Unified School Dist. No. 279, Jewell County v. Secretary of Kansas Dept. of Human Resources

• Decision Date: 07 December 1990
• Docket Number: No. 63805,63805
• Citation: 247 Kan. 519,802 P.2d 516
• Parties: , 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2448, 64 Ed. Law Rep. 918 UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 279, JEWELL COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant/Cross-appellee, v. SECRETARY OF the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, and The Jewell-Randall Education Association, Appellees/Cross-appellants.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 516

802 P.2d 516

247 Kan. 519, 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2448,

64 Ed. Law Rep. 918

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 279, JEWELL COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant/Cross-appellee, v. SECRETARY OF the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, and The Jewell-Randall Education Association,

Appellees/Cross-appellants.

No. 63805.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Dec. 7, 1990.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A prohibited practice complaint filed pursuant to the Professional Negotiations Act, K.S.A. 72-5413 et seq., which alleges bad faith negotiations by the school board, may be filed after negotiations, mediation, and impasse procedures are completed. Neither K.S.A.1989 Supp. 72-5430a nor any other statutory provision of the Professional Negotiations Act limits the time in which to file a prohibited practice complaint to the period of negotiations.

2. The issuance of unilateral contracts by a school board following impasse procedures, which contracts alter terms and conditions of professional service without notice to or negotiations with an association of professional employees, is not a prohibited practice under K.S.A. 72-5430(b)(1).

3. A school board's issuance of unilateral contracts containing new items not noticed or negotiated does not violate the mandates of K.S.A. 72-5428a or K.S.A. 72-5430(b)(5). The school board must consider the public interest and the interests of the professional employees; however, there is no requirement that the school board must offer the exact terms negotiated prior to impasse procedures.

4. A school board's reduction of professional employees' salaries by the amount of the board's mediation and factfinding costs is a prohibited practice under K.S.A. 72-5430(b)(1). Charging teachers with the board's attorney fees and other expenses of negotiation casts a chilling effect upon future professional negotiations and constitutes willful interference and coercion in negotiations.

5. K.S.A.1989 Supp. 72-5430a grants broad power to the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Human Resources to fashion appropriate relief when a prohibited practice has occurred. Thus, under the facts of this case, it was not error for the Secretary to award a teachers' association monetary relief as a remedy for a prohibited practice enacted by the school board.

6. Legislative authority may be delegated to an administrative body where guidelines are set forth in the statute that establish the manner and circumstances of the exercise of such power. Where the legislature enacts general provisions for regulation and grants a particular state agency the discretion to fill in the details, we will not strike down the legislation as constitutionally impermissible unless such provisions fail to fix reasonable and definite standards to govern exercise of such authority.

7. Definite standards on the exercise of authority granted to the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Human Resources are provided in several statutory provisions of the Professional Negotiations Act, K.S.A. 72-5413 et seq.

8. The Secretary of the Kansas Department of Human Resources performs a quasi-judicial function in investigating, initiating, and conducting hearings on impasse resolution procedures and prohibited practice complaints. Therefore, we hold the delegation of authority to the Secretary does not violate Article 2, § 1 of the Kansas Constitution.

9. The function of the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Human Resources as a quasi-judicial administrator in conflicts arising from allegations of local school board prohibited practice actions in no way conflicts with the basic mission of school boards. The resolution of a dispute and the grant or denial of relief to remedy the effects of any prohibited practice do not alter or affect the maintenance, development, or operation of local schools.

Fred W. Rausch, Jr., Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant/cross-appellee.

Don Doesken, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee/cross-appellant Secretary of The Kansas Dept. of Human Resources.

David M. Schauner, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellee/cross-appellant Jewell-Randall Educ. Assn.

Cynthia Lutz Kelly, Topeka, was on the brief for amicus curiae Kansas Ass'n of School Boards.

HERD, Justice:

This is a civil action involving interpretation of the Professional Negotiations Act, K.S.A. 72-5413 et seq., in a dispute between the Jewell-Randall Education Association (Association) and the Board of Education of Unified School District No. 279 (Board).

The Board has appealed the district court's decisions that (1) the Association had authority to file a prohibited practice complaint after negotiations with the Board were completed and unilateral contracts issued, (2) the Board committed a prohibited practice in reducing the offered teacher salary by the costs of mediation and factfinding, (3) the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Human Resources (Secretary) had authority to order the Board to pay $7,700 to the Association as a remedy for violations of K.S.A. 72-5429, and (4) the authority of the Secretary to grant relief is not violative of the Kansas Constitution. The Secretary and Association cross-appeal the district court's rulings that (1) it is not a prohibited practice for the Board to include terms in unilateral contracts which were not noticed for negotiation nor negotiated and (2) failure to make the unilateral contracts retroactive was not a prohibited practice.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. Therefore, we adopt the statement of facts of the Court of Appeals:

"In January 1985, both the Association and the Board submitted notice of the items they proposed to negotiate for inclusion in the 1985-86 collective bargaining agreement in accordance with K.S.A.1989 Supp. 72-5423(a). In the course of negotiations, the parties reached agreement on all issues except base salary and fringe benefits. In May 1985, both parties declared they were at impasse, and the impasse procedures of mediation and factfinding were initiated pursuant to K.S.A. 72-5427 and 72-5428. In October 1985, the Board's representatives rejected the factfinder's recommendations and made a counterproposal to the Association. The counterproposal offered wage increases of 10.03% and fringe benefit increases, both effective with the December payroll, not retroactive to the beginning of the school year. In April 1985, prior to impasse, the Board had made the same offer except that it was to be effective with the beginning of the school year. The October offer was $8,536 less than the previous offer. The Association's negotiating team rejected the counterproposal. Since no agreement was reached, the Board issued each teacher in the district a unilateral contract which provided a wage increase of 10.03% and a fringe benefit increase, both effective with the December payroll. Eighteen of the twenty teachers signed the unilateral contracts.

"During the fall of 1985, several articles regarding the Board's proposal appeared in the Jewell County newspaper. The first discussed the factfinder's report, the Board's October proposal, and the Association's rejection of the proposal. The second article discussed the unilateral contract offer, stating:

" 'The Board's new compensation package will become effective December 1, 1985....

" 'To date the Association's refusal to accept the Board's 10.03 percent offer has cost the school district over $7,700, not including the cost of the man hours required by the administration and board members to deal with the negotiations deadlock. The School Board does not feel that this cost should be borne by the taxpayers of USD 279. For this reason the Board has deducted the $8,536 to cover the current and future costs of completing this year's negotiations. The Board does not feel that it is fair for the Association to now expect the Board to offer the same amount of money proposed in good faith by the board over half a year ago.'

"The Association filed a complaint against the district, alleging that the unilateral contract altered certain terms which were not noticed for negotiation and that the Board's failure to negotiate the terms which were not noticed was a prohibited practice as defined by K.S.A. 72-5430(b)(1), (3), (6), and (7). The Association additionally alleged that the Board's refusal to make the compensation package retroactive to the beginning of the 1985-86 school year constituted bad faith in professional negotiations in violation of K.S.A. 72-5430(b)(1), (5), (6), and (7). The Association requested the Secretary to grant the following relief:

"1. Order the Board to reissue the unilateral contract omitting the changes in the items not noticed for negotiation and to give retroactive effect to the unilateral contract to the beginning of the 1985-86 school year.

"2. Order the Board to issue a statement to the teachers acknowledging it committed the prohibited practices alleged and assuring the teachers that it will refrain from interfering with the rights of the Association in the future.

"3. Order the Board to post a notice in all attendance centers and the administrative offices acknowledging it committed the prohibited practices alleged in the complaint.

"4. Assess a fine of $500 against the Board payable to the Association.

"A hearing was held before the Secretary during which the parties stipulated to the facts. The Secretary concluded:

"1. The Association had authority or standing to file a timely complaint after the Board tendered a unilateral contract offer to the teachers.

"2. The Board's act of changing unnoticed subjects in the unilateral contract offer was remedied by subsequent negotiations.

"3. The deduction of $8,536 from the Board's original salary offer and the salary offered in the unilateral contract, and the suggestion that $7,700 of the deduction was used to pay for the Board's factfinding services constituted a violation of K.S.A. 72-5430(b)...