 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fratus v. Marion Community Schools Board of Trustees12/27/1999
FOR PUBLICATION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants-Plaintiffs, Teresa Fratus (Fratus), Sharon A. Wilson (Wilson), and Wilma R. Higdon (Higdon) (collectively referred to as the Teachers), appeal the trial court's dismissal of their Complaint filed against Appellees-Defendants, Marion Community Schools Board of Trustees (School Board) and Marion Teachers Association (Association).
We reverse and remand with instructions.
ISSUES
The Teachers raise two issues for our consideration on appeal, which we restate as follows:
1. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the Teachers' Amended Complaint against the Association when the Teachers' failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board (IEERB) prior to filing suit.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the Teachers' Amended Complaint against the School Board when the Teachers' failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the IEERB prior to filing suit.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY At the time of filing their Complaint, Fratus, Wilson and Higdon were teachers employed by the School Board and members of the Association. In 1997, each teacher formally notified the School Board of their intention to accept early retirement in 1998 pursuant to the terms of the 1995-1997 Master Contract between the School Board and the Association. After the Teachers gave their notice of their intention to elect early retirement, the Association and the School Board renegotiated the Master Contract. The Association is the exclusive representative of all the teachers within its bargaining unit pursuant to the Certified Educational Employee Bargaining Act (CEEBA), Ind. Code ยง 20-7.5-1. The 1998 Master Contract in general gave more benefits to the teachers of the Marion Community Schools; however, the contract greatly reduced the benefits to those teachers who elected to take early retirement in 1998. The School Board and the Association notified the Teachers that the 1998 Master Contract controlled their retirement benefits. Due to the revision in the Master Contract, the Teachers lost approximately $30,000 in retirement benefits.
The Teachers' Amended Complaint alleges a breach of duty of fair representation against the Association and a breach of contract claim against the School Board. The Association filed a motion to dismiss the Teachers' Complaint pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6). The School Board filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses asserting that the Teachers lacked standing, the Teachers failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that the Teachers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
After a hearing on the Association's motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed the Teachers' Complaint pursuant to T.R. 12(B)(1) concluding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as a result of the Teachers' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies before the IEERB. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Jurisdiction
We initially address the issue of this court's jurisdiction as raised by the School Board in its Appellee's Brief. The School Board argues that the trial court's Order of Dismissal is not a final appealable order under Ind.Appellate Rule 4(A), because the trial court dismissed this case without prejudice, expressly giving the Teachers the right to refile after they exhausted their administrative remedies. This argument is without merit. A dismissal of an action based on T.R. 12(B)(1) would typically be witho
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Indiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|