MO Court of Appeals says school district employees get chance for

Daily Record and the Kansas City Daily News-Press, Feb 3, 2005 by Stephanie Mitchum Murphy

A summary judgment was not the proper remedy in a dispute between school district employees, their unions and the school district, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District ruled.

In Independence-National Education Association(INEA), Independence Transportation Employees Association (ITEA), Independence-Education Support Personnel(IESP), Wendy Biggerstaff, Gene Hope, Elizabeth Scott, Richard Jones, Randi Louise Mallett, Ron Cochran, and Jack Cobb, Appellants, v. Independence School District, Respondent, the various employees and unions appealed a summary judgment in favor of the district.

The issue was whether or not the district could adopt a collaborative team process for negotiating with employee groups. The appellants argued the team approach did not comply with Missouri's Public Sector Labor Law, section 105.500 et seq.

The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the school district and the employees appealed.

Collaborative Team Process

After two open meetings, the district's board adopted the team process which would allow district officials to negotiate with representatives from multiple employee groups as a team on employment issues.

The collaborative team was to be made up of six teacher representatives, one representative from each of the six other employee groups, six district administrators and two members of the board of education. The team would reach a consensus on issues such as work environment, benefits or compensation, and provide a recommendation to the superintendent.

The district's old approach to discussing employment issues was to meet with bargaining representatives from each of the employee groups.

The Appeal

The appellants appealed on four points. The Western District first addressed their final two points which asked the COA to reverse two Missouri Supreme Court decisions. In the opinion, the COA wrote it did not make decisions on these issues and denied the points.

Next, the COA addressed the issue of the trial court's summary judgment.

First, the appellants argued the court erred in granting the summary judgment because the collaborative team approach improperly imposed a joint bargaining procedure for employment issues and did not comply with section 105.520.

The COA looked at the statute which Judge Joseph M. Ellis wrote gives public employees a vehicle for petitioning their employer through their designated representative, citing Sumpter v. City of Moberly, 645 S.W. 2d 359 (Mo. banc 1982.)

Accordingly, under the Public Sector Labor Law, the District is required to meet, confer, and discuss with those representatives regarding any proposals or grievances they have related to salary or other conditions of employment, Judge Ellis wrote.

The district argued the team approach allowed the members of the team to discuss proposals with specific employee groups in sub- teams. However, the appellants claimed that wasn't the case. They presented discovery, exhibits and affidavits supporting their denial of that claim.

Thus, Appellants and the District dispute whether representatives on the collaborative team were allowed to present proposals to the team or the district, Judge Ellis wrote.

Because of the dispute of material fact, the COA found the trial court was not entitled to make a summary judgment and it reversed the judgment for further proceedings.

Next, the COA looked at the appellants' claim that the team approach violated the discussion procedure the district had for negotiating with teachers in the district.

The COA specifically addressed whether the trial court could have properly granted a summary judgment on the issue.

The district argued the appellants did not show evidence the previous agreement between the district and the teachers complied with section 432.070.

The District's claims of illegality and failure to comply with the statute of frauds, however, are affirmative defenses to Appellants' claims rather than pleading requirements that Appellants were obliged to satisfy, Judge Ellis wrote citing Crawford v. Detring, 965 S.W. 2d 188, 191 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998.)

The COA found the district did not file an answer to the appellants' petition and therefore, neither denied the appellants' claim nor properly plead any affirmative defenses. On that basis, the COA determined the circuit court erred in entering a summary judgment.

However, the district argued, even if that agreement between itself and the teachers did exist, it could have changed its policy at any time as a matter of law. The COA disagreed.

Having reviewed all of the District's grounds for summary judgment related to the claims of the teachers and the INEA asserted in Count IV of Appellants' petition, we find that summary judgment could not have properly been entered on any of the grounds asserted, Judge Ellis wrote.

The COA reversed the summary judgment as to Counts I, II, III and IV.