Ind. Education Employment Relations Board and Nettle Creek School Corp. v. Nettle Creek Classroom Teachers Assoc.
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 40
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2011, Nettle Creek School Corporation and the Nettle Creek Classroom Teachers Association reached impasse over a 2011-2012 CBA after mediation failed.
- Both parties submitted last best offers to the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board (IEERB).
- The Board adopted the School Corporation’s LBO restricting hours to wages/salary; it struck references to hours in the LBOs.
- The Association petitioned for judicial review; the trial court reversed the Board, finding the proposed LBOs permissible and remanded for a correct interpretation of law.
- On appeal, the court remanded to IEERB to reconsider LBOs consistent with the opinion, clarifying that ancillary duties may bear additional wages.
- The court’s decision sets the parameters for when and how wages for ancillary duties may be negotiated and implemented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May teachers’ ancillary duties be bargained for with additional wages | Association asserts wages may be bargained for ancillary duties | School Corp argues only wages/salary limited to contract terms; hours cannot be bargained | Yes; ancillary duties may yield additional wages not tied to hours |
| Difference between salary and wages for bargaining purposes | Association’s wage proposal (34/hour) is wages | Board treated proposals as unlawful salary/hour issue | Wages can be bargained separately from salary; not precluded by statute |
| Board’s scope and standard of review in fact-finding on LBOs | Board erred in omitting permissible wage provisions | IEERB should constrain terms to statutorily permitted items | Appellate review requires adherence to statutory framework; remand to Board for correct application of law |
Key Cases Cited
- LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000) (interpretation of agency decisions and statutory context given deference)
- Amoco Oil Co. v. Comm’r of Labor, 726 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (agency interpretations entitled to weight but not controlling)
- Whirlpool Corp. v. Vanderburgh Cnty.-City of Evansville Human Relations Comm’n, 875 N.E.2d 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (substantial evidence standard for reviewing agency findings)
- Pendleton v. McCarty, 747 N.E.2d 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (judicial review of agency action under AOPA framework)
- State Emps. Appeals Comm’n v. Barclay, 695 N.E.2d 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (interpretation of agency decisions regarding statutory authority)