At trial, school district and teachers union debate bargaining

By Audrey Spalding
Show-Me Institute

In the Missouri Constitution, Article 1, Section 29, there is an extraordinarily pesky “s.” In the case of a recent teacher union suit against the Springfield School District, there likely wouldn’t have been a lawsuit and trial if it weren’t for that letter.

In its entirety, Section 29 reads, “That employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.” For the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA), the state affiliate of the national teacher union, that “s” is problematic, because it leaves some ambiguity as to whether teachers can choose multiple unions to represent them in salary and work condition negotiations with school districts.

There are, in fact, a number of Missouri school districts that bring at least two representative groups to the table when it comes time for negotiations. The Bayless School District, also facing a lawsuit from its district’s MNEA affiliate, allows any number of representatives to take part in negotiations. The Brentwood School District, which is not facing a lawsuit, has a similar multiple representation process.

Earlier, Article 1, Section 29, wasn’t an issue, because it had been interpreted that the clause only applied to private employees. However, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the clause does in fact apply to public- and private-sector employees.

The MNEA and its district affiliates seem to be pushing that ruling to the conclusion that teachers have a right to collective bargaining with exclusive representation.

THE TRIAL
On Thursday, the second lawsuit filed on behalf of a school district affiliate of the MNEA to test this issue went to trial before Missouri Circuit Court Judge Michael Cordonnier. The trial lasted for more than six hours, but a verdict has not yet been reached. The lawyers have until Wednesday to file post-trial briefs, and a decision will be made at some point after that.

At issue in the case of Springfield National Education Association v. the Springfield School District is whether a school district can first hold a vote for teachers to decide whether they want single, multiple or no bargaining representation, and then, if the teachers want representation, hold a vote for the election of representative(s).

The school district’s defense of this policy is that it leaves the decision to the teachers.

“Giving the teachers the most flexibility and choice was the intent of the policy,” said Gerald Lee, president of the Springfield Board of Education, while testifying as a witness.

Ransom Ellis, III, the attorney for the school district, said that the SNEA was in fact attempting to whittle down the options available to teachers with its lawsuit.

“The choice here is the choice of the employees,” he said, “not the choice of the employer and not the choice of the union. We’re not mandating that they have multiple, we’re simply allowing the option.”

But the Springfield National Education Association (SNEA) argued that allowing the choice between single, multiple, or no representation would undermine the collective bargaining process.

“Why go through that hurdle when that’s not collective bargaining,” said Sally Barker, attorney for the SNEA. “It’s really a confusing and false choice.”

Furthermore, she argued, collective bargaining has been historically understood as referring to exclusive representation.

“It is clear the words ‘bargain collectively’ mean on the behalf of one unit by a sole representative,” said Barker.

Collective bargaining, Barker said, is “not to serve the employer’s interest by rule of divide and conquer and fragment. It is certainly not to serve minority organizations.”

Barker was referring to the Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA), the MNEA’s main rival for membership across the state. The MSTA has historically supported non-exclusive bargaining, and does not lobby on political issues, as the MNEA’s national affiliate does. The two groups don’t agree on a number of issues.

The MSTA is the third party in the Springfield case, and is intervening on behalf of the school district.

Kent Brown, the attorney for the MSTA, focused most of his arguments on how teachers that didn’t want SNEA’s representation could have a voice in the negotiation process.

“How does a bargaining unit represent both the majority and the minority when there are issues on which those groups are diametrically opposed?” asked Brown.

Judge Cordonnier stayed silent throughout the three lawyers’ arguments and questioning of witnesses. But, during  Barker’s final arguments, he questioned her at length.

“It’s not inherently undemocratic to have two organizations negotiate at the same time,” Cordonnier said.

But it would be practically impossible, Barker said. “It’s impossible for these groups to agree on anything,” she said.

The judge also noted that in the Missouri Supreme Court Case that ruled that Article 1, Section 29, applied to public
employees, the high court noted that the term “collectively bargain” was ambiguous.

If those two words had such an agreed-upon meaning, Cordonnier asked, “Why would our Supreme Court not have said so?”

“Frankly,” Barker said, “because I think it was presumed.”

This entry was posted on Friday, August 28th, 2009 at 12:06 pm. Both comments and pings are currently closed.