#24577-a-RWS
2008 SD 18
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
MEADE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
MEADE SCHOOL DISTRICT #46-1
and BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent and Appellee.
* * * *
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MEADE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
HONORABLE JEROME A. ECKRICH, III
Judge
* * * *
ANNE PLOOSTER
General Counsel
South Dakota Education Association
Pierre, South Dakota Attorney for petitioner
and appellant.
BRUCE A. HUBBARD of
Hansen & Hubbard
Sturgis, South Dakota Attorneys for respondent
and appellee.
* * * *
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON JANUARY 7, 2008
OPINION FILED 03/05/08
#24577
SABERS, Justice
[¶1.] Meade Education Association (MEA) filed a complaint against Meade
School District (School District) and Board of Education (the Board) with the
Department of Labor alleging unfair labor practices. After a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of MEA. School District appealed
to the circuit court, which ruled against MEA and found neither the School District
nor the Board engaged in unfair labor practices. MEA appeals and we affirm.
FACTS
[¶2.] Prior to 2005, the School District prepared and distributed a yearly
handbook for teachers and a handbook for support staff within the district. After
James Heinert became Superintendent of the School District, he concluded certain
positions did not fall into the support staff positions. Therefore, he created a
handbook, known as the professional and technical staff handbook (handbook), for
these types of positions. Heinert testified these professional and technical staff
positions were taken from the support staff category and not the teacher category.
Positions covered by this handbook included contract workers such as food service
operations manager, MCJROTC* Program Instructors, school social worker,
computer specialist and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator. The handbook also covered
hourly employees, such as the GED instructors, school nurses, computer
technicians, communications specialist, and Capable Kids Site Coordinators. The
handbook details topics like payroll procedures, overtime compensation, leaves of
* Marine Corp Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corp.
-1-
#24577
absences, vacation and holidays, termination of employment, sexual harassment
and contains the grievance procedure. The Board was notified of the change and
given a copy of the handbook at the August 16, 2005 meeting.
[¶3.] On October 13, 2005, MEA filed a grievance with the Department of
Labor alleging School District and the Board committed unfair labor practices by
creating and adopting this handbook. MEA alleged that the employees seemingly
covered by the new handbook are actually part of the bargaining unit represented
by MEA. Therefore, to the extent the handbook contains terms and conditions of
employment that were not negotiated by MEA, it alleged School District and the
Board had committed unfair labor practices.
[¶4.] A hearing was held before an ALJ. Like Lillibridge in Lillibridge v.
Meade School District, 2008 SD 17, ___ NW2d ___, the MEA argued that these
employees are “certificated personnel” and fall within the agreement negotiated by
MEA and School District and the School District violated the agreement and
engaged in unfair labor practices by creating the new handbook and allegedly
changing the terms of employment. School District argued that these positions
covered by the new handbook are not “certificated personnel” as none of the
positions require a South Dakota teaching certificate.
[¶5.] The ALJ concluded the employees were “certificated personnel,” the
negotiated agreement included these employees and the School District and Board
committed unfair labor practices by changing the terms of employment without
negotiating through MEA. On appeal, the circuit court reversed the ALJ, finding
-2-
#24577
the employees did not fall within the meaning of “certificated personnel.” MEA
appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶6.] This case involves the interpretation of a clause within the negotiated
agreement between MEA and School District. “The contracts negotiated between
public school districts and teachers are like any other collective bargaining
agreement, and disputes over the agreement are resolved with reference to general
contract law.” Wessington Springs Educ. Ass’n v. Wessington Springs Sch. Dist.
#36-2, 467 NW2d 101, 104 (SD 1991). Contract interpretation is a question of law
reviewed de novo. Hanson v. Vermillion Sch. Dist. #13-1, 2007 SD 9, ¶24, 727
NW2d 459, 467 (additional citations omitted).
[¶7.] Whether the circuit court erred when it determined the School
District and Board did not engage in unfair labor practices by
creating a professional and technical staff handbook because
the circuit court found these employees were not “certificated
personnel” within the meaning of the negotiated agreement.
[¶8.] Essentially, this is the same issue as Lillibridge, 2008 SD 17, ___
NW2d ___. MEA argues that the negotiated agreement should cover the employees
covered by the new handbook because they are certificated personnel – that is, they
hold certificates for their individual positions and professions. School District
argues that “certificated personnel” are teachers who hold teaching certificates from
the South Dakota Department of Education.
[¶9.] In Lillibridge we concluded that the circuit court did not err and only
individuals with teaching certificates issued by the South Dakota Department of
Education are “certificated personnel.” Therefore, the employees certified from
-3-
#24577
some other entity are not covered under the negotiated agreement. The analysis
and conclusion in Lillibridge apply to this appeal. See e.g. Lillibridge, 2008 SD 17,
___ NW2d ___.
[¶10.] The testimony in this case demonstrates that all the positions now
labeled professional and technical staff instead of support staff do not need a
teaching certificate, nor do the employees hold a valid teaching certificate. These
employees are not included within the MEA bargaining unit and are not covered by
the negotiated agreement.
[¶11.] MEA also argues that the individual employee contracts extend the
negotiated agreement to these employees. The contract, in pertinent part, provides:
The party of the first part is to perform all duties assigned
by the party of the second part under the supervision of
the Superintendent of Schools and in accordance with the
provisions of the laws of the State of South Dakota, school
policy, the applicable Negotiated Agreement between the
Meade Education Association and Meade School District
46-1, and all administrative directives relating to the
duties of the party of the first part.
(Emphasis added). While used prior to the 2004-2005 contracts, this language was
not included in the signed contracts for the 2004-2005 school year. In any event,
the language actually applies to the “party of the first part,” which when we
examine the contract, is the employee and not the school district. Therefore, “[the
employee] is to perform all duties . . . in accordance with the provisions of the laws .
. ., school policy, the applicable Negotiated Agreement . . . .” This language does not
bind the School District to the negotiated agreement when dealing with non-
certificated employees.
-4-
#24577
[¶12.] Finally, the circuit court also found the professional and technical
handbook did not change any of these employees’ terms or conditions of
employment. Therefore, it noted that even if the positions were covered by the
negotiated agreement, the handbook did not need to be negotiated because the
terms were the same as the terms in the negotiated agreement. However, due to
our decision above, we need not address this finding.
[¶13.] The employees are not covered by the negotiated agreement as they do
not hold teaching certificates. Therefore, the School District and Board did not
commit an unfair labor practice by forming a new handbook without negotiating
terms with the MEA.
[¶14.] Affirmed.
[¶15.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP and ZINTER,
Justices, concur.
[¶16.] MEIERHENRY, Justice, concurs in result.
MEIERHENRY, Justice (concurring in result).
[¶17.] I agree with the Court’s conclusion; however, I renew my concerns
regarding the Court’s superfluous discussion on ambiguity in Lillibridge. See
Lillibridge, 2008 SD 17, ¶23, __ NW2d at ___ (Meierhenry, J., concurring).
-5-