Court Allows District to Pay More Than Union Scale
The North Dakota Supreme Court let stand a ruling that the Kenmare school district could offer and pay more money to fill a speech-language pathologist position. The district's action was the subject of a lawsuit by the Kenmare Education Association (KEA).
The union filed suit in July 2005, after a state fact-finding committee recommended the district be allowed to offer an additional $15,000 in salary to find a taker for the hard-to-fill position. The union asserted that paying a pathologist more money than was proscribed by the salary scale violated the collective bargaining agreement.
Last November, a state district court judge upheld the district's action, prompting KEA President Donna Schmit to say, "For one individual to be allowed to negotiate up to $15,000 additional salary is wrong."
The state Supreme Court decision is worth combing through, as it takes a few slaps at the union and its claims. Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner noted, "KEA claimed giving the School District the discretion to increase an individual's salary would usurp the organization's power and allow for individual contract negotiations."
Justice Kapsner dispensed with KEA's claim that the district had negotiated in bad faith. "KEA's argument is premised on the erroneous assumption that contracts formed without KEA's consent are bad faith per se," she wrote.
She also put a stop to any claim the union had to exclusive representation. Noting that the word "exclusive" does not appear in the state's collective bargaining statute, Justice Kapsner reviewed the legislative history to find that in 2001, the North Dakota Education Association attempted to insert language into a teacher bargaining bill that would have given the union the "exclusive right to represent" and state that individuals "may not enter into independent negotiations with board." But this language was struck from the final bill.
In this lawsuit, therefore, "KEA is asserting a position that was rejected by the Legislative Assembly," Justice Kapsner wrote.
Unions going to court to fight against pay increases is an old story (item #4). This time, the good guys won.
The union filed suit in July 2005, after a state fact-finding committee recommended the district be allowed to offer an additional $15,000 in salary to find a taker for the hard-to-fill position. The union asserted that paying a pathologist more money than was proscribed by the salary scale violated the collective bargaining agreement.
Last November, a state district court judge upheld the district's action, prompting KEA President Donna Schmit to say, "For one individual to be allowed to negotiate up to $15,000 additional salary is wrong."
The state Supreme Court decision is worth combing through, as it takes a few slaps at the union and its claims. Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner noted, "KEA claimed giving the School District the discretion to increase an individual's salary would usurp the organization's power and allow for individual contract negotiations."
Justice Kapsner dispensed with KEA's claim that the district had negotiated in bad faith. "KEA's argument is premised on the erroneous assumption that contracts formed without KEA's consent are bad faith per se," she wrote.
She also put a stop to any claim the union had to exclusive representation. Noting that the word "exclusive" does not appear in the state's collective bargaining statute, Justice Kapsner reviewed the legislative history to find that in 2001, the North Dakota Education Association attempted to insert language into a teacher bargaining bill that would have given the union the "exclusive right to represent" and state that individuals "may not enter into independent negotiations with board." But this language was struck from the final bill.
In this lawsuit, therefore, "KEA is asserting a position that was rejected by the Legislative Assembly," Justice Kapsner wrote.
Unions going to court to fight against pay increases is an old story (item #4). This time, the good guys won.
Post a Comment