STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 81-23
Issued: March 11, 1981
_____________________________________
)
WATERVILLE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, )
)
Complainant, )
)
vs. )
)
EDWARD L. WHITE, Superintendent of ) DECISION AND ORDER
Waterville, )
)
and )
)
WATERVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, )
)
Respondents. )
_____________________________________)
This is a prohibited practices case, filed pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968
(5)(B) on October 8, 1980, by the Waterville Teachers Association (Union).
The Union alleges in its complaint that Edward L. White, Superintendent of
Schools of Waterville, and the Waterville Board of Education (Employer) have
violated 26 M.R.S.A. 964(1)(A), 964(1)(E) and 965(1)(C) by issuing
individual salary agreements and individual teacher contracts which included
language, involving wages, hours and working conditions, which was never
negotiated. The Respondents filed an answer and a motion to dismiss the
complaint on October 23, 1980, contending that the aforesaid individual salary
agreements and individual teacher contracts are contemplated by the current
collective bargaining agreement between the parties and that nothing in said
individual contracts is contrary to the provisions of the said collective
bargaining agreement.
Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber made appropriate arrangements for
disposition of this case by telephone, after the pre-hearing conference,
scheduled for November 18, 1980, was cancelled by agreement of the parties.
Alternate Chairman Webber issued a Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum and
Order, dated November 20, 1980, the contents of which are incorporated herein
by reference. The parties, acting through F. Stewart Kinley, 3rd, for the
Complainant and George F. Terry, IV, for the Respondents, having agreed that
the allegations of the complaint
-1-
______________________________________________________________________________
and the responses thereto raise no issues of fact requiring hearing and that
all exhibits presented be introduced into evidence, all issues of law were
argued in appropriate briefs which were duly filed with the Board.
JURISDICTION
The Union is a public employee organization and bargaining agent for the
entire staff of employees of the Employer, excluding the Superintendent, the
Director of Special Services, and the Principals, within the meaning of 26
M.R.S.A. 968(5)(B) and 962(2). Superintendent White and the Employer are
public employers within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 962(7). The Board
accordingly has jurisdiction to issue this decision and order pursuant to
26 M.R.S.A. 968(5)(A) through (C).
FINDINGS OF FACT
By agreement and stipulation of the parties, we find the following:
1. The Complainant, Waterville Teachers Association (Union), is an unin-
corporated association located in Waterville, County of Kennebec, and State of
Maine, and is bargaining agent for the entire staff of employees of the
Employer, excluding the Superintendent, the Director of Special Services, and
the Principals, as defined in Title 26 M.R.S.A., 962(2).
2. The Respondent, Waterville Board of Education (Employer), is the duly
authorized school board and is a public employer as defined by Title 26
M.R.S.A. 962(7).
3. That Edward L. White is and has been the Superintendent of Schools in
Waterville at all times relevant to the complaint.
4. That there is presently a collective bargaining agreement in effect
between the parties to the complaint, a copy of which was attached to and
incorporated into the complaint by reference.
5. That Joan Leach served as president of the Waterville Teachers Asso-
ciation from July 15, 1979 to July 14, 1980, and that she was succeeded by
Timothy Dial on July 15, 1980, who was president at the time of the filing of
the complaint.
-2-
______________________________________________________________________________
6. For a number of years it has been the practice of the Waterville
Board of Education to provide each teacher, who is employed, with a proba-
tionary contract, a continuing contract, or an annual salary agreement.
7. That on or about March 18, 1980, Joan Leach, in her capacity as
president of the Waterville Teachers Association notified the Employer, by
letter, of the Association's objection to the inclusion of certain language
in individual contracts and/or salary agreements which had never been nego-
tiated. The text of the letter is as follows:
"March 18, 1980
Dear Mr. White:
The Waterville Teachers Association considers that the
issuance of probationary contracts, continuing contracts and
salary agreements in their present format to be in violation
of 26 M.R.S.A., Section 964 and 965. Specifically the Asso-
ciation objects to the inclusion of language in these individual
contracts which has never been negotiated or agreed to by the
Association. The probationary contract, the continuing con-
tract, nor the annual salary agreement should be limited to
matters dealing directly with the individual's relationship to
the Waterville School System.
Should the Board of Education or its agent wish to discuss
or negotiate over this matter of what is appropriate for inclu-
sion in these individual contracts, the Association stands ready
to meet at a convenient and mutually acceptable time. Should
the Board of Education issue individual or continuing contracts
or salary agreements which include matters relating to wages,
hours and working conditions which have not been negotiated or
agreed to, the Association will have no recourse but to pursue
appropriate legal action.
Sincerely,
Joan Leach, President
Waterville Teachers Association"
8. Despite the Union's objections, on or about June 27, 1980, Superin-
tendent Edward L. White issued individual salary agreements and individual
teacher contracts which included language, involving wages, hours and working
conditions, which was never negotiated.
-3-
______________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION
We have, in Teachers Association of S.A.D. No. 49 v. Maine S.A.D. No. 49,
MLRB No. 80-49 (1980), held that the issuance of individual employment con-
tracts, in the context of a comprehensive collective bargaining agreement, do
not constitute a prohibited practice; so long as the individual contracts do
not conflict with the provisions of the comprehensive agreement. In the
instant case, Article XXVI(C) of the collective bargaining agreement provides
as follows:
"For the duration of this Agreement, any individual contract
between the Board and an individual teacher, shall be subject to
and consistent with the terms and conditions of this agreement.
If an individual contract contains any language inconsistent with
this Agreement, this Agreement, during its duration, shall be
controlling."
Any alleged conflict between the terms of the individual contracts and those
of the collective bargaining agreement is, therefore, a moot question.
Furthermore, there is no allegation before us that the Employer has ever used
or attempted to use the individual contracts to subvert the rights granted to
the employees by the collective bargaining agreement. We distinguish Teachers
Association of S.A.D. No. 49, supra, because in that case the public employer
was attempting to use the individual contracts to affect the negotiations for
a successor collective bargaining agreement.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and discussion, and by
virtue of and pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations
Board by the provisions of 26 M.R.S.A. 968(5)(C), the Board, upon a prepon-
derance of the evidence received, holds that the Employer has not committed a
prohibited practice, as defined by 26 M.R.S.A. 964(1), and, therefore, we
ORDER that the Union's complaint be and is hereby dismissed.
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 11th day of March, 1981.
-4-
______________________________________________________________________________
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
/s/___________________________________
Edward H. Keith
Chairman
/s/___________________________________
Don R. Ziegenbein
Employer Representative
/s/___________________________________
Harold S. Noddin
Employer Representatw/e
Alternate Employee Representative
The parties are advised of their right pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(5)
(F) to seek a review by the Superior Court of this decision by filing a
complaint in accordance with Rule 80B of the Rules of Civil Procedure within
15 days after receipt of this decision.
-5-