(dissenting).
The majority position is based largely on two premises. First it concludes that the nature of the hours necessary for lateral movement on the salary schedule relates solely to the job qualifications of the individual teacher. Secondly it concludes that our commitment to narrowly construe the section 20.9 mandatory topics of bargaining necessarily leads to the conclusion that the nature of the hours of graduate study falls outside the term “wages” as used in section 20.9. As I am unable to join in these conclusions, I respectfully dissent.
The proposal clearly covers a matter integrally related to the “wages” of the educators. Position on the salary schedule is determined by experience and educational background. If the nature of the educational hours is a question solely reserved for the school board, it can effectively control lateral movement along the educational background axis of the salary scale by limiting the hours which it might find acceptable. To remove this proposal from the scope of mandatory bargaining would be to remove from the bargaining table partial control of the salary schedule which directly determines teacher remuneration or “wages”. City of Fort Dodge, 275 N.W.2d at 398, in which we held a clothing allowance to be outside the scope of “wages” under section 20.9, is distinguishable as this proposal relates directly to the employees’ basic rate of compensation. PERB has previously found a proposal to be mandatorily negotiable if it is “integrally related” to a topic listed in section 20.9. North Scott Community School District, PERB Case No. 931, p. 9 (1977); see Note, The Scope of Negotiations Under the Iowa Public Employment Relations Act, 63 Iowa L.Rev. 649, 776-77 (1978). I find this analytical framework consistent with our precedent, appropriate to the case at bar and supportive of the district court ruling.
Other jurisdictions, in facing such issues, have uniformly applied a similar standard. E. g., Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. *670Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 179, 92 S.Ct. 383, 397-98, 30 L.Ed.2d 341, 357-58 (1971) (“vitally affects”); National Education Association v. Board of Education, 212 Kan. 741, 753, 512 P.2d 426, 435 (1973); School District of Seward Education Association v. School District, 188 Neb. 772, 784, 199 N.W.2d 752, 759 (1972) (“directly related”); Clark County School District v. Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board, 90 Nev. 442, 446-47, 530 P.2d 114, 117 (1974) (“significantly related”); Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School District, 461 Pa. 494, 507, 337 A.2d 262, 268 (1975); Aberdeen Education Association v. Aberdeen Board of Education, 88 S.D. 127, 215 N.W.2d 837, 841 (1974) (“materially affect”); City of Beloit v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 73 Wis.2d 43, 54, 242 N.W.2d 231, 236 (1976) (“primarily related”). I do not find such a standard repugnant to our commitment to narrowly construe the topics listed in section 20.9 unless the majority means to apply that standard to limit the mandatory bargaining of “wages” to dollar amounts without consideration of the bargaining context or the manner in which the amount is derived. Such rigidity is unduly restrictive. See Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203, 211, 85 S.Ct. 398, 403, 13 L.Ed.2d 233, 239 (1964) (“While not determinative, it is appropriate to look to industrial bargaining practices in appraising the propriety of including a particular subject within the scope of mandatory bargaining.”). Here, under common practice, the basic wage or salary of a teacher is set by the salary schedule, which incorporates experience and educational training. The proposal at bar, as a determinative component of the schedule, is so interrelated to establishing the salaries of those in the bargaining group that bargaining should be mandated.
We have referred to step-salary increases, such as those which would take place upon completion of post-graduate credit hours or through accumulated seniority, as permissible forms of compensation. See Bettendorf Educational Association v. Bettendorf Community School District, 262 N.W.2d 550, 552 (Iowa 1978); Barnett v. Durant Community School District, 249 N.W.2d 626, 628 (Iowa 1977). Finding the subject matter of the proposal at bar to be a mandatory subject would ensure that bargaining include all significant aspects of the salary schedule which determines the “wages” of those in the bargaining unit. The ease of mobility on the schedule and the resulting wage differential should be determined through negotiation between the Association and the District, rather than by the unilateral decision of the District.
At the same time mandatory bargaining on proposals such as that of the Association would not infringe, to any significant extent, on the public employer rights set forth in section 20.7. The nature of- the hours does to an extent reflect on the qualifications of any particular individual, but the proposal at bar does not determine whether an individual is qualified or adequately trained for a particular position. That decision remains for the employer. The proposal does not determine whether a person is qualified; it only establishes the salary such person is entitled to receive. The District remains free to establish job qualifications, evaluate job performance, promote employees and terminate employees when appropriate, pursuant to chapter 279. Transfers and assignments remain the province of the public employer. See section 20.7(2). Advancement on a salary schedule is not a promotion; no change of job or position need be involved. Increased education or experience is merely acknowledged by increased compensation. The proposal simply does not materially affect the statutory managerial rights under section 20.7.
Apparently reaching similar conclusions, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that salary schedule classifications are a proper subject for collective bargaining. Kenai Peninsular Borough School District v. Kenai Peninsula Education Association, 572 P.2d 416, 424 (Alaska 1977).
The subject matter of post-graduate studies pursued by employees or prospective employees is a topic which would be of some *671concern to a school district as those hours of credit would hopefully improve the teaching ability of the individual. In-service training is a topic which would be of equal concern to the school district for the same reason. Yet, in-service training is a mandatory subject of bargaining under section 20.9. Some mutuality of interest is present in each bargaining topic, or else there would be no need to bargain. The proposed topic before us encompasses an essential factor in determining the salaries of the members of the bargaining unit. At the same time, the proposed topic does not infringe upon the section 20.7 public employer rights. Under the test as enunciated in our Charles City School District decision, I would hold the subject matter of the Association’s proposal is a mandatory subject of bargaining and affirm the ruling of the district court.
HARRIS, J., joins this dissent.