American Federation of Teachers v. Ledbetter
387 S.W.3d 360
Mo.2012Background
- The AFT, Local 420, and individuals Armstrong and Clemens appeal a summary judgment holding the board has no duty to meet, confer, or bargain with the union.
- Missouri Constitution article I, section 29 guarantees employees’ right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives.
- The board and union engaged in 18 meet-and-confer sessions from May 2008 to April 2009 to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement.
- In 2009 the board rejected a tentative agreement on salaries, refused to bargain on tenure, and adopted 2009-2010 salaries without minutes or votes.
- The board later proposed salaries; the union countered; the board extended and then rejected the union’s counterproposal.
- The trial court concluded no Missouri constitutional duty to bargain in good faith; the union challenges that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does article I, section 29 require a duty to bargain in good faith? | Armstrong argues the right to bargain includes a duty to bargain in good faith. | Board contends the provision creates a right but no affirmative good-faith duty. | Public employers must bargain in good faith. |
| Is there a duty to meet and confer under article I, section 29? | Union asserts a duty to meet and confer as part of the right to bargain. | Board concedes meeting and conferring is required but disputes a broader good-faith bargaining duty. | Duty to meet and confer exists and is part of the right to bargain. |
| Does Independence v. Independence School Dist. preclude a good-faith bargain duty for public employers? | Independence recognizes the right to bargain for public employees and implies some good-faith engagement. | Independence does not mandate a good-faith bargaining duty; it only extends the right to public employees. | Independence does not foreclose a Missouri good-faith bargaining duty. |
| Does the constitutional duty implicate separation of powers concerns? | The majority’s duty-setting encroaches on legislative policymaking. | No separation issue; the duty is a constitutional obligation to bargain. | Separation of powers concerns arise; case remanded to adjudicate under Missouri law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Independence-Nat’l Educ. Ass’n v. Independence Sch. Dist., 223 S.W.3d 131 (Mo. banc 2007) (extends right to bargain to public employees but does not require an affirmative bargaining duty)
- Quinn v. Buchanan, 298 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1957) (right to organize and bargain; no correlative obligation to bargain by employers)
- Bellerive Country Club v. McVey, 284 S.W.2d 492 (Mo. 1955) (protects employees’ free choice from coercion in union activity)
- Smith v. Arthur C. Baue Funeral Home, 370 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.1963) ( wrongful discharge when employee engages in union activity; right to choose representative)