Oak Harbor School District v. Oak Harbor Education Ass'n

Brachtenbach, J.

(concurring) — I concur with the majority because the legislative history of the governing stat*502ute, which is the last, unmarked paragraph of RCW 28A.58.100, shows that its subject matter, i.e., seniority, leave benefits and other benefits, was intended to have application quite apart from the other provisions of RCW 28A.58.100 (2) (a)-(h) which deal only with leave benefits. That last unmarked paragraph was enacted as a separate section of Laws of 1965, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 49. It was codified separately as RCW 28.67.076. Only upon the reenactment of the educational code in 1969 did that paragraph become an adjunct to the leave benefit provisions. Laws of 1969, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 223.

We are bound by that legislative declaration of seniority benefits, but point out the apparent conflict with the extensive powers granted to school boards and employee organizations by RCW 28A.72, negotiations by certificated employees. Pursuant to those powers, the Oak Harbor School Board and the Oak Harbor Educational Association, the organization representing certificated employees, negotiated what they must have believed to be a binding agreement. Now they find their agreement was meaningless. Uncertainty, disruption, and dissension have resulted.

The legislature should amend RCW 28A.72 to make it plain and certain that negotiations thereunder are subject to every statute spread throughout RCW 28A and every court interpretation thereof.

Stafford, C.J., and Utter, J., concur with Brachtenbach, J.