Court rules for Jay Schools

A contract dispute that spanned nearly three years has been settled.
An Indiana Supreme Court decision handed down early Thursday afternoon ruled in favor of Jay School Corporation and Indiana Education Employment Relations Board in its dispute with Jay Classroom Teachers Association.
The court rejected the teachers association’s argument that the IEERB was incorrect to allow a salary flexibility provision as part of the corporation’s last best offer during the contract negotiation process.
But in doing so, the court also set aside IEERB’s decision to strike a contract provision that calls for additional pay for teachers working outside of their contracted duties, such as covering a class for another teacher during their prep period.
“I guess it’s not a big surprise,” said JCTA president Paul Szymczak. “The good thing, from our perspective, is that it was kind of a split decision. The Supreme Court did agree with the court of appeals about teachers getting compensated for extra or ancillary duties to their teaching …
“From the perspective of the teachers, that’s the most immediately important part of the decision is the fact that when they work more they get paid more. … We’re happy the court ruled on that.”
The case stemmed from the 2013 collective bargaining process in which the school corporation and teachers were unable to reach an agreement.
The state’s highest court affirmed the original ruling of the trial court — Marion Superior Court 2 — which had been overturned by Indiana Court of Appeals.
“We are pleased to reach a conclusion from this lengthy process,” said Jay Schools business manager and interim superintendent Brad DeRome. “We have enjoyed a very good relationship with our Jay teachers association and we do not anticipate any changes to that relationship based on that ruling.”
The vote was 3-1 in favor of the school corporation and IEERB, with Justice Robert D. Rucker dissenting. The newest justice, Geoffrey G. Slaughter, did not take the bench until three months after oral arguments in the case and therefore did not cast a vote.
“We hold the Association failed to meet its burden under the (Administrative Order and Procedures Act), as it did not show that the IEERB’s decision adopting the School’s (last best offer) was invalid,” the court said, with Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush writing the majority opinion. “Rather, we defer to the IEERB’s conclusion that the salary flexibility provision was not unlawful, noting both that the provision in question was collectively bargained and that important checks limited the superintendent’s discretion in establishing late-hires’ salaries.”
JCTA had argued that the fact-finder and IEERB were incorrect to select the school corporation’s last best offer that allowed the superintendent to set the pay scale for any teacher hired after the start of the school year. It said such a provision infringed on the right to collectively bargain salaries.
The court disagreed, saying the fact-finding process is part of collective bargaining.
“We conclude the IEERB’s affirmance was lawful,” the court said. “We find that the adopted (last best offer), including the salary flexibility provision, was, in fact, collectively bargained and that important checks limited the superintendent’s discretion.”
By state law, school corporations and teachers have between Aug. 1 and Sept. 30 each year to collectively bargain contracts. If they have not reached an agreement by the end of that period, both sides present their last best offer to a fact-finder, who then must choose one or the other.
When that happened in Jay County in 2013, the fact-finder selected the school corporation’s last best offer. The teachers association appealed that decision to IEERB, which affirmed the fact-finder’s choice. (At that time, IEERB also struck the provision, which had been agreed upon by both sides, to “provide additional wages to teachers who volunteer or are assigned to cover a class.”)
JCTA appealed the decision in Marion Superior Court, which ruled in favor of the corporation in November 2014. A year later, Indiana Court of Appeals overturned that ruling, deciding in favor of the teachers association. The corporation appealed that ruling to Indiana Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in March.
The court set aside IEERB’s striking of the contract provision about additional wages, because it was “arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” In doing so, it agreed with the appeals court that the law “does not exclude the bargaining for and potential receipt of additional wages for the completion of required ancillary or voluntary co-curricular duties.”
Such a provision for additional pay had been agreed upon by JCTA and Jay Schools in the 2013-14 collective-bargaining process and has been included in each of the two contracts the sides negotiated since then.