 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fratus v. Marion Community Schools Board of Trustees6/6/2001
ON PETITION TO TRANSFER
In a two-count complaint three former teachers sued their union and their school board over a dispute concerning a reduction in retirement benefits. The complaint alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation and that the school board breached the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. On grounds that the teachers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment concluding that exhaustion of remedies was unnecessary. Fratus v. Marion Cmty. Schs. Bd., 721 N.E.2d. 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). We grant transfer and affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
Teresa Fratus, Sharon Wilson, and Wilma Higdon ("Teachers") were employed as classroom teachers in the Marion public school system. In 1997, Teachers gave formal notice to the Marion Community Schools Board of Trustees ("School Board") of their intent to accept early retirement the following year. Teachers anticipated that their retirement benefits would be calculated under the terms of a then existing collective bargaining agreement known as the 1995-1997 Master Contract. Teachers were members of the Marion Teachers Association ("Union"), the exclusive bargaining unit for teachers in the Marion public school system. Shortly after Teachers gave written notice of their intent, the Union and the School Board renegotiated the agreement and produced a 1997-2000 Master Contract. When Teachers retired, the School Board paid them benefits according to the new agreement under which their early retirement benefits were dramatically reduced.
Teachers filed a complaint alleging that the Union renegotiated the collective bargaining agreement to reduce retirement benefits and thus breached its duty of fair representation. The complaint also alleged that the School Board breached its contract with Teachers by failing to pay retirement benefits as outlined in the original Master Contract. On motion by the School Board and the Union, the trial court dismissed Teachers' complaint under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On review, a divided Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court.
Standard of Review
In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court may consider not only the complaint and motion, but also any affidavits or evidence submitted in support. Perry v. Stitzer Buick GMC, Inc., 637 N.E.2d 1282, 1287 (Ind. 1994). In addition, the trial court may weigh the evidence to determine the existence of requisite jurisdictional facts. Id. Our standard for reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is dependent upon whether the trial court resolved disputed facts and if the trial court resolved disputed facts, whether it conducted an evidentiary hearing or ruled on a paper record. GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Ind. 2001). Where as here, the facts before the trial court are undisputed we review the trial court's ruling de novo. Id.
Discussion
I. Teachers' claim against the Union
At the heart of the parties' argument is the question of whether Teachers were required to file their complaint with the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board ("IEERB") before they were entitled to judicial review. As the Court of Appeals noted, " f the Teachers were required to file their claims with the IEERB, the trial court's order was correct as party's failure to exhaus
Page 1 2 3 4 Indiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|