 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blount County Education Association v. Blount County Board of Education1/30/2002
This lawsuit arises from the unsuccessful attempt of the Blount County Education Association ("Plaintiff") and the Blount County Board of Education ("Board") to negotiate a new memorandum of agreement prior to the expiration of the existing agreement on July 1, 1999. Plaintiff claims certain subjects it sought to bargain over were mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the Board committed an unfair labor practice when it refused to bargain in good faith and thereafter unilaterally implemented changes after the agreement expired. The Board claims the subjects over which it refused to bargain were permissive subjects of bargaining, and, therefore, it had no duty to bargain over these subjects and was free to unilaterally implement changes once the agreement expired. The Board also filed a counter-claim asserting that Plaintiff committed an unfair labor practice by insisting the parties bargain over permissive subjects and conditioning an agreement on inclusion of these permissive subjects. The Trial Court held that the subjects of involuntary transfers, voluntary transfers, layoff, recall, non-discrimination, and the duration of the agreement were all permissive subjects of bargaining, dismissed the complaint, and granted the Board's counter-claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal As of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part; Case Remanded.
D. Michael Swiney, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Herschel P. Franks, J., and William H. Inman, Sr. J., joined.
OPINION
Background
Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action in October of 1999. Plaintiff represents all certified employees of the Board of Education employed in the Blount County School System. Effective July 1, 1996, Plaintiff and the Board executed a memorandum of agreement after collective bargaining between the parties. The memorandum of agreement provided it was to remain in effect through June 30, 1999, "or until a successor agreement is in effect." The parties sharply dispute which items are mandatory subjects of bargaining and which are non- mandatory or permissive subjects as related to their unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a new agreement. Resolution of this issue will affect Plaintiff's claim that the Board failed to negotiate in good faith and prematurely declared the parties at an impasse, as well as the Board's counter-claim that Plaintiff acted unlawfully by insisting on bargaining with regard to permissive subjects. The final issue on appeal concerns the validity of the duration clause contained in the 1996 agreement.
According to the Complaint, prior to the expiration of the memorandum of agreement, Plaintiff sought to negotiate contract terms on several items which included: (1) retirement incentives ; (2) voluntary and involuntary transfer protection; (3) layoff and recall provisions; (4) sick leave days; (5) personal leave days; (6) sabbatical and educational leave days; (7) recuperation of health leave; (8) jury and legal leave; (9) fair treatment; (10) a guaranteed pass through of state funds for insurance; (11) non-discrimination; (12) seniority; (13) posting of vacancies; (14) size of classes; (15) teaching hours; (16) preparation time; (17) employee assignments; (18) employee safety; and (19) the duration of the agreement. The parties bargained over various proposals without much success towards reaching an accord on language to include in a successor memorandum of agreement. The parties eventually utilized the services of a mediator through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and negotiated for fourteen sessions. When this proved unsuccessful, the Board
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|