We affirm.

and the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board (the Board) appeal from an injunction prohibiting the Board from holding an election to determine whether the Federation or NEA-South Bend is entitled to exclusively represent the employees of the South Bend Community School Corporation (the School Corporation), claiming the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to grant the injunction, and that the 1972 Election Agreement entered into between NEA-South Bend, the Federation and the School Corporation is no longer a binding contract.

CASE HISTORY

Originally this cause came to us as an appeal from an interlocutory order (the grant of a preliminary injunction). Because the substantive issues were thoroughly aired and the rights of the parties determined on the merits at the hearing on the preliminary injunction, we sent this case back to the trial court to finalize its order so as to avoid a second appeal.

FACTS

In 1972 NEA-South Bend, the Federation and the School Corporation entered into an agreement (the 1972 Election Agreement) dealing with election procedures for determining the bargaining agent for teachers employed by the School Corporation. Among other things, that agreement established the procedures for an election to be held December 7, 1972, to determine the bargaining agent for teachers in the School Corporation. It further provided in Article 10 the procedure for challenging the winner of the 1972 election. Article 10 reads as follows:

10. Period of Certification

It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the organization obtaining a majority of the valid ballots cast shall serve as the exclusive bargaining agent for the unit for the period beginning December 30, 1972 Until such time as a challenge is made in accordance with the procedures herein set forth, provided that no subsequent election may be held before November 1, 1974.

A new election shall be held in the 60 day period preceding December 30, 1974 if petitions worded as follows are presented signed by 30% Of the unit in the 30 day period which precedes the above mentioned 60 day period. It is agreed the challenging organization will pay the full cost incurred by the conductor of the election.

"I hereby authorize the organization circulating this petition to represent me in negotiations before the Board of Trustees concerning wages, hours, working conditions and all matters of professional concern and in doing so hereby request an election to determine the sole negotiating agent in the South Bend Community School Corporation." (emphasis supplied)

NEA-South Bend won the election on December 7, 1972, and has been the exclusive bargaining representative of the School Corporation ever since.

In 1973, the Indiana General Assembly enacted the Educational Employee Bargaining Act 1 (the Act), which sets forth procedures to be followed to obtain representation elections in public school corporations. Its requirements for obtaining a challenge election are less stringent in several respects than those set forth in the 1972 Election Agreement. Article 10 of the 1972 Election Agreement requires a challenging organization's petition to be signed by thirty percent of the teachers in the bargaining unit, whereas the Act requires that the petition be signed by only twenty percent of the teachers in the bargaining unit. Also, the 1972 Election Agreement sets out specific language to be used to authorize the challenging organization to represent the signer in the negotiations and requires a On March 5, 1974, NEA-South Bend requested the Board to certify it as exclusive representative of the school employees in the School Corporation. The Federation and the School Corporation opposed the NEA-South Bend's request. A hearing on the request was held June 13, 1974, the primary issue being whether the procedures set forth in the 1972 Election Agreement continued to be valid and binding in view of the enactment of the Act.

request for an election to determine the negotiating agent. The Act, on the other hand, merely requires that the challenging organization assert the exclusive representative no longer represents the majority and does not require the petitions to request an election.

Because the 1972 Election Agreement predated both the enactment and effective date of the Act, the hearing examiner concluded Inter alia that the United States and Indiana Constitutions precluded the Board from construing or applying the Act in such a way as to impair the rights and obligations established by the 1972 Election Agreement. In addition, he determined that the timetable for the presentation of a challenge set out in Article 10 of the 1972 Agreement merely stated a procedure for challenge to facilitate a desirable collective bargaining schedule and did not define a contingent event or contractual obligation of the parties. (See Appendix A) Therefore, he made the following recommendation:

RECOMMENDED ORDER

(Question of Representation)

The hearing examiner recommends that the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board certify the National Education Association-South Bend as the exclusive representative of the school employees in the unit described in Section 2 of the 1972 Teachers Organization Election Procedure (Joint Exhibit # 2).

The recommended order in Case No. R-74-95-7205 is submitted this 14th day of November, 1974.

CHARLES R. RUBRIGHT

Charles R. Rubright,

Hearing Examiner

The full Board adopted his recommendation and certification was granted to NEA-South Bend on November 18, 1974. Thus it would appear that the Board not only determined the passage of the Educational Employee Bargaining Act did not affect the validity of the 1972 Election Agreement and that its terms prevailed, but also interpreted the challenge provision of the 1972 Election Agreement. 2

Judicial review of this decision was not sought.

On February 2, 1977, the president of the Federation sent a letter to the chairman of the Board informing him that the NEA-South Bend no longer represented a majority of the teachers in the bargaining unit. The Board treated this letter as a petition by the Federation for a challenge election.

The Federation submitted Showing of Interest Petitions during the first week of March, 1977. A hearing was held before the full Board on March 23, 1977, at which time it was established that the Federation's petitions complied with the challenge requirements of the Act, but did not comply with the challenge requirements of the 1972 Election Agreement.

On March 25, 1977, the Board entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the Federation. (See Appendix B.) The effect of the Board's decision was to determine that the 1972 Election Agreement was to govern the 1972 election only and that elections subsequent to 1974 were under the relaxed requirements of the Act; and the Board ordered an election to be held under the provisions of the Act.

Then on March 30, 1977, NEA-South Bend filed a Verified Complaint in the Marion County Superior Court seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin the Board from exercising its jurisdiction over any representation or unit petitions in the School Corporation until the terms of the 1972 Election Agreement had been complied with.

A preliminary injunction was issued and on May 13, 1977, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law which, Inter alia, reversed the Board by upholding the validity of the 1972 Election Agreement until a challenge was made in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 10. (See Appendix C.) The court found that NEA-South Bend could lose its status as the exclusive bargaining agent of the teachers, and would incur cash expenses of approximately $14,500 which could not be recouped if forced to proceed with the election scheduled by the Board for May 19, 1977. It further found that the Board's decision of November 8, 1974, was a former adjudication on the issue of the validity and effect of the 1972 Election Agreement and that the decision of the Board dated March 25, 1977, should be barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Therefore, it found that the action of the Board unconstitutionally impaired NEA-South Bend's contract rights contrary to the Indiana and United States Constitutions.

On August 1, 1978, the trial court entered final judgment 3 enjoining the Board from taking an action as to teacher representation contrary to the 1972 Election Agreement.

The Federation and the Board appeal.

ISSUES

The errors alleged by the Federation and the Board may be resolved as two issues:

1. Did the trial court lack subject matter jurisdiction to issue the injunction;

A. because NEA-South Bend did not seek judicial review by the method provided in the Administrative Adjudication Act, and;

B. because NEA-South Bend did not exhaust its administrative remedies provided by the Administrative Adjudication Act?

2. Did the trial court err in holding that the Board's order unconstitutionally impaired the contractual rights...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT