*1 JAY CLASSROOM TEACHERS Appellant
ASSOCIATION,
(Plaintiff below),
v.
JAY SCHOOL CORPORATION and Employment
Indiana Education Rela (Defendants Board, Appellees
tions
below).
No. 49S05-1603-PL-113.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
July *2 (“LBOs”).
change best their last offers factfinder, appoints The IEERB then a statutory factors— who considers certain an LBO cause the such as whether will fi- to engage accordingly nancing which selects —and as the for that adopt side’s to CBA LBO not include a year. adopted The LBO provision that conflicts state feder- law, may appeal factfin- party al a to the IEERB. der’s decision Here, a appealed a association teachers to school’s adopt decision LBO. IEERB the factfin- The affirmed Reed, Hylton, Riley Eric M. Laura S. der, provision approving a contract allow- IN, LLP, Indianapolis, Egloff, & Bennett ing superintendent place a teachers Attorneys Appellant. mid-school-year any line of an hired established, scale. Gerth, bargained-for salary Mahony, Mark D. Marcia A. Kightlinger & Gray, IEERB doing, rejected In so LLP, Indianapolis, claim the sala- IN, association’s Attorneys Appellee Jay School ry unlawfully gave flexibility provision Corporation. superintendent and unfet- unilateral Zoeller, At- Cudahy, Gregory Sarah F. salaries, tered discretion over late-hires’ Indiana, Hunter, torney Kyle General of thereby conflicting with the association’s General, Deputy Attorney Indianapolis, bargain collectively statutory right IN, Attorneys Edu- Appellee Indiana Given establish salaries. the deferential Employment cation Board. Relations agency ac- standard review afforded Tanselle, IN, Indianapolis, Lisa F. At- tion, affir- we conclude IEERB’s torney for Amicus Curiae Indiana School mance lawful. We find that Boards Association. LBO, adopted including flexi- was, bility provision, fact, collectively On Petition Transfer from Indiana important lim- and that checks of Appeals, Court No. 49A05-1412- superintendent’s ited the discretion. PL-586 History Facts and Procedural RUSH, Chief Justice. Jay Associa- Classroom Teachers (“Association”) Jay tion and the School Legislature signifi- our made (“School”) Corporation impasse reached addressing cant to statutes amendments after arrive at for the failing to a CBA bargaining for teachers collective year. mandatory 2013-2014 school After employers. to these Pursuant amend- unsuccessful, proved mediation the Associ- ments, parties when fail reach exchanged LBOs, ation and the School (“CBA”) agreement statutorily IEERB initiated the mandated regarding wages, and related factfinding process. benefits, Em- Education the Indiana (“IEERB”) ployment ap- During Relations Board debated issues, points including legality If fails of a a mediator. mediation also several CBA, produce must ex- from the judgment. fol- mary School’s LBO. read as The trial court That affirmed decision, rejecting lows: the IEERB’s the Asso- claim that ciation’s Teachers hired the commencement after year may provision unlawfully of the 2013-2014 school restricted teachers’ placed bargain line of the scale as collectively. deter- The trial *3 by Superintendent. mined After the nearly court reasoned that all will LBOs teacher, any initial placement provisions contain to which the teacher remain the same line shall agreed; have not the Association’s .dislike scale, regardless- any other fac- provision of the did not mean that tors. issue of for salaries late-hired teachers was . Ultimately, factfinder chose the place; the first and that including salary mandatory School’s flexi- once énter LBO— bility parties’ for provision CBA they ability bargain” “have lost to —as year. the 2013-2014 school specific term. The trial court added that it was not for a super- unreasonable school appealed The Association to the IEERB. n intendent to authority have the “to hire IEERB hearing, After a affirmed the qualified employees flexibility and have the adopted, for factfinder’s decision to offer attractive compensation for most LBO as the part, School’s CBA potential new hires in with year. for the 2013-2014 line available school The n IEERB funds.”- approved pro- despite vision the Association’s claim that court rejected The trial also the Associa- unlawfully starting it eliminated certain argument it tion’s that would unable to bargaining process. from salaries The demonstrate that the LBO could cause explained although provi- IEERB that financing if superintendent gave power sion the School over teacher allowed to set for salaries teachers hired to which the salaries Association year begins. after the The trial agreed, have this was “the nature of a court concluded that if late-hired teachers’ binding finding process.” fact The expenditures contracts caused to exceed provision IEERB also construed the revenue, financing actual then the deficit mean that late-hired teachers’ salaries statute would contracts render those void. year they would be set for the and that would in- eligible salary not be appealed, maintaining The Association creases for the duration the contract— was nothing but that provision pre- within the unlawful because it with the stat “conflicts being eligible cluded these from utory right of employees to collec for a salary after the increase contract tively bargain to Jay establish salaries.” term. Jay Classroom Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. 1217, petitioned judi- Corp., The Association then (Ind.Ct.App.2 N.E.3d 1226 45 review, 015)1 sought Appeals agreed cial and both sides sum- The Court appeal, compensation provision, concluding 1. On direct the Association also ar gued improperly payment the IEERB struck a "teachers cannot receive above their teaching pro- contract both LBOs that salaries for duties and that this "provid[ed] paid additional teachers who vision allowed teachers to. be double n assigned assigned volunteer or a class.” are duties.” Id. at cover 1221-22. Ass’n, Jay Appeals disagreed 45 Classroom Teachers N.E.3d at Court of held that the compensation provision per- The trial court had affirmed the additional (citing Emp’t IEERB's decision strike the additional missible. Id. Educ. at Ind. hand, On the other we review an the trial reversed the Association of law de novo. court, agency’s conclusions Nat. holding flexibility provi- the- ' n v. Poet Biorefining-N. Res. Council “unambiguously, impermissibly con- sion Def. 555, (Ind. Manchester, LLC, 15 N.E.3d Association’s flicts with the 2014). agency’s interpreta Although sala- collectively bargain question of presents tion of a statute law and the IEERB The School ries.”1 Id. review, novo agency’s entitled transfer, granted, de there- sought which interpretation given “great weight.” Appeals opinion. the Court vacating State, 58(A). Sec’y v. Ind. West No. Rule Appellate Ind. Office of 49S02-1511-PL-668, 349, 353, 54 N.E.3d of Review Standard (Ind. 2, 2016) *3 June WL at Administrative Indiana’s Pursuant (quoting Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Bd. Review *4 (“AOPA”), Act we . Order Procedures and Dev., Ind 960 Dep’t Workforce of of only action if it is agency set an aside 118, (Ind.2012)). fact, In “if 123 N.E.2d (1) reasonable, an of arbitrary, abuse dis- capricious, agency’s interpretation is cretion, not in stop or otherwise accordance not analysis we and need move our n (cid:127) (2) law; contrary to proposed constitutional interpre forward with (3) or immunity; right, privilege, if power, true even another Id. This is tation.” statutory jurisdiction, au- presents equally excess in party “an reasonable of. limitations, or of statu- thority, or short 960 terpretation.” Chrysler, N.E.2d at 124 (4) without of tory right; observance (citing Day, v. 681 Sullivan N.E.2d 713 (5) by law; (Ind.1997)). or un- procedure required by substantial evidence. supported review, of light of this standard 4-21.5-5-14(d) 2012), (Supp. § Ind. Code facing Did the IEERB issue us narrow: judicial seeking review bears party reasonably conclude that flexi- agency action is proving the burden of bility lawful? the above for one reasons. invalid five Decision Discussion and 4-21.5-5-14(a).
§Id. Collective-Bargaining I. Indiana’s Further, reviewing a chal when Always Statutes for Teachers Have lenge agency’s to an administrative deci Collectively Right Ensured the sion, try “this Court will de facts Bargain, 2011 Amendments Pro- and its own judgment novo nor substitute Finality in Speed moted and Registra agency.” that of the State Bd. of Bargaining Process. Eberenz, Eng’rs tion 723 v. for Prof'l 422, founding years 200 (índ.2000) (citing ago, N.E.2d 430 Ind. Since our Conard, Mgmt. public Indiana education— Dep’t Envtl. 614 has cherished v. (Ind.1993)). Rather, guarantee constitutional 916, 919 reflected in our N,E.2d tuition-free, findings “general system and uniform agency’s they if are defer equally open of Common ... substantial Ind. Schools supported by evidence. Const, 8, West, § 1. Mgmt. pub- v. N.E.2d all.” Ind. art. Envtl. 838 Because Dep’t of (Ind.2005). 408, schools ensure Hoosiers these constitu- 415 lic duties”)). lary voluntary co-curricular v. Creek We Relations Bd. Nettle Classroom Teach- Ass’n, (Ind.Ct.App.2015) N.E.3d 49 summarily agree Ap- ers affirm the Court and (holding "does not the law exclude the bar- peals Appellate issue. Ind. Rule potential receipt gaining for and additional 58(A)(2). completion required for the ancil- 20-29-4-1, 2011), §§ are profit, tional and also -6-1 (Supp. they re- 20-29-l-l(4)(A) (2014), § unique of bargaining subjects 1.C. the number duced - relationship corporations between school imposed explicit' limits for man- time compared cannot teachers datory mediation and relationship private employers ; Specifically, elimi- amendments 20-29-1-1(4). id. In- employees, permissive bargaining subjects nated alto- deed, Assembly recognizes General gether, 20-29-6-7, compare id. with I.C. Hoosiers’ “fundamental interest” in devel- §.20-29-6-7(b) (2007), while also limiting oping cooperative and harmonious relation- subjects mandatory bargaining just ships. corporations between school and. wages, related bene- 20-29-1-1(1). Id. teachers. And fits, compare I.C. . 20-29-6-4 (Supp. upon that fundamental imposes interest 2011), (2007). with I.C. obligation protect the State “basic parties; When the fail-to reach a CBA public by attempting prevent any mandatory bargaining subjects, im- interference with material the normal pub- - passe declared. process.”. lic educational 20- 29-1-1(3). Recognizing .obligation, Then, days within fifteen of the IEERB Assembly implemented the General collec- receiving of impasse, notice ' r tive mandatory ente mediation with an *5 217, passing Public Ind. Act Law. 1973 §: IEERB-appointed mediator. 20-29- Id. requiring schools and teachers 1085— 6-13(b) 2011). (Supp. prior The collective- hours, collectively bargain salary, wages, bargaining statutes were silent as to the and related benefits. See Lisa B. duration, substance, scope, mediation’s and Bingham, Bargaining Teacher in Indiana: 20-29-6-13, (2007) §§ see I.C. -14 —but The and Courtis the Board the Road 2011 the limit amendments the Traveled, 989, Less 27 L. 990 Ind. Rev. sessions,-I.C. § three mediation 20-29-6- (1994). Even though the collective-bar- 13(c) 2011), (Supp. they require the and gaining changed throughout statutes have parties to mandatory bargain the mediate years are now located at Indiana —and ing subjects, 20-29-6-4, -13(c)(1). §§ id. Code article 20-29—there one steadfast Mediation than thirty last more ; principle: strong system a educational 20-29-6-13(e) § id. days, par and if the for depends Hoosier children on “harmoni- ratify agreement, they do not an ties must cooperative and relationships ous between exchange proceed binding LBOs and corporations and their certificated school 20-29-6-15.1(a). § id. The 20-29-1-1(1) § employees.” (2014); I.C. 2011 limit fif amendments factfinding Act 1973 Ind. same lan- (containing days, teen unlike the 2007 collective-bar guage). gaining explicit statutes set no time 2011,
In governing .factfinding process. scheme constraints on the bargaining 20-29-8-7(0, collective sig- Compare § teachers was id. I.C. 20-29-8-7(f) (2007) nificantly § promote speed amended to (requiring the fact- and finality. Although those left investigation, hearing, amendments finder “make the (cid:127) bargaining intact and obli- as findings expeditiously and the cir as schools, of gations permit”).2 and I.C. cumstances 2015, legislature again lengthened factfinding 2. In amended the time allotted collective-bargaining Among thirty days.' statutes. other from fifteen to Acts 2015 Ind. changes, 20-29-6-15.1). (amending the 2015 § of the 3194-95 version statutes I.C. pose beyond proposed those most terms But amendments’ perhaps the course, and, LBO; introducing chosen change LBOs must significant parties’ fi- place corporation are final deficit into LBOs school 20-29-6-15.1(b). offers, § nancing. must be which restricted subjects they bargaining enumerated —and collec- prior Then versions unlike rationale, fiscal supporting must include statutes, tive-bargaining amend- 29—6—13(c)(2) 2011), (Supp. be- I.C. 20— party ap- ments allow either expressly place cause an LBO cannot order peal financ- corporation position deficit imple- tasked with agency IEERB —the is, than ing, spending more its current menting overseeing educational collec- and id, revenue, § 20- year general fund actual id. Compare tive 20-29-6- bargaining. 29-6-3(a). collective-bargaining stat- 20-29-3-1, (2007). with I.C. §§ -11 require the factfinder to “make utes then decision, appeals) For the IEERB’s like hearings as the investigation an and hold factfinder’s, be confined to the must necessary,” id. 20- considers factfinder enumerated must not subjects, 29-8-7(b); allow the factfinder to consider those impose any beyond proposed terms IEERB, parties, from the evidence LBOs, in the must not put and 20-29-8-7(d); agency, id. state position an oblige the factfinder issue order 20-29-6-18(b) financing. (Supp. I.C. party’s one LBO as the CBA imposing 2011). judicial party Unless a seeks re- 29—6—15.1(b). id. year, the school 20— AOPA, under the IEERB’s view deci- LBO, the factfinder must con- choosing sion final. statutory factors: sider four Here, bargain- followed agreements 1. Past memoranda ing process through formal bar- parties. contracts mediation, factfinding, gaining, appeal hours of Comparisons IEERB, ultimately arriving *6 at a involved with employees the Now, year. CBA the 2013-2014 employees working of other for oth- they dispute only legality provi- the one private public agencies and con- er sion in that CBA: work, giving doing comparable cerns provision. per- that Whether to factors peculiar consideration missible collective-bargaining under corporation. the school IEERB statutes —as the concluded —is the interest. public question now narrow we must resolve. impact 4. The financial Allowing II. A Provision Contractual and whether settle- Superintendent to Place School corpora- cause the school ment will Any Teachers Hired Mid-Year on in engage financing tion to as Established, Bargained Line of the § in I.C. 20-29-6-3. described Salary Not Scale Does Conflict with words, § 20-29-8-8. In other the fact- Right the Teachers Association’s which LBO must decide better fits finder Collectively Bargain to Establish imposing these factors before it as the Salaries. Further, parties’ or- CBA. AOPA, der restricted Under the Association must be enumerated (as review) bargaining subjects seeking judicial in the party listed Indiana Code bears (again, salary, wages, proving section 20-29-6-4 the burden of IEERB’s benefits); in adopting must not im- decision School’s LBO was related 4-21.5-5-14(a) (Supp. just invalid. I.C. ment.” Id. Here did this. 2012). end, times, argues They To that the Association met at negotiated reasonable faith, salary flexibility provision good and executed a written statutory agreement LBO conflicts with its happened School’s one that —albeit bargain collectively result from Importantly, 2011), (Supp. I.C. 20-29-4-1 collective-bargaining statutes mandate impermissible, id. 20-29-6- if and is thus when the reach 2(a)(2). the factfinder choose one must of the two LBOs applying the four fac regard, helpful In that it is to note that tors impose then that LBO as the not argue the Association does its 20-29-6-15.1(b) contract. I.C. LBO fit the four statutory better factors 2011). (Supp. Otherwise, the entire im or that was it error conclude otherwise. passe procedure would be defective be words, In other the Association does not no imposed cause contract through fact- past insist that its LBO better reflected finding could considered have been agreements parties, compared “bargained” in sense the Association favorably public private more to other or uses the term. employee County, in Jay contracts better interest, public served the was more Concluding that a factfinder-im- the financial In- interest of the School. posed bargained-for is a LBO contract also stead, argues only the Association that the comports with the collective-bargaining salary flexibility provision infringes on its emphasis finality. statutes’ Although bargaining right by giving the pre-2011' version the statutes de superintendent unilateral discretion set- fined purpose factfinding as- ting con- salary. disagree, a late-hire’s We “giv[ing] a advisory opinion,” neutral I.C. cluding that the (2007), 20-29-8-5 the current version permissible not only it was col- because the purpose “providing] defines as a final lectively bargained, but it also because did solution on permitted the items to be bar give superintendent unilateral dis- 2011) gained,” I.C.' (Supp. cretion over late-hired teachers’ salaries. added). (emphasis Likewise, amendments-shortening formal collective definition, By statutory this con bargaining, particularly the mediation and tract, including salary flexibility provi factfinding periods; introducing LBOs into sion, bargained, though even it was factfinding; mandating that factfind- *7 product the See I.C. 20- ing “must culminate in im the factfinder (2007). 29-2-2 un bargaining Collective posing parties,” contract terms on the id. the a process spanning der statutes is — 20-29^6-15.1(b) speak finality. —all negotiations, through from informal formal Indeed, the amendments instruct that (if needed) bargaining, through then man while employers employees and mediation, (if needed) datory finally and obligations share to bargaining, and effect, binding factfinding. In the term bargaining process the collective must end. “bargain collectively” encompasses more Notably, stipulated the Association even agreement than or it acquiescence; briefing argument and at oral a fact- that performance “means the of mutual ob the LBO, here, finder-imposed as ais bar ligation[s]” employers and gained contract. employees to “meet at reasonable times to concession, negotiate Despite in good faith” and “execute a this the Association agree argues contract incorporating any written un- the engage financing.” Id. right bargain its sala- tion to deficit lawfully defeats IEERB, too, Code ries under Indiana section 20-29-8-8. the must And or by superintendent unilateral giving the financing hearing consider deficit when sala- discretion over late-hires’ unfettered appeal of the’ Id. decision. below, explained this not But as ries.3 20-29-6-18(b). Finally, the collective- so for reasons: the late-hired two flatly a school prohibit statutes salary off of a to receive a base bar- had “entering] any agreement from into that scale; scale, along and gained-for this place position [it] would deficit spend- prohibition on deficit 20-29-6-3(a). financing.” By Id. exten- superintendent’s limited-the discre- ing, sion, any contract-including a late-hired tion. provides teacher’s contract—“that for defi- argument,' At oral acknowl- financing cit to that extent.” void salary edged 2012-2013 scale was that the 20-29-6-3(b). Consequently, the super- bargained, collectively and both place intendent could not a late-hired year began LBOs for the 2013-2014 school a line doing teacher on of the scale if so though with that same School’s scale— place financing, would School in deficit base and kept the salaries same LBO limiting superintendent’s further dis- eligible receive a made each teacher. to. flexibility provi- salary cretion under this $200,000 set raise from School well, sion. disagree For this as reason we raises; while the Association’s aside for salary with the Association that the flexi- $512,000 in distributed raises across LBO gives bility provision the superintendent proposed to arrive at a new the scale though unilateral unfettered discretion — salary scale. And note, factfinder, we as did the provision explicit- LBO within the School’s it provision others like are potentially ly (timely or late- not allow teacher did “powerful tool[s] that should be cau- used hired) salary receive a base off this tiously skillfully [they] since could words, pro- established scale. have broad ramifications.” superintendent’s tied expressly vision established, bargained-for discretion Conclusion conclude, therefore, that salary scale. We hold the We Association failed meet neither authority was superintendent’s AOPA, its it burden under the as did not nor so did unfettered unilateral adopting the IEERB’s decision show conflict with Association’s col- Rather, LBO School’s was lectively bargain salaries un- invalid. Code section 20-29-4-1. der Indiana defer IEERB’s conclusion that the flexibility provision was unlaw- Furthermore, au- superintendent’s ful, noting ques- both that the thority prohibition was also limited collectively tion above, As spending. stated important superinten- checks limited the LBO, choosing an factfinder when establishing discretion in *8 dent’s late-hires’ on impact financial “[t]he must consider- Consequently, affirm the salaries. we trial the school and whether corpora- cause school court. will settlement provi- Interestingly, or a
3. at that this the Association conceded similar argument that it this appeared oral has since sion' has in CBAs between flexibility provision subsequent in in teachers associátions and schools Indiana. School,. And both noted sides CBAs SLAUGHTER, Lehman, DAVID, MASSA, Goshen, IN, Joseph Respon- C. JJ., concur. dent ProSe. RUCKER, J,, separate dissents with Witte, G. Michael Executive Secretary
opinion. Johnson, Aaron Attorney, Indianapo- Staff lis, IN, Attorneys for Indiana Supreme J.,
RÜCKER, dissenting. Disciplinary Court Commission. I respectfully Indiana dissent. Code provides 20-29-4-1 in relevant section Respondent, Joseph We find that Leh- employees may partici- “School ... part: man, engaged in contempt in conduct of in pate with school this by repeatedly engaging, in the Court employers through of representatives practice suspended. of his law while For .., establish, maintain, choosing own contempt, that Respondent conclude improve wages, salary wage should be disbarred. benefits,...”. related And Indiana This matter is Court before 20-29-6-2(a)(2) provides section in Code report hearing appointed by of officer part: may not in- “Any contract relevant this Court to evidence the Indiana provisions- that -... hear clude conflict with Supreme Disciplinary employee set forth in IC 20- Court Commission’s Appeals 29-4-1 — ” As the Court “Verified Rule Petition to Show out authorizing the LBO points Respondent’s Cause.” admission to Superintendent to determine unilater- this prac- state’s his unauthorized bar and ally salary of teachers after the hired tice of while suspended law this state “unambiguously, year begins imper- subject him disciplinary Court’s this Const, missibly conflicts with Association’s 7, § jurisdiction. art. See Ind. collectively bargain Discussion salaries Section under 20-29-6-2(a)(2),” and thus Section violates 19, 2014, By February order of Jay Jay Classroom Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. suspended Respondent Court from' the (Ind.Ct. Corp., 45 N.E.3d 1226-27 practice of less years, than two law for App.2015). agree join I and would thus 3, 2014, repeated April effective viola- my colleagues of Appeals Court revers- governing profes- rules multiple' tions ing the the trial judgment of court. Respondent’s sional conduct. misconduct negligence in systemic rep- client
included resentations, disposal of improper closed resulting files disclosure confiden- information, improper tial trust account management, judicial numerous find- Joseph LEHMAN, C. the Matter ings failing at contempt appear Respondent. Lehman, hearings. See Matter of N.E,3d (Ind.2014). sought He has not No. 20S00-1507-DI-431. reinstatement, Supreme Indiana. Court On or his suspen- about active the date July . 21, 2016 ‘began, ap- Respondent sion entered his pearance as counsel for mother later, paternity action. Two months after