HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-00606
"I
'I
, I,
, i'
, !I
" ,
" !1
I' 'I'
I'il " '1 , , ,
, ,j
'I
" , '! .1
q I' !
" "
I ,
"'!
" :1
, , ,
i,l
" "
, ,
"1 ,
., I'
, '"
q ,/
I , ~,
'I , , I, ),/
" ,
"I, , " I '~
I
"I
!";,
" '~
,
,
L; I,
I
!I, ,
, ,
" '"jJ
"
,'I II
'" 'I , ., ,
',I ., ,I,:
, , Ij Ii"
, , "
" , ,
i', I
,
"
" , '!
,
" '10 I
I I
I I ,
I
I ,t, il'
I 'I , , I"
I , I ,
i '" 'I I
I , ,
,
"
J " 1,1 , I
" I
"
"
I
,
:\
I
"
I
I
, ,.
I'),
'I .'
1,1
'I
'I
i--
"
",
\ .,1.." , ~
""
1'1: 1,'1' I 1'1 ('/,," ,'\1 II, 'II .. I.. i 1 I '1"1/\1, III' Ill:1 'I 1,1 i
!!ljll/ II
II:'\;('J:;\'].';//\III,\ liIILl'; Iii I\i'j'l:l,/,:"jl. "ldll'l:IJIJliI< IIJ 'I ~.,)
\"J t 1\,' IIi I,'! 1,,\11'
'.'JIIII,"I 11\.ll'l, I :1.1" Ii"
I' 'I' ,'t )il'
"II"':' I,
, I
I i II, f 11\11
(I '.,'1111'1\ 'Iii'
,
('llMMONWIr;J\I,','11 CO'"l'I' (lI" 1"HNNIlYl.VAN J/:I,
, I
'1111' 1'1;" 'I ,I,,' II' ii,
ClJ,MIII1:I(I,ANll
II 'f; I d, ,II Ii: 'I:
!'I I', "'ijl')
\ 1\i.. 1,"i111 I
1"llll,,\! )!,
'11\',.' ,'III'!
III' 'j ,1,\
Ii
.Iilll I
1,1
"
, ,
,,'
''1iil
I
I,
"
III
lil,I;"11 ,'11,11,
,I "illl I ,1'1
,11,11
I I ! i
II; .
I"
II 1 II!','
i .:111,1',:':1
I" '1'1 I"',',,
I
J I I I,'
1\ 1 ,It,
1 !I
~, I ; , I,
"I'
I,
, ,
, 'i"l
i' )
'I \',
, I
! Ii,
,I,','
"
, I:!
i I.
,I '11:,1"1
Ii" ;1,
"I
I' "
I '1If'/' I
Illli'l
,11'111
, ,
,\1 "
I,
II, ,
No,
').1,",0(, CI,vll '1")11111
Nl).
, ,
I 'I'd,
I'
1,,\, I
C.I),
'ill
11',11
"i
)')')1
"
I'M~HN'I'n 1"OIl Ol)^"I"'Y 1,:lllJC/I'I'I,()I'l, INC" [';')' ,AI.
vn.
,
I':MH, M, UMINII/\Il:I', IIM,I': n. IIM,'I'V, 1':l,J ' , .lll., Mll GI.;JlM,I) I" HUY
ill \" I' ~dlJ 11 ,1,11l4.",'. " , 'I I'.
'I'll" II'l' 111111 IiI :) \',,1 '\il I:, \ II II' JlI' I , ,
r.'." \'!.I Nil , 1111 ,Ill.! 01' ,\I'lll,'.r
11'_' 1)1 1111' '.l'i'" 1111 1\lli
\, ~ l t II I I',' \ I \ .; I III \ l 1. , II l I 'j II
,111', U~jl" Ii \ I I II" I' \ I:\IL,_ ]
'IJi
r ,"';
. '
',\,
"j J' II 11,1'.11' hl";11 lllllldJ,' .','1,\1 (rlllll
" , ' I ,I " " , ; j' :~!J I II i I 1\ i i.\ 01
IIlll"III]!]1 Y (\\illilf"t ,'d 'llld it/I'nl \ 11'1 I,it!
iii' IlId!'\I) v,llh l'I'Iq)I'(~L In f.\.],I\
I '! ill!)1 I ~l \ IllJ I Ii" <lnl'\lIlll'Jd I
II "II
'.II
.1'/1.,11
,Ii fJ'
')': )1 ~ I" J ',i;
I d II l~ I,: I \]'
1\ '..'ll i 11'1] i I \ 1. I I 'I ,,1 Ii, I, 'h I 'I II 1'1 ,I rJ ~ \ II ,i I I I'll I
nOlll, ,I'), I,:)~H
'I Itl,'
(:;1.'1'11 'It!\ 1,"-jIU
PI"1 r III iI], I d I
,
^,\ illloIl l'1111111 I
ill"d ,eld I U l;r,p)tl
I'OP'I "I: 111'111 r!I\J I \ I I \"d I 1" I '\ '!II'
Il\,u:nlly >1,,11110111 """ ill" t ""," I pi
,
l\Hlc:ll.
I'Jf 1111,1
PIJl\}!,\[,\ ,II t ()I)
'"t'1 11.!)t'rt.
IIW.'fJllll 1u.:(;I': J vim I
ll.l' I!:
'111,1 , 11 r I' ,\
I)., \
"
,,'
..'-:/":"
'":.-;.;-;.:;;..:;"':":
('llllllllIlIlWl.'lllt:l .d l'I,'IIIl\VIVilllill
(")\llll)' III ('II11lh~', ldllll
'l-'
I. ""Vl'I' 'II. 'j! F, W".! J<.l.'F Pll)lhOOIlI.II)'
III till' '~'lIl1l'l 1)( ('I)II)I"tll1 Pkil\ In I,lIld Irll ~lIld
('lIlllll';', thl 1ll'll'hV ...~,I,\ify llWl lhl' 1111 q!l 1I 11,':, 1\ II
hill. '1 \J~ lllloJ 1:11' Il.'t't'f.,'npy nrnh' \Vhllk '1'1'. 1ft! 111111,:
~d....l' IlIlTe!n \Iall.'d. \\111.'1'1.'111
P,ll JI ~Jll; II 1'1" 1"il,I'.I11. t Y ...11 jr:. \ 1,1 ( ,iI/
l J ,. ~. I f.\ \ t I I
"llIillllll"IIII<I 1".,,, I M,
I, , ',I.l. t, " t ~ I ,I" I ,I I' I, , ,11 ). I
j\IIJll:.. IJ t ,
1"',11',\ I:..
".,I"'.
1':1):,'
No. I'J!ilJ ,I: ,Il. )1)1J4
I kkndu'lI , ,I', thl! ~;lllll' 1','111,\(1)\ 1\1 I'\'nlld
'hl.'!'IH' th,: ...;lid ('tHIII III Nil 1).1.. (Jl)I) III
r',yI11"IIIl.I\.I) I')
h\'lt;'UlIhl 'H.'I my hilllll and ,\In,'l'd..'d lIlt, 'L'nl 1)1' ...Iud ('llllll
dny III ~;11Jll'll\"j(.'J-"'._... __ .1\. 1),,11)1).1.
III
llib
I 'oS II"IO'I\, WIII'I\I'OI',
,Nillt"h:I!'lIlll
., .-,
I li"Ie
1'1 III III lIl'lLlt ,
I.., nlLlild 1-:, ~'h'~-'ly.. PIL',idl'rd,'"dV~'tlllhl: Ninlll
.Illllll'illll>i~lnl'l, l'I)1I1r'II~~'d Ill' Ihl' ('1)\1111: tll ('\Jm"~'I'lilnd, ,hI l.'l'lllly lhlll l..i)\,I.lr'IlI'(l I.;.. '11 .I.l....I.!J.,
l.'n 111.\c.'1\<}t"d}'Y . hy wllnlll lll~' llllllL'>'l'd Il'\'II/l!, \'l'llirknlL' Hlld
lltll'~liltillll \\I..'It.' Ina.\l' olnd III\l'lI, d/ld \\'hl), III hh 11\\11 1111'11\'1 1l,\t.dWlillll~, thl'n'unl!) ~\Jh'II.'ltlll't1llt~ Ilallll'
IInd lllli....\.'~l fhe ~l,,\IIIIII\l' ("Hlll,d l 'Ollllllllll Pkl\~ 01 ~lIl'd ('tlllnly, walt, III \hl' lillll'III~11 doillJ!. alhllloW is
PII)'llltJlhllal~' (n ,Ifld Ill!" ~;Il\1 ('nullly III ('1111!hr.'l.l.ltlrl III
lht.' ('\"1lI1l1tI1l\"""',lhh HI Ji~'lIll~\ 1\'>1111,1. dlll~ 1.',ItI1tlli'''I'll\t'd II lid qllalil'lL'd Iq nil III \\'hl\\" ;II:!', il\ ~llll\ lult faith
d\\d 1.l'l'dillll'l' 111111 LIIJ)'IJI Itl h..' VI\'I'11 ,I~ \\":11 ill ('nlllh ,lfllldt.:lltllll';1'I 1'!W\\hl.'ll'.llI\,llhnllll~' '.lid Il:t.:tJnl.
L'l'ltllll'lIll' IIl1d HIt':~l.ltlllll ,Ill' in du,' 1'11'111 nl 111\\ Illlt! Ill;l,k 11', Ih~' pl'1\[)l'l Illlil't.'r.
PI~"I,I,' 11: 1'1,1)",
l.
J"
l 1111l1l1L,II'.,r,lllh Id 111'1l11\~h.lllld
I. "1\.II\~ III ('IIII1I":lllllld
I. I,d\'," t 'Ill 'r' V. \'1.: I kl'l" , Pl'llthlllPll;ll \' LH'111l.' ('t)llll l)1 '('t11111111111 Pk,,~ ill
!lilt! IIlI tile ~,'Id ('11\1111\, dlllCI\II~, lhllllhl' 1ll1l1IHidlk 1.l,lr!:lld .r_:.~ ~,!!lc'"I~Ly.
Ill,.' \'.llIlll1ll\1.' Itlll'IILHIIP .lltl'\II\!IIIJ1 \\11"011111111', :Ilid '.\IHllHl" 111I'1"'Ill1ll1 \lIh,,','lihl.'t1 hi'llllfllt.', \\:I~.111 thl'HlIlt.
III 111,11, Illl' tll"II'llI, 111101 qdll~ '1Il'~ddl'llt Jlltlpl'nl III... (.111111 ,II ('l\lllllll\l1l'll'n~. 01 phil II' ('lIll1t Illld (.lllUI III
1)11,1/1'" ')('''\lql\\ 1)1 lhl' Pl,"",' III Illld Inl "111,1 ("lllllt~, dlll't ('llllltl1l',..,hlllt,'d (111d qllul'ilil.'d; 'n "II \yllll\l.' ih't,
I'" 'd\1.1l fldll.\dh _llId \'1l'oIl! 011'. .lod 11\1111l! tll lil' "i\','II, ;1'1 \HUlI\ {'tlllfh III Illtlit'IIIIIIC lI'i d'\':\~l,,-"\."
I," II'SII~,I<)"<Y 11'1111',1111',111,11.'11"1''1''''''
~d I\\~ 1I:lIId nlld ,Illi.\l'..! till' "d'.1I1l1 ~illd ('nUII Ihh
J I) \ II dil', III ;JI !fJl_'_~nIJ'~J. ..\ I) ILl '.1,1§
111,,1111111,,(.11\
I
1
r
1
..
f).
..
'I
,I
':':~.;r..-:t:-:";=a.."..-;It".
;::-;::-.l".-':;
".\ .~: ~:"t..
I
l','
.
f,;
,.
.
I'IV:I':"").
" ,',II
, ,
."1
SO - \1
1/ ,ill
H
" I
Ill)
;1 ;',."r.I':
T' -'c'.. .~.
"\IIIII!I}1 thl.' Itn"lllh .\IId 111l1l'qdlll!,,~ l'llIltlkd III IlIl' l'll\lll HI ('111\1I11111l I'Ia.'il'l III ilnd 1111 thl'
l.'tHltny
..I
('ll),
(1,1
('l:!l,ll"lllll!1
l'If'll) .',11, I'J').t
1.1)1) (' i '!I I
1\'1111. I')
h 1.'lllllnlll,..c1thr: fllllil\ll.lllg:
III Illl' ('III1II1I1)I\\\I:nllll 01 Pl'llll,~'lvllnii\
III Nil
1.'OI'Y \II,
1\) >l ~ ,t l", III' 'I '
III )('''1'1 I'N IllY
~.t_""""",~""",..,......,,,a:~.~ '","11:#" ...,....~;..<-l"....:;.."" ~'-"I1,..n"',"'.''* .''''.0.:.-'' .::;,,"-_.,,,..'2':.tU:;-U:'~,.. ".__~-:;."".., ""~":""~I.'.ll'""I' ..IMIL.........'l.I_.'........-t.l
1'^ld':II'I':: 1,1)1< ')I^II'I'Y 1':111I(',\'I'I<,rI, III,'" 1'1' ^I
\ / ~ i .
1.'^li, 1,1. 1',,\111'.11/\1,'1', 1'<\11<' I, II!\I''I'~',I'I.I, .lIi., NIII 111-:1I^!1l I':. l'I',y
,1,1 Fd>, l), Itll).', \',,1 it j'll\ j,\)' hlml",!!. III :',1;11111)1 l)ir,' .tllUI 'If (',It I 11.'11' f.,II~,1
:', 'Il' ~ i \1:; t J 1" 'lIld 1'111", I i J,',!,
1\>11) NI,.., 11'li~ Illll d:j~' III 1,,'llf.1hIIV, It)'}.\, II 1;111, III tll".J1111'r1
'!II h(:',p:lllh"l!~' t'I :;llll\.,. 1',l\I~;(! \dl'y \l1'11.11')I\'.'J":; l'll/llllit 1~lllJltld lllJl hI (I'.lllll'd.
1\1\ I ," f, I '1 U I 1\. il I,' ,J l) . lil't' ~; ,\ l' \ . ''- l'll: I \. , I 'I' .
H',', tlll\ ('(JIll I , ,I'. ~'Jt':dl'Y \.)I"L, ,J', " ,J.
J.'d.l. 10, )lJrj,l, 1/),\1 lllljlhlt'..' 1)\ljl.",'1 l,!ll III lilt' N,ILHII' ',II ,I' lV'llllll II!!', i I,~I,
Fdl. II, (f)tJ.1, III.!"I 11/1,' 1111 !.i~il Jill! l',l~~" 1"1 )\,.-, JUillt 'Ill , 1I,I~d.
lI'r'~ .),\11\<:1) Ii. 11'1';\',('1, .JI., I';~,\q.
t.'d,. :~~), JlJlJ4, AI j Id,I'.': t 1)1 ~;")'\lll"'1 Ii II_d,'
,July II, tIJlJ." I 11!:_1111:1. ,11\11 (II'!.') ,1/ l\l\IJ I, li.!."I. III H('t Ih':iJ'lIlll"llln'
l'r,'lllldlldIY ill,II,'IIQlllt'II:I,(' HIl",'ly, P,.I./ 111\(,1'1..)11.'11 .J.
,\1':11 N"\'i, llli:; )JIII dd'/lll ,flll~,I, l'P),I, IlJnJ\ l'lln~rlll 1'llIli;ldl~I"rl'.
lil"ll ljf. l(l.'l-illllll!'l\I~il PII'111Iiillll,/ 1.)\1,\1,""\',1\ \11 'Ill NIlIIIII\ III d 1~'lllllt-lt_'" toll
Ilt~lit 1',d"JI'II)' !ll'! It i, 1\ "'-d 1~111\~)\',Il .If ~;('I":O.lllli1.l"I:h~JrH nl l"drli:\l"l ^"j',"
:;I'li'll\ D.i:1t 1 \,"', ,1:; \\\,11 .In ll\..' \'111;'[":\ .\1111 ~\I,tl ,111111111tnl1H ptPt\"rl1,'d III 'Ill!
Il\tlt.I'I, 1~"filJ,illdl'llt,.'\' jllf1liltlil\.IIY ,,\\\t,'l j"ll I:J ~il):)'t'/\lt~I'~I), ,HIll Ihq J)t!I!tj'JlI
I'll):' I:'I~n)Vdl, III lll:l,:l:~:'l.<l).
1\ ~ t t II" ("") I II" I, ,). \ ," ~ I; It'\,, ,II., ,J.
Auq, I), 1')91\, ~~ld \1'" l)l /\I'I.N,-,i!, 11.I{~,j.
<"1,11: Inl, 1'1,11111:11'1, 1'01"'11'11 I,,, <,)",i1lly 1,<111,',11\')11, j,y ,II,d
111I')U'JII !.lII'11 ill 1"11:"',::" ll,lllHll' 1'. t.l. l.""lm! I ,Hili (I,lihl)' 111"1\, Ill' AIIIllP' T.
f\1,'t\,'III),llt, 1"~;'I'\jJ!!, ,11;'\ 111/\11)'/ ,'q;p1oll 'I) 1111' 1"~1IItHI\Vt,'i111.1l ('(Jllll' Ilr Ill!nl\:lyl-
\:dlll.1 111,111 till' 'H lo!r I'il\, ,,'d 11'1 'Ill:i 11It'lltl'! 11Il 1111' 11th rid'! of ,illl'l, JI)fJ.l,
d I ~;Illi Ii:; 11\'-' 1'1,1 \ III I J C:i I \ 1'1 ,1 i':ll.
11\,1
f 11".1.
f .'t" 1 ., I r I, " II,.' I, I ~I' 1\' j I"" t ,-, 'lIe: r',l. II \ I 'I' '1 I ..\ 1,1 'I ,11
IIJI},I.
l,l','!
C.'lIll
" ,
)..
:\l t J\lll' 'L ~lcl)"lm)\ I,
1,':;\1/.
'1
Au'l. II, l'JfJ4, l'II1,','it"1
PII',Hi.' ! I 1(' t ii,' ,\t_L,], 'lll'd
II loll ., L' I ii, II /\111 Jilt:! 'I,
l,'1
,\,
,II
11)111 'I'. i'!, '1\, ,,,>.I I, I.', ''I.
PC'lill:I)IJ'/.\Il\'I,I)lllr'j,'11 l~ld~I'!
HJI)',1j i'.li.
II,;
^lJq. ~'J, J'J'H, l'I'ill\t'II\~'F'illil\
1'1'),1, ,1::I\i I!/ll:.l.
1\lit:!I\
, '-.":~~'"'~':
,.,..,':'.J'\'
". ~ ! ~ \
, I ~ '
"I,'
."_ .....,',-!.:'. .,~, !tt,"'.: -..
',:.".t:;l....
the school board.'
The Petition state. that it is filed under the authority of
Ssotion 3lB of the l'ublio School Code, Ilnd seeks removal of
Rsspondents "for their refusal or negleot to perform their
mandatory duty to oontract with professional employees (to wit,
teaohers)
....
"I
Petitioners /lssert that Respondents have not oomplied with
Seotion 1106 of the publio Sohool Code because Respondents have
failed "to employ the neoessary professional employees to keep the
public schools open in the Carlisle Area Sohool Distriot,'" In
this regard, PetJ,tionen aver that as of August, 1992, the contract
betwesn Carlisle Area School Distriot and its teaohers expired, and
that no new oontraot has been entered into.5 Petitioners allege
that the reason that no new oontract has been entered into is that
bad-faith negot.iating taotios have been utilhed by the Board,'
However, "the Petitioners oonoede that the teachers are 'working'
Petition, paragraphs 11-13,
Petition, introductory statement, Bee Act of March 10,
1949, P.L. 30, 5318, a8 amonded, 24 P.B. 53-31B.
, Petition, paragraph 141 Bee Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30,
51106, aB amended, 24 P,B, 511-1106,
! Petition, paragraph 16. Although press reports indioate
that an agreement has been reached with respect to a new contract
since oral Argument was held in this matter I nothing to this effect
haa been filed of reoord and neither counsol has filed a suggestion
of mootness,
Petition, paragraphe 19-21, 24-25.
-2-
and the .chools are currently open
... .
,,1
RBlIpondents filed a preliminary objection to the petition for
removal, The preliminary objection states the following.
Petitioners fail to set forth a cause ot
aotion. Petitioners assert two erroneous
reasons that the Respondent. have neglected
their duty.
(1) That the Respondents have a
mandatory duty to contraot with the
labor union, regardleBB of terms,
when no such duty exists, and
(2) That the Respondents have
breached a duty to employ teachsrs
as set forth in Sohool Code 51106,
when the Petition and exhibit make
olear that all members of the labor
organization, CAEA, An employees of
the School District.'
In .upport of the demurrer, Respondents oontend that the duty
imposed upon them by statute is an obligation to employ rather than
a responsibility to contract.' They maintain further that they
hl.l.vlil not breaohed their duty to employ, because the individual
teachers are employed. 10
~tement of Law
With respect to Reepondente' demurrer to the petition tor
removal, certain points of law Bra pertinent.
First, as to a
1 Plaintiff's Brief in Response to Defendant's Preliminary
Objeotions, at 19. .
, Respondents' Preliminary Objection ill the Nature of a
Demurrer (emphasis in original).
.
Rospondents' Brief on Its Demurrer to Plaintiffe' Petition,
at. 5.
10
Respondents' Brief on Its Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Petition,
at 5,
-3-
demurrer in general, it is well Ilettled in Pennsylvania that "(t)he
question presented by a demurrer is whether, on the faots averred,
the law says with certainty that no reoovery is possible ..,."
Saarplttl v. Weborg, 530 Pa. 366, 369, 609 A.2d 147, 148 (1992),
Seoond, Seotion 318 of the Sohool Code provides as
followlI
If the board of sohool direotors in any
distriot ... refuse or negleot to perform any
duty imposed upon it br the provisions of this
act relating to sohoo distriots .,. any ten
resident taxpayers in the distriot ,.. may
present their petition in writing, verified by
the oath or affirmation of at least three such
resident taxpayers ,.. to the oourt of common
pleas of the county in whioh such district is
looated, setting forth the faots of such
refusal or negleot of duty 011 the part of suoh
sohool directors,... If the oourt shall be of
the opinion that any duty imposed on th~ board
of school directors, which is by the
provisions of this aot made mandatory upon
them to perform, has not been done or has been
negleoted by them, the court shall have power
to remove the board ... and appoint for the
ullexpired termll other qualified persons in
their stead, subjeot to the provisions of this
act. II
Third, Section 1106 of the Public Sohool Code stat.s the duty
that 1. the subject of the present dispute I "The board of sohool
direotors in evel'Y lIohool district shall employ the neoesury
qualified professional employes, substitutes and temporary
profeuional employes to keep the public schools open in theil'
respective districts in complianoe with the provillions of this
II Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, 531B, as BmenclJld, 24 p...
53-31B.
-4-
act. "II
In this recjard, it hlUl been noted that "the underlying purp08tt
of the School Code is to aid the children of the Conunonwealth to
obtain a better education. The separate seotions of the code all
derive their inspiration from this source,
'l'hough containing
individual policies in themselVes, each is subordinate to this
cardinal PU1'pOSO." Marnell v. Ht. Carmel Twp, Sch. Di"t., 2 3
Northumborland L,J, 90, 94, aff'd sub nom., Hornell v, Kane, 368
Pa, 173, 81 A,2d 542 (1951),
Fourth, several rules of statutory construction are of
aBsistance herein.
"[Tlhe objeot of all interpretation and
construction of statutes is to asoertain and effectuate the
intention of the General Assembly.""
"When the words of a statute are clear and free from all
ambigui ty, the letter of it is not to be dieregarded under thtt
pretext of pursuing its spirit,"1I "Words and phrases [are to] be
construed ... aocording to their conunon and approved usage
.., .
It liS
"When the words of a statute are not explioit, the intention
of the General Assembly may be Asoertained by considering, among
other matters.
12 Act of March 10, 1949, P.l.. 30, 51106, as amended, 24 P.B.
511-1106.
II Act of Decembflr 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, 53, 1 Pa, C.B.A,
51921(a) (1994 Bupp.j.
11 Act of Deoember 6, 1972, P.L, 1339, 53, 1 Pa, C,B,A.
51921(b) (1994 Bupp.j,
10 Act of December 6, 1972, P,L. 1339, 53, 1 Pa, C.B.A.
51903(a) (1994 Supp.).
-5"
(3) The misohief to be remedied,
(4) The objeot to be obtained," 11
Fifth, it has been held that "[a) written oontraot ... [is)
not .,. dispolitive of the iuue of an employee's statuI." Platko
v. LauJ.'el Highlands Soh, 1Jist" 49 Pa, Conunw, 210, 214-215, 410
A.2d 960, 963 (1980).
Applioation of Law to Faots
An applioation of the foregoing points of law to the faots of
the present oaso leads to a conclusion that Petitioners' petition
for removal of Respondents from office should not be granted.
First, the conunon meaning of the word "employ" ls as followBl
"provide with a job that pays wages or a salary.,.,"" Since one
oan provide another with a job that pays wages or a salary without
the existence of a formal, written contractual agreement, it would
seem that in oonunon usage onn oan "employ" even though there is no
formal oontraot governing that employment.
Second, the mischief to be remedied by the act can be
ameliorated even though no contractual aqr~ement is present, The
public sohools in the Carlisle Area Sohool District have been kept
open in the absence of a formal contraot.
Third, the object to be obtained by the act can be aohieved
even if the teachers are not employed under a formal, written
oontraot. Having a for.mal contract with the teachers, while highly
11 Act of December 6, 1972, P.L, 1339, 53, 1 Pa. C.S,A.
51921(0)(3), (4) (1994 Supp.).
11
Webster's New Third International Diotionary 743 (1963).
-6-
ot .ar1 Barnhart, Dale Hartull, .nd Oenl<llby (.chool <lirecton),
aUel,Jinq that the .c11001 diract,ora neqlech<l to pertorJII their
.an<latory duty to "employ the n..cea.arY qu.UUe<l prote..ional
e.ploye. .,. to keep the public .chool. ope.'" in the car11eh Area
Sohool Diltrlct. 34 P.B. 11-1106. Althouqh the pUbUc .ohooh
re.aine<l open, the taxpayera asserted th.t the teaoher. were not
"employed" becauII they were workinq without a collective
barqainin9 aqreement.2
COllU1lon Ple.. au.taine<l the achool director.' preliminary
objectiona in the natura of a d.murrer, whioh ....rt.d that .chool
director. have no duty to contraot with . t.achera' union .nd did
not br.aoh . <luty to .mploy becaule .U memben at CAEA are
e.ploy.e. ot the .chool <listrict. Applying the rul.. ot at.tutory
oon.truction, COMan Ple.e rea.on.d that one can ..ploy (1.e.,
provide with a job that pay. wage.) without the exiltence at a
contract, theretore, the .chool directors' duty to employ i. not a
duty to contract. Common Pleal concluded that the .chool director.
did not breach. duty to employ because the carlisl. Ar.a teacher.
are employed within the cOllllllon meBninq of the word.
Betore thi. Court the taxpayers contend that Common Plea.
.rr.d. The taxpay.r. assert that the school dir.ctors' duty to
1 (.. .continued)
petition for r.moval ot .chool dir.ctor. who refu.e or neqleot to
~.rtorm any duty impo.ed by the provi.ion. ot thi. act relatinq to
.chool diatrict..
2 The 1989 colleotive barqainin9 agreem.nt b.twe.n the .chool
board and the CarU.le Area Eduoation A..oohtion (CAllA) had
expired, and the teaoher. were working without a oontract.
2
employ, when read ~n ~ materil with the pUblic Employ. Relat~on.
Act (PIRA),3 bee om.. a duty to enter into a written collecUve
,
bar9aJ.n~nq agr.ement. specificallY, the taxpayen cU.. 1)
s.ction 101 of PIRA, the public policy provbion., which expre..
the a.neral Aa.embly'_ belief that the Act'. purpo.e of promoting
conatructive .mployment relationship. can b..t be .erved by
requiring public employer. to bargain with .mploy.. organi.ation.
and .nt.r into written agraemGnt., 43 P,S. 51101.1011 and 2)
Section 1201, which prohibit. unfair practic.., .uch AI interf.ring
with employe..' exerci.e of their rights and refu.ing to bargain in
good faith, 43 P.S, 51101.1201.
We find the taxpayere' argum.nt to be without m.rit, Th.
fact that PERA requires a School District to bargain in good faith
with employ.. organization. doe. not lead to the conclu.ion that
.uch employe.. are not .mployed until bargaining re.ult. in a
written agreement. A .chool di.trict'. duty to bargain in good
faith and ent.r into a written agre.ment appUe. only to .mploy...,
not to pro.p.ctive .mploy..., Under School Cod. Section 508, .
di.trict employ. teacher. by appointment upon affirmatiVe vote of
a majority of the m.mber. of it. school board. 24 P.S. 55-50..
Teacher. must first become employee. of the $~hool dietrict betor.
th.ir right to org/tnize and choose repre.entative. arbe. and
before the .chool board'. duty to bargain ari...,
Accordingly, the school directors in the in.tant ca.e
3 Act of July 23, 1970, P,L, 563, U amend.d, 43 P.8.
511101.101 - 1101,2301,
3
\
14;, (1'I'-6o~ twJT~
IN ,~. aO~OHW.ALT. aOVRT a. ......YLY~I~
PARENTS rOR QUALITY IDUCATION, I . .
INC., G. 'RAN~ EICHELBERGIR, I ",
-.
HENRY W, TRE"XNGIR, 8n4 LuANN I 1_....
WAGNER, RIDGLEY ~. SNYDER, SR" I
CYNTHIA P. VARNER, HILARY H. I -.'.
AIJIRIGHT, JOHN P. DURNIN, I ~"
CHAJU,ES E. SWIBHIlR, JOHN W, I l;;.J
PITTENGER, 8n4 RUTH B, RONNAN I , t..: .
I "" ~
" l:$l
v, I
I
EARL M, BARNHART, DALE O. I
HARTZl:LL, JR, and GERALD I, I
EBY I
I
PARENTS rOR QUALITY EDUCATION, I
INC, , I No, 1956 C.D. 1914
Appellant I
ORD.LI
AND NOW, thi. 28th day of April, 1995, the order of the
co~rt of Common Plea. of cumberland county in the above-captioned
matter i. affirmed.
~')..~~")A
,
IS GARDNER COLINS, pre.ident JUd9
"
, I
I ,I
,
. CEnTlml1f,W1M THE li[COllO
(\1"'1,.1 '1,"1'11'\'1'1'
AP/) ~I, ::, I':)!l~j
"
II, '
lHPU'. I "'l!;111,!1~ (LI~'I.l.Il.lj'
"\wp"\,,IIIlol~,'"
PARENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION,
INC.,
G. Frank Eichelberger,
Henry W. TrlJfflnger, and
LuAnn Wagner, Ridgley K,
Snyder, Sr., Cynthia P. Varner,
Hilary H, Albright,
John P. Durnin, Charles E. Swisher,
John W. Pittenger, and Ruth B. Ronnan,
Petitioners,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JUN 2i.l WfJ5
CIVIL ACTION. LAW ) ,..,
v.
NO. 606 CIVIL 1994
PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS OF CARLISLE AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT
EARL M. BARNHART,
DALE O. HARTZELL, JR. and
GERALD E. EBY,
Respondents.
AND NOW, this ,. ~ fi.
day of --.:J II ,,~
, 1996, upon
I
consideration of the Petition for Rule to Show Cause of Earl M. Barnhart, Dale O. Hartzell, Jr.
and Gerald E. Eby, a Rule Is Issued upon the original Petitioners In this action, Parents for
Quality Education, Inc., G. Frank Eichelberger, Henry W. Trafflnger, LuAnn Wegner, Ridgley K.
Snyder, Sr., Cynthia P. Verner, Hlliary H, Albright, John P. Durnin, Charles E. SwIsher, John W.
Pittenger and Ruth B. Ronnan, to show cause why reasonable counsel feee Incurred In this
action by original Respondents, Earl M. Barnhart, Dale O. Hartzell, Jr. and Gerald E. Eby, should
not be awarded against original Petitioner. as part of the taxable costa of this matter In
accordance with 42 Pa.C,S.A. 12503.
Rule returnable :L 0 days after service.
BY THE COURT:
.
J.
JUH 2'1 3 ~6 I'ij '95
I I f II ~ , .
'J, 11:11 .If,\
(!!II., -I,I!I ,'1'1"
, " I :, h' '.11
,I
I
."
" '
'I
"
,
, ,
"
I'
,I
I
I
I'
"
i
I
"
I'
,
,
.,
, ,
,
, ,
"
\
"
,
,II I
, I
,I
'I ,
"
"
,
,
,I
"
OI'.."sI\,tolNll........
perform their mandatory duty to employ nece..ary qualified proleellonal employ..e 10 keep Ih.
public schools open.
2. On July 11, 1994, Ihe Honoreble J, We.loy Oler, Jr, enter.d III Order
dismissing the Pellllon for removal, observing In part Ihel Ihe membe" of the CAEA wert
employed by the District, and thel, In facl, Ihe public Ichooll 01 Ihe CarUlle Area School Dl,trlct
had been kept open In the ab.enc. 01 a lermal eonlrect.
3. Petltlonerl appealed JUdg. Oler'l declllon to the Commonwealth Court,
which flied an Opinion on April 28, 199!l,elflrmlng Judge Oler', declllon and "ndlng Petllloner'.
argumenl to be "WIthout merit".
... The filing of Ih. Pellllon for removel wal commencld and malntalnld by
Petlllone,. In a manner that wal arbllrary, velCallous and/or In bad faith In Ihat:
A. Pelllloners' pOllllon was utterly uneupport.d by any legel aUlhorlty;
B. Pelllloners' opinion wal conlrary 10 common ..nl.ln thaI to IUllaln
Pelltloners' poslllon would have b.en lenlamounl 10 Inllrucllng memberl of the negolllllng
committee of the School Dlllrlct Ihat unleel Ihey accapled Ihe propol.d contract terml of the
Union, regard Ie.. of how unreallonable Ihey mlghl be, Ihey would b. deem.d to b. filling to
perform Ihelr dull.., Ind could conaequenlly b. removed from omc.;
C. The Pelltlon lor removal .mounled to a collatera' attack on the
negotleling teem of Ih. Board of School Dlrectorl of Ihe Carllel. Area School Dlalrlct, In an
~
"
1.r;
t"
"'..,.,1'.....".,..,,.
Ittempt to Interfere wl~ the performance of their publIc duty to the taxplyera to negotllte I
reaaonable, flloally responsible bargaining agreement;
6. Petitioner.' position was frivolous and without merit.
WHEREFORE, Respondents request that this Honorable Court ISlue I Rule upon
Petltlonerl to show oause why Respondents should not be awarded reasonable oounlll f..s
I. part of the taxable costs of this maller, In accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.A. '503.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Attorneys for Respondents
, '
I'
I
II!
"
I il
, I
I'i
"
"
"
..
'I
.
-
J
.
ICl
cJ
~
1.
"WP~
J
-
J
~
l1
,
~
1.
10
.s
11 ~
! j
1"-
,I I
I"
I
, ,
,
"
I.' 'I
I
,
~
toO
1"4
a
t
j
,. ,.1
'"
,.,
-
I,
!
~ ]
~ j
~ a
t"_
,
I
'I:
. I
I
J
,
a:
;::
13
t.,j
.
::l
j
" ,
I
.11 '
I
!
J
i
-
1
~
1
)
~ j
!
'-'
.
Amon, lht Rt~ord~ .Ind Procrtdln.~ tnroUed In lht ~OUrl of ('Ilmmon Plu~ In Ind for the
~ounly llf -- Cunberland ___ In lht ('omnlonwrllth of Prnn~ylvlnill
No. 19~6 C.D. 1994
"' Nil, .__~!..:_~26 Civil ,__.__,___ lum. 19 _._".._I~ ~Ilnl.lnrd thr f"lIowln,:
('()lty IW ___
_" ,._l\l'l~ilriln"',l __,
1l()('kH I'NTR Y
P^IiT-:NI':\ Hili r.~IM,lTY r-:IXIr'M'lriN. INC,. 1':1' M,
V~, .
I':MII M. IIi\\iNIi^\i'l'. I\^' I'll. IIM,"I"ll'l I. ,II'., ^NIl r:I",'^'Il" I'IIV
I
JW;II 1<<>,
1 - 24
25 - 28
29
30 - 31
32 - 40
41 - 52
53 - 54
55 - 59
60 - 88
r
..-.
.
.
r1
~
Aml)nl Ihe Re~Qrdl and Prl)~ccdinll enrolled In the ~ourl of Common PieRi In and for the
~I)unly or ClJnl.!!Irland
No. 1956 C,D, 1994
II) NI),. 94 - 606 Civil
In the Commonweallh or Penlll~lvanla
Term. 19 II ~I)nl.ln.d Ihe rl)lIl)wlnl:
COpy OF
Appearance
DOCKET ENTRY
PARElIII'B FUR QJAI.lTY ElXJCATlCX'l, INC., En' AI.
VB.
EML M. BARl'll/AllT, [VILE O. HARTZELL, .JR., fIND GERALD E, EBY
Feb. 9, 1994, Petition for Rerroval of fichool Directors of Carlisle Area
School District, and Rule, filed,
IINO NGI, this 9th day of February, 1994, a Rule is granted
on Respondents to Hhow Cause why petitioner's request should not be granted.
Rule returnable 20 days after service.
By the Court, .). Wesley Oler, Jr., .).
Feb. 10, 1994, PX'eliminary Objection 1n the Nature of a Dell)Urrer, filed.
Feb. 11, 1994, Praecipe for Listing Case for I\rgtJToent, filed.
BYl James D. f'lower, Jr" Esq.
Feb. 25, 1994, Affidavit of Service, filed.
July 11, 1994, Opinion and Order of Court, filed, In Re: Respondents'
Preliminary ObjecHon Before Sheely, 1'..)., and Oler, J,
AND Na>I, this 11th day of ,July, 1994, upon careful considera-
tion of Respondents' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Demurrer to
Petitioners' Petition for Rerroval of Hchool Directors of Carlisle Area
School District, as well as the briefs and oral argunents presented in the
matter, Rer,pondents' preliminary objection is SUSTAINED, and the pelition
for removal is DISMISSED.
By the Court, J. Wesley, Jr" J.
Aug. 9, 1994, Notice of Appeal, filed.
CCHE Na>I, Plaintiff, Parents for Quality Education, by and
through their attorneys, Arthur T. Mc~nrott and Associated, by Arthur T,
McDenrott, Esquire, and hereby appeal to the Canoonwealth Court of Pennsyl-
vania fran the Order entered in this matter on the Ilth day of July, 1994,
dismissing Plaintlffs' Petition,
SYl Arthur T, Mc~nrott, Esq.
Aug. 11, 1994, Praecipe, filed,
Pleese file the attached Certificate of Service to the Notice of Appeal
that WIIS filed August 9, 1994.
BYI Arthur T, Mc~nrott, Esq.
Aug. 22, 1994, Cam'Onwealth Court of Pennsylvania Official Docket 81956 C.D,
1994, assigned,
Briefs
~
I
PAUN'I'8 'OR (lUAU'IV
t:DUQA'rJON,INO,
0, 'rank i'J,helbelller,
Henry W, TreffinlIer,and
l.uAnn WlIIIner, Rldllley K.
Snyder, Sr" (.'ynthlal', Varner,
I-IIluy H, A1brllIht,
j()hn p, Durnin, Charlea E, Swlaher,
jl)hn W. Plllenller, and Ruth B. Ilonnan,
l'edllonen
VI,
Earl M, Barnhart,
Dale 0, Haruell,jr, and
Oerald E. i:by,
aeapondentll
SI.CTION I
~
i IN '1'1111. <;OURT <W COMMON I'U'AS Oil'
i CUMBi'.IUANll (:OUN'IY, l't:NNSVI.vANIA
I
I
i
I
i CIVil. ACTION. I.AW
i
I
I
I NO.I:'~~ CIVil. 1994
I
I
I PETITION II'OR Rl:MOVAl. OF SOHooL
I DIREcrl'ORS OF CARl.ISU: AREA
: SOHOOl. DISTRICT
COMF. NOW, Peddonen, O. .'mnk i:iehelbelller, Henry W. Tretflllger, LuAnn Wagner,
Ridgley K. Snyder, Sr.,john W. l'luenger, (.'ynthht P. Vanier, Hilary H. A1brlght,john P. Durnin,
Charlea E. Swllher, and Ruth B. Ronnan, who are realdentll and laXpayen In the Carlllle Area
Sch()ol UIllriet, by and through their allorney, Anhur T. MeOennoll, F.IIqulre, and petlllonlthll
Honorable CoUrt for the removal of i:.arl Barnhart, Dale Harnell, and Gerald F.by. Sc:hool
Dlreeton, punuantto Seellon 818 of the Public School Code of 1949, for their rofuaal or negle't
to perform their mandalOry duty to commet with profeulonal empl()yeel (to wit, leachen), lo
oondu'tlhe edueallon progmm within aald Ichool dlltrlct, and Ilate III followa:
1. Petllloner G. Fmnk Eichelberger II a realdem taxpayer of the dlltrlct relldlng at
92.. Alexander Spring Road, and II IUlUeet to the tax rolll of DlcklnlOn Townlhip (See Exhibit
A).
2. Pelltloner Henry W. Treffinger II a realdem taxpayer of the dlltrlet rellding In
Carlllle, Cumberland County, PennlylYllnia, and lion the tax n,1I1 of Carlllle Borough (See
Exhibit A),
,).
!
j
I
1""'\
"..
S, Pelllh)ller l.uAnn Wlllller I. II re.ldel\l IIlXJlllyer lIf the dlllrlu re.ldlnK III Carll.le,
Cumberland CQunly, Penn.ylvanla, and I. ()II the laX rllll. (If Carll.le IkmlllKh (See .:Xhlbll A).
of, Pellllllner IUdlley K. Snyder, Sr. I. a relldem taxpayer of the dl.lrlU realdlnlln
CIIrllale, Cumberland County, I'enn.ylwnla, and I. lIn the tax flllll of Carll.le Borllugh (See
Exhibit A),
6. Pellllllner CYJ1lhla I', Varner I. a rellldellllllXpayer of the dl.lriCI re.ldlngln Nllrth
Middleton Town.hlp, Cumberland CQUIllY, Penn'ylvanla, and I. Iln lhe laX roll. of North
Middleton Town.lllp (See .:Xhlbll A).
6, Pelllloner Hilary n. AJbrlghl, I. a re.ldem taxpayer of the dl.trlct reudlng In
DlckllUOn Town.hlp, Cumberland COUIllY, Penn.ylwnla, and I. Iln lhe tax rolla of Dlcklnaon
Town.hlp (See Exhlbll A).
7, Petllloner John I', Durnin II a re~idcmlllXpaycr of lhe dlllrlct relldlng In North
Middleton Town.hlp, Cumberland County, Pennlylvanla, and I. on the laX rolll of Nonh
Middleton Townlhlp (See F.xhlbll A).
8, Petitioner Charlel t:. Swllher I. a relldellllaXpayer of the di51rlct re.lding In North
Middleton Town.hlp, Cumberland CQUllly, Penlllylvanla, and I. on the laX roll. of North
Middleton Town.hlp (See F.xhlbll A).
9. Pelllloner John W, Phlenger II a relldenl taxpayer of the district re.ldlng In
Carlltle, Cumberland County, Penn.ylvallla, and II 011 lhe tax rolll of Carll.le Borough (See
Exhibit A),
10, Pelllloner Rutll D. IUmnan II a relldem lIlXpayer of the dlltrlct realdlng Ir Carlltle.
Cumberland CQunlY, Pennayl\'llllla, alld la olllhe laX rolla of Carllale Borough (See Exhibit A),
II. School DlrecLOr F.arl M. Bamhlln II a member of the Carllale Area School Board,
duly elected III 1985, and II lhe head of a lhree-mall negollallllg telllll, which waa fonned In
OCLOber.I99I,to negollal.l!whh the CarUaleArea Eductllln Auoclal1oll.
.3
r-\
,.."
12, Sehl)ol J)lreculr llale O. HalUel, Jr. II a member of the Carll.le Area &hQol
ISQard, duly elected In 1987, and II a member of the threL~man nCIIQllatlnll team for the &hQQI
lSQ.rd.
15, SehQol Director Gerald .:. i:by iJ a member Qf the Carlllle Area Sehool Board, duly
elected In 1987, and II It member of the threL~man negotiating te:un fQr the School Board,
IIUJ'ION II Partlculan
\
14, Punuant to Sectll)n 1106 I)f the Public SehQQI Code: Qf 1949, the Dlrecton of the
Carlllle Area School Board arc mandated to employ the neceuary prQfellllonal employel to keop
the public achollll open In the Carlllle Area SehllQI D1mlct.
1/1. SecdQn 518 of the Public Sehool Cllde authQlitcs the removal of achool directOR If
they rel\lIe or nelllect to perfonn any mandatoI)' duty Imposed upon them by the School Code.
16, The COntl"olct between C..arllsle Area Sehoollllslrlct and III teachen expired In Augult,
1992, and a new contract haa nQt been entered.
17. In January, 1992, the Carlisle Area i:ducatlQn AIlIoelatlQn (hereinafter AIlIoelatlQn)
preaented lulnltlal propolal tQ the Carlllle Area Sehool BQard (hereinafter Board).
18, punuant to the Board's request that the bal'lJlllnlng cover a limited number of I..uel,
the Auoclatlon Qll'ered a tnmcated proposal.
19. The Board relpl)nded In bad faith by offering three (S) proposals on a take-It-or-
leave-It baals, and another prnposal not responsive to the MI'Ielatlon's proposnl.
20. The Board unreilft()nably delayed III proposal until August 27, 1992, six (6) montha
after the parties had preaentcd their bargaining posltlonl to the mediator and after the 1989-
1992 collective bargaining agreement had expired.
21, The Board'l August 'J.7 proposal further delayed, IhIltfated, and complicated
negotiations as It cQntalned new lsauel that the Board had not previously presented to either the
Mediator or the Assoelatlon.
22. 1'1) funher neRotlatll)ns and to remove personality conflicts from the negotiating
procell, the Association's President and head negl)tlator. Aarnn lIurwl17., ofl'erel! on September
~
r"I
24, l003,to relllln frum h1111ll1lllun wllh Ihe Auuclllionlf Mr. IIl1mhlln rellllned from Ihe &ard.
Mr. Barnhart reJecled Ihe olTer.
28. On December 27, 111911, Ihe Awldatlun IIIked the Board for face II) fllCe nelll)tlalltm
to avoid a January 8 It.rIke.
24, The Board by denying Ihe A.uQdallon'l relll(lIIl1ble requell for face 10 fllCe
nellotlatlon, demOIllUilled hi bad fallh, and the Auodlltll)n, only lhen, ordered the Ilrlke,
211, The Board hili cuntlnuoully taken lhe Ilulltlon thai 11 would nol agree to
arbltratlon, and maintained Ihallloslllre, knowing thatlhe ultlmllle reault (If the Ilrlke, would be
lIIandated arbllnalion.
26, Petltlonen believe, and lherefl)re aver, thallI' the Board had agreed to arblUiltlon,
the Itrlke would have been avened.
27. On October 26, 111911, Ihe PennaylY'.lIIll1 Labor Relatlons Board luued II Final Order In
a dllpute between lhe Awldaliun IInd the SchOl)l D1llrlct, holding Board III violation of Sectlolll
1201(a)(1) and 1201 (a) (11)[43 P.S. Scctll)n 1102.l201], which requires lhe Board to make a
aerlolll elTort to relOlve dllTerences and reach a common sround (See Exhlbll B, aUlIChed).
28, The PLRB held thai Ihe Board acted In bad fallh a.ld with unfair labor practlces,
c1tlnS lhe fllCb let forth In Parapmphs19, 20, 21,and 211 above.
29. The Board's (and particularly tlle Respondenl'l) bad fallh negl)tlatlnglactla and
unfair labor pnactlcel have delayed, fnUlraled, and Itllled negoliatlons wllh the Auoclatlon,
forelng Ihe leachen to Ilrlke and causing Ihe schools 10 dOle IInd operate In an Inefficient
mallner.
SO. School dlrectoA haw the mandaled dUlY 10 employ profelllonals 10 leach Ihe
11Udenb, Failure to conlract with the leachen conllllltes nonfelllance In l'elfolntl to thla
mandatory duty, and Ilgrounlh fl)r removal.
,5'
~
Name 'r~ DIIII:I(I
O. Frank t'Jdlelbel'ler J)I(k1n"m Town.hlp
Henry W. Trcffinaer Carll.11I Borouah
LuAnn WiljJner Carll.le Borouah
Rldlley K. !inyder. Sr. Carlllle Borouah
(:ynthla P. Vamer Norlh Mlddlelon Towmhlp
Hilary II. A1brl,ht OlcklnlOn Towmhlp
John P. Durnin Nonh Middleton Towmhlp
Charle. .:. SwI.her Nonh Middleton 'foWlllhlp
John W. Plttenler Carll.le BoroulJh
.
Ruth B. Rannan . . Carll.le BoroulJh
I
I
I.
,',
," i
I '
I I
'III
. I
, I I
,'I'
"
"
1,1
, ,I
, I
,
, '
" .
I; I
, I
f.khlblt itA"
t
!'
7
r'I
.hall b. accompli.h.d 1n .uch a mlnn.~ a. to .u.-
pend the l.aat ..n1o~ .mploy..,
.'~ovld.d tu~th.~ th.t an .mploya. ld.ntlti.d tot
.u.pen.ion ah.ll b. ~.t.in.d ln hl'/h.~ poaltlon it
mo~' ..nlo~ amploy..., not them..lv.. ldentltled
to~ au.pen.ion, can b. ~.al19n.d into a~.aa to~
whlch th.y a~. c.~titi.d, Thi. a.ction only 90"
lnto ett.ct it all .trAiqht lin. option. h.v. b..n
.xhau.t.d,"
Th. m..tlnq .nd.d wh.n the Di.t~let
r.vi.w the Aaaoclation'. propo.al.
A..ociation Ixhlbit 1)
. ,
indiaat.d that it n..d.d tlm. to
(N.T. % 22-25, 71, II &,
e, That in rebrua~y 1992 Dr, O.rald 'owl.r, who had b..n
ott.~.d the poeition at .up.~int.nd.nt tor the Di.t~ict, into~.d the
pr..id.nt ot the A..oalation (A.ron Hu~wit.) ot an a~ini.trativ.
r'o~qani.ation h. ha~'in mind tor the 1~92-1993 ,chool y.ar. Du~inq
..v.~al dieeu..ion. betw..n th.m in, that re9ard, Dr. 'owl.r indiaat.d
th.t a. part ot that r.o~qanilat10n h. want.d to cr.at. the bar9ainin9
unit po.itlon ot d.an ot .tud.nt. at an annual .alary of $1&00. WhGn
Dr. 'owl.r al.o indicat.d that a. part ot that reor9ani.ation h.
want.d to rfte~.at. the barqain1nq un1t pOl1tlon oft t.am lead.r whlch
had b..n .liminat.d in the pa.t but wa. conc.rned that the Di.triot'.
board ot dir.ctor. would not do .0 b.eau.a ot it. eoet, Mr, Hurwitl
rat.rr.d hlm to the Aa.oaiation'. ehiaf n.qotiato~ (Mioha.l
Kuliko.ky), who h.d b..n a taam l.adar in the paat, D~. 'owl.~ and
Mr. Kuliko.ky than di.cue..d raer.atinq t.am l.ad.r. a. t.am advi..re
at . ~.duead .alary ot '800. Du~inq hia d1.cu..ion. with Mr. Hurwit.
and Mr, Kulikoeky, Dr, 'owler indicatad to on. of th.m that h. would
11k. to kaap tha er.atlon of the d.an of .tudenta and t.am laadar
po.ition. at tho.a .alari.. out ot the n.qotiation. tor a auac...or
coll.etiva barqaininq aqr..mant. Whan h. did not hear .n objaation,
Dr, 'owl.r und.r.tood that h. had an aqr..mant with tha A..ociation
not to make the .alar1.. for tho.. po.itlon. part ot tho..
naqotiation.. Dr. 'owlar al.o undar.tood. ba..d on a aomment by
M~, Hurwit., that the .alari.. tor thoa. po.ition. ultimat.ly would
hav. to ba bar9ain.d, :~.T. I 94-100, 102-108, 122-127, 129, 131-133)
9, That on Ma~ch 16, 1992, the parti.. h.ld th.ir n.xt bar-
qalnlnq ....10n. In advanc. ot tha ....10n, the Dl.t~iat pr.par.d a
23-paq. propo.al tor pra..ntat10n t~ the Aa.oaiation. At the ....10n.
Dr. 'arnhart indlcat.d that the Di.trict could ~..pond to the
A..ociatlon'. propo.al of January 30, 1992, ln on. ot thr.. W4V" non.
ot whiah wa. to It. 11kinq, and a.k.d it tha A.aoe1ation wc~ld ba
wl11inq to lim1t the acopa ot it. propo.al. rapplnq paakaq.. contaln-
1n9 the Di.trict'e propoeal, Dr, .arnhart al.o .aid that the Dietrict
had a 1.n9thy prcpoeal of it. own. Dr. .arnha~t did not pr...nt tha
D1.tr1ct'. propo.al to the A..ocietion at that time. (N.T. I 25-28,
72-77, II &-9, 24-2&, 30-31, 44-4&, 88-90, A..oeiaticn Exhibit 9)
4
If
,"''''
.
!"
I
10. That on March 31, 199~, tha A..oaiation'. p~inaipal
.pok..per.on (Carlln W.nq.r) and Dr. Barnhart m.t. Mr, W.nq.r .aid
that it the Di.triot wculd b. willlnq to con.id.r a on.-y.ar nOll.c-
tiva harqainin9 aqraamant, the A..oeiation would b. willinq to limit
the numb.~ ot 1.'u" to b. barqain.d. Included amonq tho.. limit.d
i..u.. w.re the A..ociation'. sick 1..vI bank and raduction in torl/'
propo.all. Dr. 'arnhart und.r.tood Mr. W.nq.r to .ay that,tha
A..oaiation would eonaid.r a on., two, or thr..-y.ar t.rm.
Dr. .arnhart lndiaat.d that h. n..d.d te qat back to hl. n'qotiatin9
eommitt.a to dl.eu.. M~. w.nq.r" propo.al. Dr. Barnhart al.o indi-
cat.d that the Di.triet had a l.nqthy prepo.al ot it. own.
Dr. Barnhart did not pr...nt that p~opo..l at th.t tim.. (N.T. I 19,
28-33, 60-61, 69, 72, 75-79, II 31-34, B8-89, Joint Exhibit 3,
A..oaiatlon Exhibit 3, Board Exhibit 3)
11. That on May ~, 1992, the part i.. h.ld th.ir n.xt bar-
qaininq ....ion. In advanc. ot the ....ion, Dr. Ba~nhart p~.par.d
not.. fOJr the p~..elltation ot four prapoaition. to the A..oc1ation.
H. wrote und.r propo.ition 2 "ns;! liak" and "R.duction to fo~a.-no." H.
wrote und.r propo.ition 3 "no .iek" and "no ~.ductiol\ in foro.." At
the ....ion, Dr. Barrl~arl: indiaated that h. kn.w raduction in tore.
wa. one area ot cona.in to the A..oeiation and pr...nt.dhi. tou~
propo.ltion.. The tir.t propo.ition h. pr...nt.d wa. not ~..pondin9
to the A..oeiation'. January 30, 1992, propo..l b.aau.e ot it. l.nqth
and ao.t. Th. .acond propo.ition h. pr...nt.d wa. for a thr..-yaa~
aollaativ. barqainin9 a9r..m.nt with no .iak l.av. bank and no r.dua-
tion in foro. alau... Th. third p~opa.ition h. pre..nted wa. for a
th~.a-y.ar aoll.ativ. ba~qaininq a9~..m.nt with no .iak l.av. bank and
no r.duction in tore.. Mr. w.nq.r, Mr. Hurwitl and Mr, Kuliko.ky all
took the phr... "no r.duation in tore." to m.an that th.r. would b. no
r.duation in fo~o. alau.. a. p~opo..d by the A..ociation. Th. fou~th
p~opo.ition h. p~...nt.d wa. for a thr.e-year aollactiv. barqainin9
a;r..ment with a ;.ntlaman" agr..m.nt ov.r the proa.dur. fo~ impl.-
m.ntin; a,r.duation ln fore.. Dr, Barnha~t indiaat.d that any of th.
p~opo.ition. would have to be aac.pt.d a. p~e..nt.d. The A..oaiatlon
a.k.d tha Di.triat to ~.duc. p~opo.ition 4 to writinq. (N.T. I 34-38,
56-57, 72, 79-eO, II 9-16, 34-38, 45-&2, 7&-78, 84, 86-88, 94-9&,
97-98, loa~d Ixhibit. 1 and 4)
12. That on May 8, 1992, the A..oaiation r.ceived the
Di.trict.. fourth propo.il:ion ot May 4, 1992, in writinq. Th. tou~th
propo.ltion wa. for a eoll.ativ. barqaininq aq~..m.nt with a thr.e-
y.a~ te~ b'9inninq on AU9U.t 16, 1992. and inalud.d the tollowinq
r.qudlnq ~.duation in fore.. "Th. employftr 11 wUl1nq to di.eu.. II
a 9.ntlaman" a9~e.m.nt the proa..., praeedu~.., and quidelin.. tor
r.duetion elf tora., not.. part ot the contraCJt." (N.T. I 36-37, II
46, A..oaiation Exhiblt 4)
13. That on Jun. 17, 1992, the partie. h.ld th.ir n.xt bar-
9ainin9 ....10n. Att.r th.y revi.w.d tha Di.trict'. tourth
propo.itio~, the A..oaiation pr...nted a writt.n count.rp~opo.al, the
aov.r .h..t ot which provid.d a. tollowl'
II
"
16. That on AUQu.t 5, 1992, the p.~ti.. h.ld th.l~ n'Ht bar-
qaininq ....1on. A m.diator wa. in att.ndana. tor the ti~.t tlm..
Mr. W.nq.~ qav. the m.diator . .ummary 0' the po.itlon. ot both
partl... Th. .ummary lnelud.d all o( th. 1..u.a the A..oaiation had
plac.d on the tabl. to that point in time .nd allot the i..u.. ..t
torth in the Dl.trict'. fourth propo.ition. Dr, Ba~nh.rt indlc.t.d
th.t it the A..oai.tion wa. 90inq to k.ep allot it. i..u.. on the
tabl., th.n the Diatrict h.d other ll1u.. that it w.. qoinq' to put on
the tabl.. Dr, Barnha~t did not indic.t. what thoe. 1..u.. w.r..
(N.T. I 43-47, 11, 61-62, 81, 83-84, II 19, Ae.ociation Ixhibit 6)
17. That by l.tt.r dat.d Auqu.t 20, 199~, the Dl.triat
into~m.d the A..ociation .. 'ollow..
"Pl.... b. info&'ll,~d ot the n.w poeU;lon. aur-
r.ntly b.inq con.ider.d by the Board which ar. ar.-
at.d .. a con..qu.nc. of adminl.trativ.
r..Uc,JIImanu.
1. t.ambarton and Wihon Middl. Sahool Deana (2)
2. w..t Buildinq D..n (1)
3. T.am Advi.or. to~ .aeh middle echool t.am
(12). "
(N.T. I 83, 89, A..aciation Ixhibit 7;
18. Th.t on Augu.t 24, 1992, the to110winq adv.rti..m.nt
app.ared in the Carli.la S.ntin.l,
"All many ot you m.y h.v. heard, n'Qoti.tionl
batw..n the Qa~li.l. A~.a Educ.t~on Ae.ocia~ion and
the c.~li.l. A~.a Bo.rd ot Dir.ator. h.v. fail.d to
produa. . n.w col1.ctiva barq.ininq agr..m.nt.
Durinq a p.riod of a.v.r. .conomie aondltion. with
many commUnity m.mb.r. loeinq job. ~nd toraqoinq
r.i..., and aominq on the h..l. ot the hiqh..t
.choo1 t.x inc~.a.a. in Carli.l. hi.tory, the bo.~d
n'qoti.tin9 t.am i. both pu..l.d and di..ppOinted
th.t the t..eha~.' union h.e b..n unwil1inq to
..riou.ly coneid.r Lt. ott.r ot . th~.. para.nt
iner.... in .ala~y .nd . eo.t .h'~inq .rrang.m.nt
tor b.n.tit., which would ~..ult in up to .iqht
para.nt ral... tor .om. t.ach.r., alonq With an
lnformal .qr..m.nt not to turlouqh t.aeh.r. durinq
the 1992/93 .ahool y..~.
"Our dilappointment i. turthar und.ncored by the
union'. tailu~. to rlcoqni.. the obviou. .nd dr.-
matia impact the me.t r.a.nt aqt..m.nt h.d on
.tattinq, .duaation.l mat.rial., and buildinq main-
t.n.na. .nd r.novation proqraml. Moet budq.t
7
..
..
""'I
r.
IOOQunt. w.ra ~rain.d or t~o..n '0 that lund. could
be r.dir.ct.d to aov.r th. te.cher ulery
Lnore...., (All other ..l.~ ie. aaallunt.d tor
Ipproxlm.tlly nine puaent ot the total budq.t,)
Do..n. ot fo.ition. hay. b.en .liminat.d and m.ny
Italt m.mb.r. have b.en lu~louqh.d o~ d.moted. It
h.. only b..n wlthin the la.t y.ar that the a~ini-
.t~.tion h.. b..n abl. to fire. .ome fund. to pur-
oha.. b.dly ne.ded aomput.~ .qulpment to lupport
qrowlnq ala..~oom demand. and on. impo~t'nt ~enava-
tlon pro~.ct .t tha LeTort 'OhOlll. Yet, the only
.iqniticant .ourc. ot n.w rev.nu. aontinu.. to b.
tax lnare.....
a
.W. ar. committ.d to work tow.rd a ~...onabl.
..ttl.m.nt, W. will dir.at the .dmini.tratiQn to
t..y to kllf the echoob open tully o~ p.rtiaUy II
oi~cum.tancl' dict.t. whil. n.qotiation. continu..
With your continu.d .upport, w. will a~rlv. at .
oontract that r'p~...nt. the b..t option. to~
teach.n, childl:'.n, and the community."
Th. Idv.rti,.m.nt wa. pl.a.d by Dr. .al:'nhart a t.w d.y. bato~. the
.tart of .chool in k..ping with a priol:' pl.dq. by the Di.triat'. n'qo-
tiatlnq committ.. to kaap the acmmunity intorm.d of what wa. qoinq on
in n.qotiation.. (N.T. I 55, II 38-39, 43, A..oal.tion Ixhibit 10)
19. Th.t on Auquat 27, 1992, the part i.. h.ld th.i~ naxt
ba~q.lninq ....10n. Th. Di.triat pl:'..antld a 23-p.qe propo.al dat.d
Ma~ah 199~. Thl prcpo.al w.. tor. aollaatlv. b.rq.ininq aq~e.ment
with . th~"-y..r t.rm b'9inninq on the d.t. of it. .xecution. Th.
P~opo..l inelud.d chlnq" to tha p.~ti..',1989-1992 l'Jr..m.nt a.
tollowl' a Ip.citlc hourly rat. ot pay in' ~i.u ot p'~, di.m PlY tor
.umm.r wo~k, the .limination of r.imbur..m.nt. to voaational in.trua-
tO~1 fo~ cOll.q. ar.dit. .arnad beyond 24, an inar.... in the wo~kd.y,
Umitinq 1:'.1mbun.m.nt tor attendinq prot...ionil m..tinql to tho..
oaaa.lon. wh.n att.nd.nc. wa. raquil:'.d by'th. Di.triat and chanqinq
p~.p.r.tion p.riod. trom on. p.r d.y to tive pel:' wa.k. Nona of tho..
propo..d oh.nq.. h.d b..n ~.i..d by the Di.t~iat to th.t point ln
tim.. (N.T. I 48-ee, 58-60, 62-63, II 19-21, 24, 39-42, 44-45, 7&,
A..ociation Ilxhibit 9)
20. That in Septemb.r 1992 Mr. KUlikoaky" pay cheak
lnclud'd pay tOI:' work a. a t.am advi.or. (N.T. I 109)
21. Th.t in Nov.mbar 1992 MI:'. ~ulikoaky info~mad ~h.
A..oai.tion" b.rqllninq aommitt.. that ha WI' b.inq paid tcr work ..
. team advi.or, (N,T. 1 110-111, 115)
22. That Hr, KuHko.ky wu .w.r. of the Dilt~iat'a obl,iq.-
tlon to barqlin the f'y to~ work p.~fo~.d by m.mb.... of the barqaln-
lnq unit. (N.T. I 117)
.
e
...
"
\
o
23. That the partle. are currently n.qot~atlnq the .alarle.
tor the dean ot .tud.nt. and t.am advi..r po.ition.. (N.T, II 64-67)
DISCUSSION
Th. A..ociation ha. charqed that the Dl.trlct eommitt.d
untal~ praetie.. within the meaning ot S.etLon. 1201(a)(1), 1201(a)(2)
and 1201(a)(6) ot the Aat by plaainq in a local new.pap.~ an adver-
ti.em.nt which ml.repra.ent.d the .tat'~. ot ne;otiation. betw..n the
part i.. tor a .uce...or aollactiv. ba~9aininq aqre.ment, by rai.in;
new i..u.. at b'~qaininq ta~le w.ll att.r n.qotiatlan. had commenced
.nd by unilaterally .ettinq the .alarie. tor ce~t.in ba~;aininq unit
po.ition. to~ the 1992-93 .ahool year.
Th. Di.trict ha. an.w.red that the aha~q. .hould b. di.mi..ed
becau.e the adverti.ement did not mi.r.pre.ent the .tatu. ot
n.qotiatlon., b.cau.. the n.w i..ue. it propo..d w.re p~a..nt.d in due
cou~.. and b.aau.. tha A..ociation aqr..d to the .ala~i.. ..t tor the
barqainlnq unit po.ition. at i..u..
Th. Board will find an .mploy.~ in violation ot Section.
1201(a)(1) and 1201(a)(6) ot the Aat it durin; neqotiation. the
.mploye~ "direat[ly) or indirectly. . . unde~cutl'l the autho~lty ot
the employee' duly .el.cted ~apre.entative, o~ f~aqmentl'l the unity
ot the barqainln; unit" wh.n it aommunieate. It. barqaininq po.ition
to ite amploye.. ~ ..dtord Sahool ~t~iat, 7 PPIR 194, 195
(Ni.i Deei.ion and Ord.r, 1976). It, however, the cammuniaation at
i..u. oacur. atter a braakdown ill neqotiation., i. non-eoeraiv. in
phra.inq and do.. not mi.~ep~...nt the po.ition. of the partle., th.n
the Board vi.w. it a. an .x.~ei.e ot fr.e .peeah and will not find the
.mp10yer in violation of the Act tor havinq mad. it. WLlliam.Dort
AlIA lehcol pL.trLct, 6 'PIR 57 (Ni.i Deal.ion and Orda~, 1915). Th.
laa~d employ. the .am. analyei. when the communiaatlan at i..u. i.
m.da throuqh the media. C.nt.nnial School ~.triet, 9 PPIR , 9085
(Nl.l Deci.lon and O~der, 197e). Oth.r lab~~ bo.~dl do, too.
Iraokdal, community Col1ea., 17 NJPER , 22043 (New Jer..y PERC, 1ge9),
School Di.trLet g1 111 County, 12 FPER , 17350 (Florida PIRC, 1ge6).
The A"aciatlon aontend. that the Dl.trict communiaation at
i.lue -- . new.p.per adverti.ement repr...ntinq that the A.aociaeian
had been unwillin; to eon.ider an otte~ by the Di.trlat that inaluded
"an informal a;reem.nt not to turlouqh teacher. durin; the 1992/93
.ahool yea~. -- underaut it. authorlty ae the exalullv. r.pre..ntativa
ot the Dl.triat'. .mploye. beaau.. the Di.trict never mad. that ofter,
Th. A..oelation'. aontention mu.t be r.jaeted.
Th. record .howl that at a barqaininq ....ion on May 4, 1992,
the Di.triat pre.ented tou~ p~opoeitlone, the thi~d ot which wa. tor
an aq~eement under whieh there would be no reduation Ln torce. The
9
~
;~
~
..
~'cor.d al.o .how. that the Di.trict only placId the adv.rtL..m.nt
~.tl.otinq~hat otfer after n.~atiatiQn. hadbrok.n down and .chool
waa about to b.qin. Und.r the alra~.tana.., the adv.rti..m.nt mu.t
b. vlew.d a. an ,x.rel.a ot tr.. 'P'lch Py th~Dl.t~ict. Clntennial
lahoDl Di.triot, ~, William'DOr~ Alaa Ichool DLltriet, ~.
In arqulnq for a aontrary r.,ult, the A..oalatlon pO'it. that
the Di.trict" t..timony and doaum.ntary efL~.na. that it'prllpo..d an
agr..m.nt with no reduction in tora. 'hou1d rtot be or.dit.d fo~ ..v-
aral ~.a.on.. 'irst, the A..oaiation point. OUt that the Dl.triat did
not d.t.nd the aharq. on thi, ba.i. ln it. an.w.~. A. a Clo.. r.vi.w
ot that anaw.~ ~,v.al., the 8i.trLat ave~~.d that the "into~mal
aqr..ment" ~.f.~.naad in the adVerti.lm.nt waa p~e"nt.d in the torm
of a "q.ntl.man" aqr..m.nt," A. a 010.. r.vi.w of that "q.ntleman'.
aqr..ment"' ~av.al., it only 'p.ak. to the procedu~.. tov fU~10uqhin9
t.ach.~., it ha~dly aon.titut.. an agr..m.nt, torma1 or into~al, not
to turlouqh them. I.eond, the A..oeiation poLnt. out that wh.n the
Di.triat'. ahief ne~otiatoi propel.d an aqr..ment .with no r.duation
in torae," n.ither the A..oaiation" chief .poka,p.~.on, Pr..id.nt nor
ahi.f n.qotiator und.ratood him to m.an that tha~. would be no t.ach.r
furlouqh.. A. th.y all ta.titi.d, th.y thouqht the phra.. "no ~.duQ-
tion in fOra." m.ant that th.~. would be no reduotion in tore. alau..
a. propo..d by the A..oaiation. Third, the A..ooiation point. out
that the DL.triat'. ahi.t naqotiator, who kn.w that furlough. we~e ot
aonc.rn to the A'.ociation, r.ad an A.aociation new.l.tt.r that mad.
no m.ntion of a Di.triot offar not to tu~louqh t.aahera y.t did not
intorm the A..ociatlon that it had mi.r.p~.'.nt.d the Di.t~lct" bar.
qainlnq Po.ition. Th. t..timony of A',ociatian and Di.trict witn...e.
alik., how.v.r, wa. in agr.em.nt that the Di.triet pra.ented an ofter,
alb.it on. ml.under.tood by the A'.oaiatlon witn....., that inalud.d
tha phra.. "no ~.duction in force." That b.inq the aa.e, it i. diffi-
cult to aonalud. that the Di.triat mi.r'pr...nted the .tatu. of n.qo-
tiatlon. wh.n it plac.d the adv.vti..m.nt, the ave~ment. of it. an.w.r
and the lil.na. of it. ahL.t n.qotiator notwlth.tandinq. Aaaordlnqly,
the A..oalation'. arqum.nt ha. b..n r.j.cted.5
5At the '.eond day of h.arinq, in an .tfort to 'how that the Di.triat
wa. prone to mi'~.Pr".nting the .tatu. of n.qatiation., the
A',ooiation moved tor the introduation into ,vid.ne. ot a new.pap.r
articl. r'portinq on the raaotion ot the Di.trict.. ahi.t neqotilto~
to ..ttl.ment di,cu.aion. whiah pr.c.ded the tir.t day ot h.arinq
(A,.ociation Exhibit 13). Th. motion wa. d.nild on the qround that
the articl. wa. irr.levant (N.T, II 71.72). Unlika With the adver-
ti..m.nt, Which wa. .hown to hay. b..n plao.d by the Di.trict'.'ahief
n'qutiator, th.r. wa. no .howing that the ahilt n.qotiator. d.t.rmin.d
the aont.nt ot the articl.. Mor,ov.r, the Di.trict'. chi.t n'qotiato~
te.titi.d that the artial. COntain.d numlrou. mi.quote. (N.T. II
61-67). Acaordinqly, no r.liana. ha. b..n plac.d on that articl..
10
.~
,....,
. "
The loud will find an .mployar in violation ot aecHon.
1201(a)(1) and l~Ol(a)(&) ot the Aat it the .mployer do.. IIQt "make a
.erlou. ettort to reeolve ditterance. and r.aQh . common qround."
ADD..l of Oumh.~1.nd V.ll.
.
.J
/'"
t-,
The reaord .how. that bU'1aining b.gan In January 199~ wh.n
the A..oaiation prl..nted ita initial propo.all that the Di.triQt'.
~e.pon.. to that p~opo.al wa. a reque.t to~ barqain~ng ove~ a limltld
numb.r ot i..ue., that the A..oaiat~on honor.d th.t r.que.t by pr.-
..ntinq a t~unaat.d propo.all that the Di.trict th.~eatt.r pre..nt.d
tour p~opo.ition., one ot whiah wa. not to re.pond to the
A..ociation'. initial propo.al baaau.. ot it. co.t and lanqth, the
other threa ot which wire on a taka it o~ leav. it ba.i., that the
~..oci.tion then p~..ent.d a counterp~opo.al whiah the Di.t~iat
rej.cted, and that the Di.trict dld not pr...nt a propo.al aontaininq
the i..ue. which ar. the .ubj.et ot the charqa until A11l1u.t 27, 1992,
which wa. atte~ m.diation had eomm.nc.d and the t.~m ef the partia.'
1989-1992 aoll.ativ. barllaininq aqr.em.nt had expi~.d,
On thi. r.aord, it mu.t be uonaluded that the Di.trlat vio-
lated it. barqaininq obligation a. aha~q.d, Althouqh it ha. been
teund a. taat that throughout neqotiation. the Dietrict ~.t.rena.d a
lenllthy p~opo.al ot it. awn, that tact i. of, dubioue valu. glven the
fact that the Di.tr.iat',\Ook .0 long to pre.ant it. By the time it
did, mediation had comm*na.d and the partia. 1989-1992 eolleativ. bar-
qaininq aqr.em.nt had expir.d. The pre..ntatlon ot n.w i..ua. at that
time would hay. the obviou. .tt.et ot t~u.trating negotiation. and
th.r.to~e militate. again.t a tinding that the Di.t~ict wa. .e.king to
~..ulve diftar.nc.. and reaoh a common ~~uund. Mor.over, the tact
that the Diatrict durinq ne'1otiation. over the A..ociation'. truneat.d
prapo.al only p~..ent.d propo.ition. ot it. own on a take it or l.ave
it ba.i. aa.t. doubt on the ea~n.atne.. with whiah it pur.ued ite
avowad qoal of .t~.amlin1nq n.qotiationa. rinally, while .ach ot the
naw i..uaa rai..d by the Di8t~ict may blot a minor natu~. .tanding
alon., they con.titute a al.a~ impediment to neqotiation. .tanding
toq.th.r.
Neither Caribou School DftDartm.nt ~ Caribou T.acher.
Aa.oailtion, 402 A.2d 1279 (M., 1929), nor Public Imolov.a.
Allcciation Q1 Tulare County, 1nQ~ ~ IQAld g1 aUDerviaor. A1 Tulare
county, 167 Cal, App. 3d 797, 213 Cal, Rptr. 491 (1985), nor IkBI ~
~ !naland ~ Ca.tina Ccmoanv, 242 r.2d 759, 39 LRRM 2616 (~d Cir.
1957), which the Di.trict cit.. in it. b~iet, compel. a contrary
n.ult. In c,ribqu, an employer waa tound in violation ot ita bar-
qaininq obliqation b.cau.e it br.aehed agread upon qround rulea tor
blrllaininq wh.n it introduc.d naw ie.ue. Aft.r it had pre.ented it.
initial prapo.al, Although no .ueh qround rul.. wer. broached by the
Di.triat har., that tact i. ot no moment given the other fact. noted
abova. In Tulare, an employer wa. not tound in violation ot it.
bargaining obl1Cj/atj,on when it pn..ntad an ott.~ with la.. pay than an
.Irli.r otter beeau.. the reduction in pay WI' ot a mlno~ nature.
Aqain, qiven the numbar ot the new i..ue. rai..d by the Di~trict, the
tact that each may be mlnor in nature .tandinq alone al.o i. of no
moment. In ~ Enaland Qla Ca.tina Comoanv, an .mploy.~ wa. tound in
violation ot it. barqalnlnq obliqation beaau.e it rai.ed new i..u..
12
r"','
r-
a,t.r .aaurinq the union that it would
a"urlna.a w.re qlv.n by the Dhtriet,
p~...nt it. naw i..u.. tor .uoh . lonq
.am_ tindlnq a. ln th.t.a....
, Th. 'o.~d wl11 tlnd an .mploy.r ln vio1atlon ot ..atlona
1201(a)(1) and 1201(aj(5) of the Act it the amp1oye~ unil.t.rally a.t.
the waq.. tor b.~q.inin9 unit work. ~-~ll&n sahoo1 IQ&[d X4
~ommonw..1th, lLBI, 12 'a. Commonw..lth Ct. 323, 316 A.2d 114 (1974),
Th. .mploy.r i. und.r an atti~.tiv. obliq.tion to initi.t. ba~qainin9
with the .xe1uaiv. r.pr...ntativ. of the barq.ininv unit b.for. it
p.y. auah waq.., Wlm Thora. AEaI Scheo1 Di.triat, 21 PPER I 21021
(rlnal Ord.r, 1989). If tha .mploy.r r..ch.. .q~eament with .n aq.nt
ot the .xclu.iv. r.pr...ntativ. with the .pp.r.nt author~tY to bind
the r.pre..ntativ., th.n the .mploy.~ doe. not aat unil.t.rally wh.n
it tollow. the .qr..m.nt, and no untair pr.ctia. may be tound und.r
tha aireum.tana.s. ~Dmmon~.alth g1 P.nn.vlv.nia, 24 PPIR I 24055
(rinal O~der, 1993), ',<1,
not do .0. Althouqh no .uoh
the tlat that it dld not
p.riod ot time .upport. the
" Th. Di.t~ict eontand. th.t the w.qe. it ha. p.id .mployea to~
w.s'rkin9 ill the po.ition. ot dun ot .t;ud.nta .nd t.1llI Idvi..u an
.x.ctly .. the A..oaiation .qr..d to wh.n it. ahi.f neqotiator and
pr.aid.nt dlaau...d th.m with the Di.triat'. cu~r.nt .uparint.nd.nt.
Th. Di.t~ict'. aont.ntion muat b. ~.ject.d, th.r. bain9 no evid.na. ot
.uch an .qr..m.nt.
Th. r.aord .how. that the Di.t~ict" .uperint.nd.nt ~eached
.qr.em.nt with the Aa.oeiation" p~..id.nt or chi.t na90tiatQ~ not to
m.ke the .alarie. for the poaitiona at 1..u. pa~t ot the neqotiationa
tor . 'uoc...o~ aoll.etiv. barq.ininq aq~..ment. By the
.up.~intend.nt'. own t.atimony, how.v.r, he kn.w th.t h. did not hay.
.n .qr..m.nt on tho.. ..1.~i.. .nd th.t th.y ultimat.ly would hay. to
ba barqainad (N.T. I 133). Tha r.oord al.o .how. that wh.n the
Di.triat'. .up.~int.nd.nt dieau...d tho.. ..ll~i.. with the
A..ociation'. pr..id.nt .nd chl.t n.qotiator the parti.. we~. .ubj.ct
to . aolleative ba~q.inlnq provl.ion r.quirinq moditiaationa to lt to
b. in w~itinq and that th.y had ob.arv.d th.t ~equir.m.nt wh.n the
po.ition ot h.ad t..eh.r w.. are.t.d in the paat. In vi.w of the
.up.rintand.nt'. t..timony and b.a.u.. the ..l.~iea for the po.ition.
at i..u. WI~' not aq~..d to in writinq, it ha. been conclud.d that
th'y were aet unilaterally. Acco~dinqly, the Di.trlct mu.t be tound
ln violation of it. barqaininq obliq.tion .. cha~v.d.
.
one final point. Th. Di.trict cont.nde th.t in .ddr.e.inq
the ma~it. ot the Ae.oaiation'. eharql att.ntion .hould ba paid to the
t.at that lt wa. til.d one day ahy ot tour month. .tt.~ the
adv.~ti..m.nt at i.aue .ppear.d in the n,wlp.p.r. ot aour.., und.r
.action lDO& ot the Act, 43 P.8. . 1101.1505, the Bo.rd only ha.
juriadlation to redr... aOllduat which OCCUrl withln tour month. ot
wh.n the charqinv party knew or .hould have known that .n unfair
practiae wa. committ.d. Thom.. X4 APscur, 101 Pa. Commonwealth Ct.
13
20
8
"
I"
I" I'
" II
" I, ,\ "
,
i'l
!'
I,
,I , I
;'1
1',' 1'\
" "
, !
(\ 'i. , ,:1
~ ~, I
~ "
'~ " "I
s:) ~ "
'" ,
~ 'ft, I
I
~ ~
, "
I, ill "
I
,,'
',1'1
II
'i
"'1'/
"
.,
'l'
"
I
I
I
1
"
"
I
,; I.
~
.c'..'IIIJolll..IlooI'......"..
~
f"'l\
..
PARENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION,
INC.,
O. Fr.nk Elch.lb.rg.r,
H.nry W. Tr.nlng.r, .nd
LuAnn Wlgn.r, Rldgl.y K.
SnYd.r, Sr., Cynthl' P. Varn.r,
Hilary H. Albright,
John p, Durnin, Chari.. E. Swllh.r,
John W. Pltt.ng.r, and Ruth B. Ronn.n,
Petltlon.r.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLlAI OP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNIYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
v.
NO. (,"', CIVIL 1884
EARL M. BARNHART,
DALE 0, HARTZELL, JR. and
OERALD E. EBY,
PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS OF CARLISLE AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT
R..pondtntl
NAI.U.8EJ)EA.D.EM.Ufi8EB
Petitioners fall to set forth a cause of action, Petlllon8rs assert two erroneous reasone thet
the R8spondents have neglected their duty:
(1) Thattha R8spond8nts havEI a mr:lndatory duty to contract with the
labor union, regardleso of terms, when no such duty exists; and
(2) That the Respondents have breach8d a duty to employ teachers
as ellt forth In School Code 51106, when the Petition and exhibit
make clear that BlIl11embers of th81abor organlzBtlon, CAEA, JlI
8mploY8es of the School Olstrlcl.
,
~ f",
PRAICIPI rOil ~'J'ING CASI rOR ARqllMlllN:t
(....t blr typewJ;:l.tten IIIld IUbnitted in t'II'PIll'-8te)
TO THI PROTHONOTARY or CUMBERLANO COUNTYI
ple8Ie ~t tbIt w:l.t.hin IIlIItter for tJ. next ~t Oaurt.
..........-----..----..---....----......------............--..-----......------------........--'"---....-----------......""
CAPTION or CASB
(lntin c:.tpI:ion ....t be state in full)
PARENTS f'OI\ QUALJ'l'V EDUCATION, INC.,
G. FRANK (,;ICllELDERGJ!:R, IIENRV W.
TREFFINGEll, and LUANN WAGNEll,
RIDGLEV K. SNVDER, SR., CVN'l'1I1A p,
VARNER, HILARV 11. ALBRLGII'l', JOliN P.
DURNIN, CllAHLJ!:S n:. SIIISIIEH, JOliN
W. PITTENGER, and RU'l'1I B. RONNI\N,
PetitIoners,
VB.
BAHL M. DIIRNIIART, DALE O. 1lI\R'1'ZELL,
JR., and GERI\LD E. EDV,
Respondents.
"1,
,,'
':''4l
-
,
., '
. .'
.'
I' ',I"
~ I'..
'".
'-.f.,
.n
C>
~
..
~
(Defendllnt~
~. bfi{.,
C:l.vU
19 94
1. State IIlIItter to be lIX9J8d (i.e., plAintiff's Imticn for ... trial, defendllnt'.
daIurrer to ~t, etc.)1 Respondent's Preliminary Objections in
tho nature of a Demurrer to Petitioners Petition.
2. Identify COUIW8l Wlo will 4J:9.l8 easel
(a) for plaJ.ntiffl Arthur'!'. McDermott
Mlh_1 50 J!:ast lIigh Stroot
Carlisle, PA l701J
(b)
fur defendant I J ame s lJ.
Mlh_1 11 East lIigh
Carlisle, PA
P' lower,
Street
l70lJ
Plower, ~Iorgenthal, Flower &
Lindsay
3. I will notify aU partiell in writing within t:'tlO d.ays that thiI C8H 11M
t.en ~t:ed for IIX'gl.IIWIt.
4. ~t 0CUrt \lIItel May 25, 1994
PLOVlEll, MORGl:N'l'llIlL, PLOWEll, & r"INDSAV
\lilted I
Pebruury 11, 1994
.,
, .\s
Jr.,~
;"1
~
..
lie
"-
It)
.:.1',
,....'
,
-J
.11
i........
I;'
;~.~
,II'"
.,J I'
'I
i-I
"
1'1
v
,I
I
,
I'
I
I,
, .
,
,
1);
"
-1,1
II
"
I"
j 'I
,
"
"
",1
,
, ,
"
"
"
,
.~-
I,
1,1
I'
"
I. ,
I
'I
"
"
"', i.1
I
II,
"
, '
,
;1;1
,
<II
JI)l/1
:J 1]', :Ii 1911
"
,
I,;,
1!,. I \~~
" , ,I Y,
, ,
I,."
"
.'. .'
;"
i'
I
,
I
I'
'I
"II
I
"
,
"
'1'1
"
,I
t'
'I'i
"
I
I,
"
"
I
I
"
'I
II
, ,
ill
'I
I,
:'
'I
1
,
"
..-'
I
I,
I'"
,
"
,
I,
I~i
~
Arthur T. HoDermott,
50 I..t Hi9h Street
Carli.le, PA 17013
Attorney for Petitioner.
/....)..-
Beq. -/.-,' V
cd'll ,1'1'~
'1',1
Jam.. D. Flower, Jr.,
11 .a.t Hi9h Street
Carli.le, PA 17013
Attorney for Re.pondent.
Iro
"
'I
i,lo
"
I,
'I;
,'1,
, 1
a.q. J""'41
jl' D
~Af'(J ,/~ t,V
-1 _,t'
" L
;,1'
"
I
"
I'
,
1
,
"
I'
, I
I
,I
i,l)
I'
\,
,
"I
I
I ,
II ,
I
'.j
ii,
I;
'I,
I,
I
'I
.........,
,....
PARINTS FOR QUALITY
IOQCATION, INC.,
G. Frank eichelberger,
"enry W. Treffinger, and
LuAnn Wagner, Ridgley K.
Snyder, Sr., Cynthia P.
Varner, "ilary H. Albright,
John P. Durnin, Charlea m.
Swiaher, John W. Pittenger,
and Ruth B. Ronnan,
petitionen
IN THI COURT OF COMMON PLIAS or
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PINNSYLVAHIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IARL M. BARNHART,
OALI O. HARTZELL, JR., and
GlRALD I. EBY,
Re.pondents
94-606 CIVIl. TIRN
IN RB. RESPONDENTS' PR!~IMJNARY OBJECTION
BBFOR! SHEELY. P.J.. and OLER. J.
OPINION and ORDER OF ~UBI
Oler, J.
The present oase was commenced by the filing of a petition
requesting removal of three public achool board directora for an
alleged bre4ch of duty to oontract. For dieposition at thia time
ia Respondents' preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer.
For the nasons atated in this Opinion, the demurrer muat be
auatained.
Statement of Fact.
The fact. involved in this ca.. may b. summarized as follows.
Petitionera inolude ten tax-paying resident. of the Carliale Area
Sohool Oiltriot.1 Reapondente are elected membera of the Carlisle
Area School Board and compri8e a three-person negotiating team for
1
Petition, paragraphs 1-10.
-1-
.-...
r--.
the .ahool board.a
~he Petition .tate. that it i. filed under the authority of
Seotion 318 of the Public Sohool Code, and ..ek. rell\Oval of
Re.p~ndent. "for their refu.al or neglect to perform their
mandatory duty to contract with profe.eional employee. (to wit,
teachere)
tt. .
"J
Petitionere ae.ert that Re.pondent. have not complied with
Section 1106 of the Public School Code becauee R..pondente have
failed "to employ the necenary profe.donal employee. to keep the
public echool. open in the Carlide Area School Dietrict."l In
thi. regard, Petitioner. aver that as of Augu.t, 1992, the contract
between Carli.le Area Sohool Diatrict and ita teachen expired, and
that no new contract ha. been entered into.' Petitioners allege
that the rea. on that no new contract hat been entered into i. that
bad-faith neqotiatinq tactic. have been utilized by the Board.'
However, "the Petitione::. concede that the teachere are 'working'
J
Petition, paragraph. 11-13.
J Petition, introductory .tatement, "ee Act of Harch 10,
1949, P.L. 30, 5318, as amended, 24 P.S. 53-318.
4 Petition, paraqraph 14, see Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30,
51106, .. amended, 24 P.B. 511-1106.
I Petition, paragraph 16. Although pren report. indicate
that an aqreement hat been reached with re.pect to a new contract
dnce oral argument wu held in thia matter[ nothing to thil eUect
hat been filed of record and neither coun.el hat filed a .ugge.tion
of mootne...
1
Petition, paragraph. 19-21, 24-25.
-2-
(""0,
,-.
and the .ohool. are currently open
. . II ,
117
Re.pondente filed a preliminary obj.ction to the petition for
removal. The preliminary objection .tate. the following I
P.titioner. fail to .et forth a oau.e of
aotion. Petitioner. a,.ert two erron.ou.
rea.ona that the Rll.pondent. have neglected
their dutYI
( 1) That the Re.pondent. have a
mandatory duty to oontract with the
labor union, regardle.. of term.,
when no .uoh duty exi.t., and
(2) That the a..pond.nt. have
bnaohed a duty to employ teacher.
a. .et forth in Sohool Code 51106,
when the PotJ.tion and exhibit make
olear that all member. of the labor
organization! CASA, llU .mployee. of
the School Dlstrict.'--
In .upport of the demurrer, R..pond.nt. oontend that the duty
impo.ed upon them by .tatute 11 an oblig"tion to employ rather than
a re.ponlibility to oontract.' They maintain further that they
have not breaohed their duty to employ, heoau.e the individual
teachere are employed. 10
Statement of Law
With re.pect to ae.pondent.' demurrer to t.he petition for
r.moval, oertain pointe of law are pertinent.
>>-ir.t, AI to a
1 Plaintiff'. Brief in R..pon.e to Defendant'. Preliminary
Objeotion., at 19.
· a..pondent.' Preliminary Objection in the Natuu of a
De~urrer (empha.i. in original).
.
at 5.
a..pondente' Brief on It. Demurrer to Plaintiff.' Petition,
10
at 5.
ae'pondent.' Brief on It. Demurrer to Plaintifh' Petition,
.3-
J"
"",",
I'"
d.murrer in general/it i8 well .ettled in P.nm.ylvania that "[ t J h.
qu..tion pre.ented by a demurrer ie whether/ on the fact. av.rr.d,
the l.w "Y. with certainty that no reoovery i. po.dbl. ...."
Soarpitti v. Weborg/ 530 Pa. 366, 369, 609 A.2d 147, 148 (1992).
S.oond, Seotion 318 of the Sohool Code provide. ..
follow. I
If the board of Ichool directorl in any
diltriot ... refule or negl.ot to p.rform any
duty impo..d upon it br the provi.ion. of thi.
act r.lating to .ohoo di.triot. ... any ten
redd.nt taxpayon in the dhtrict ... may
pr..ent their petition in writing/ verified by
the oath or affirmation of at lea.t three .uch
re.ident taxpay.r. ,.. to the oourt of oommon
plea. of the county in whioh .uoh dietriot i.
looated, .etting forth the faot. of .uch
refueal or negleQt of duty on the part of .uoh
.ohool dir.otor..... If the oourt .hall be of
the opinion that any duty impo.ed on the board
of .chool director., whioh h by the
providon. of thi. aot made mandatory upon
them to perform, ha. not been done or ha. been
negleoted by them, the court .hall have pow.r
to remove the board ... and appoint for the
unexpired term. other qualified per.on. in
th.ir .tead' .ubject to the provi.ion. of thi.
aot. II
Third, Seotion 1106 of the Publio Sohool Cod. .tat.. the duty
that i. the .ubject of the pre.ent dhpute I "The board of .ohool
direotore in every .chool dhtriot .hall employ the n.c....ry
qu.lifi.d profe..iona! employe., .ub.titute. and t.mpor.ry
profe..iolla! employe. to keep the public Ichool. open in their
re.p.otive dietrict. in oomplianoe with the provilion. of thh
II Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, 5318, 11.. amended, 24 p...
13-318.
-4-
""""
r-..
act."U
In thl. regard, it ha. been noted that "the underlying purpo..
of the Sohool Code i. to aid the children of the Commonwealth to
obtain a better education. The ..parat. .eotion. of the oode all
derive their in.piration from thl. .ourc..
Though contain1ng
individual polioie. in them.elve., each l. .ubordinate to thl.
cardinal purpo..." Hornell v. Ht. Carmel Twp. Sah. Di.t., 23
Northumberland L.J. 90, 94, a/f'd sub nom., Hornell v. Xane, 368
Pa, 173,81 A.2d 542 (1951).
Fourth, .everal rule. of .tatutory con.truotion are of
a..i.tanoe herein.
"['1')he objeot of all interpretation and
oon.truotion of .tatute. is to a.certain and effectuate the
intention of the aeneral Assembly. "'I
"When the word. of a .tatute are olear and free from all
llIIIbiguity, the letter of it l. not to be dl.regarded under the
pretext of purlluing it. .pirit. ,,14 "Word. and phr.... [are to) b.
con.trued ... aooording to their oommon and approved u.age
. . . .
,,11
"When the word. of a .tatute are not explicit, the intention
of the General A'Bembly may be a.oertained by con.idering, among
other matter.a
U Act of Maroh 10, 1949, P.L. 30, 51106, as amended, 24 P.B.
511-1106.
II Act of Deoember 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, 53, 1 Pa. C.8.A.
51921(a) (1994 Supp.).
u Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, 53, 1 Pa. C.B.A.
S1921(b) (1994 Supp.).
II Act of Deoember 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, '3, 1 Pa. e.S.A.
S1903(.) (1994 Supp.).
-5-
3~
i""',
r""'.
(3) The milohief to be remedied.
(4) The objeot to be obtained." U
rUth, it h.. been held that "[a] written oontraot ... [iI]
not ... di.pooitive of th,. iI.ue of an employee' 0 .tatuo." Platko
v. Laurel Highlande Soh. Diet., 49 Pa. Commw. 210, 2l4w215, 410
A.2d 960, 963 (1980).
Applioation of Law to Faot.
An applioation at the foregoing point. of law to the taot. of
the pre.ent oa.e lead. to a oonolu.ion that Petitionero' petition
for removol at Reopondent. tram offioe .hould not be gunted.
rir.t, the oommon meaning of the word "employ" i. ao followo,
"provide with II job that pay. waglt. or a .alary .... ,,17 Sinoe one
oan provide another with a job that PIlY' wllge. or II .alary without
the exi.tenoe of a formal, written oontraotual Ilgreement, it would
.eem that in OOlN1lCln ulllge one oan "employ" even though there il no
formal oontraot governing that employment.
Seoond, the milohief to be remedied by the aot oan be
ameliorated even though no oontrllotual agreemont il preoent. The
publio lohool. in the Carliele Area Sohool Di.triot have been kept
open in the ablenoe ot a formal oontraot.
Third, the objeot to be obtained by the aot can be aohieved
even if the teaohen are not employed under a formal, written
oontract. Having a tormal oontract with the teaohen, while highly
11 Aot ot Deoember 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, 53, 1 Pa. C.S.A.
51921(0)(3), (4) (1994 Supp.).
17 Web.ter'. New Third International Dictionary 743 (1963).
-6-
PYS51Q
1994-'00606
Cumberl, ""ld County ProthonotarY'1I Or'ice Page
vil CItIlO InquIry
PETI'1'ION
1
f'i 1 ad. , I , . , . , .
:IIO!{U
Judge AII81 gned I
Judgment I
OLER J WESLEY JR
.00
Super lor. Co
EXElcut!on Date
Sat/DlIl/Gntd. ,
Jury '1'r1al. . . .
0/00/00
0/00/00
..........................~......................~~~.~.....~~~...~..............
General Index Attorney Info
fA~ENTS FOR QUAI,ITY EDUCA'l'ION PETI'l'IONER MCDERMO'r'\' ARTHUR T
Ail ~R~~~EnE~R~R~NK ~ ~1~I8~~! ~gB~~~8~~ ~~~nH~ ~
Ai E ~~I~~EY ~ SR ~ ~IH8g~R ~~g~~ 8~~ ~~i"H~ T
~R IH~ I~lfty H ~ tI~18N~iR MgD~~ 8~~ ~~T"~I ~
i RJ~ ~RftES E ~ n~li~~ ~ggll 8fT ~~f~ t
OE JO N W PETITI MCD OTT ART T
o R TH PETITI MCD OTT ART T
~ ~~TDlr.~LOMJR ~~~~8ti ~i1 ~~8 ~ ~~~~ 0 ~
B ERALo E RESPONoAftT FLOW R AMES 0 R
... .~............~~......~......~.........~....~~.......~.......~..............
· Date Entr1ell .
...................~...................~........~~......~.......................
02/09/94 PETIT~ON FOR REMOVAL OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF CARLISI,E AREA SCHOOL
!j~TR CT
ILED J WESLEY OLER JR J
~~llt~llli fI INARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER
I ~C eE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMEN'1'
I ~ Sph?aNIIN8.'oR~~~ICfN HE I RESPONDENTS PRELIMINARY OB,JECTION -
BY JUDGE J WESLEY OLER JR
.............*...~.*......~*.....*.......~.~....................................
· Escrow Informat~on .
· Fees Debits Be Ba 1 P mtll/ Ad End Bal .
.......t........................i........~...... ...............................
i~~TO~~~~fITION
~~~ItION
JJ~
3t~~
~n
45,50 45,50 .00
................................................................................
· End of Calla Information .
......*.........................................~...............................
TRUE COpy PROM m:CORD
In Testimony Wiwrool, IlllIrlllUlW 'lllf ~ MId
ond the seral (If 'A'l1(j GI)UIt at C.uliee, PI,
~III I II..- d /' !jf!'"
;,8 _._ _ a}' 1i',...'4.~, 1 ~
,;~r 1.1, )r{L~t!..I..-,- ..({t""{~
' Prolhorlolllry ,
,-....,
the .chool boa~d.~
The Petition .tate. that it il filed unde~ the authority of
Section 318 of the Public School Code, and .eok. ~emoval of
Rupundent. "for their rllfuld or n.glec:lt to perform their
mandatory duty to c:lontnct with profe..iond .mploye.. (to wit,
t04chen)
....
"I
I'etitionen anert that Relpondent. have not complied with
Section 1106 of the Public School Cod. becaulle Re.pondent. have
tailod "to employ the nece..ary profe..ional employeel to keep the
public .chooll open in the Carli de Area School Dietdct... In
thie regard, Petitioner. aver that a. of Augult, 1992, the contract
between Carlhle Area School Dietrict and itl teacher. expired, and
that no new contract hat been entered into.' p.titioner. allege
that the rea. on that no new contract hat been entered into i. that
bad-faith negotiating tactic. have been utilized by the Poard.1
However, "tha Petitioner. concede that the teacher. are 'working'
Petition, paragraphs 11-13.
I Petition, introductory .tatementl aee Act of Harch 10,
1949, p.L. 30, 5318, as amended, 24 p.S. 53-318.
· Petition, paragraph 141 .ee Act of Harch 10, 1949, P.L. 30,
51106, as amended, 24 1'.8. 511-1106.
, Petition, paragraph 16. Although pre.. report. indicate
that an agreement ha. been reached with re.pect to a new contract
lince oral argument wae held in this matter, nothing to thi. effect
hat been filed of record and neither coun.el hat filed. .ugge.tion
of mootne...
I
Petition, paragraph. 19-21, 24-25.
-2-
I'
and the Ichools are currently open
. . . .
",
Reepondent. filed a preliminary objeotion to the petition for
removal. The preliminary objeotion Itatee the following.
petitionere fail to eet forth a caule of
action. petitionerl alltert two erroneous
realonl that the ReBpondents have negleoted
th.ir duty I
(11 That the R.lpondent. have a
mandatory duty to oontraot with the
labor union, regardle.. of term.,
when no .uoh duty exi.t., and
(21 That the Re.pondent. have
breached a duty to emfloy teaoher.
a. .et forth in Sohoo Code 51106,
when the Petition and exhibit ~ke
ol,ear that all m.lllben of the labor
orqanization, CABA, ~ employee. of
the Sohool Di.triat.
In .upport of the demurrer, Re.pondent. oontend that the duty
impo..d upon them by .tatute 11 an obligation to employ rather than
a re.ponlibility to contraot.' They ~intain further that they
have not broaohed their duty to employ, beoauBe the individual
teaoher. are employed .10
Statement of Law
With reepeot to Reepondentl' demurrer to the petition for
removal, oertain point. of law are pertinent.
Fir.t, as to a
, plaintiff' I Brief in Relponse to Defendant' I Preliminary
Objeotionl, at 19.
I Reapondentl' Preliminary Objeotion in the Nature of a
Demurrer (empha.il in original) .
,
at !S.
Re.pondent.' Brief on Ita Demurrer to Plaintiff.' Petition,
10
at !S.
Re.pondent.' Brief qn It. Demurrer to Plaintifh' Petition,
-3-
'.'.
('<
d.murnr in general, it h well ..ttled in Pennsylvania that · [t J h.
qu..tion pre.ent.d by a demurrer i. whether, on the facts averr.d,
the law ..y. with certainty that no tllcovery it po.sible ...."
ScupJ.ttJ. v. "eborg, 530 Pa. 366, 369, 609 A.2d 147, 148 (1992).
Second, Section 318 of the School Code provide. a.
followlI
If the board of .chool dir.ector. in any
di.trict ... rdu.e or neglect to perform any
duty impo..d upon it br !'ihe provhione of thb
aat relating to echoo dietricte ... any t.n
reddent taxpayen in the dietrict ... III&Y
pre.ent th.ir p.tition in writing, verifi.d by
the oath or affirmation of at l.a.t three .uah
r.eident taxpayer. ... to the court of COlllDlon
pl.a. of the county in which .uch di.trict i.
located, .etting forth the fact. of .uch
refu..l or neglect of duty on the part of .uch
.chool directon.... If the court .hall be of
the opinion that any duty impoeed on the board
of .chool directon, which h by the
providon. of thie act IlIAd. IllAndatory upon
th.m to perform, ha. not been donlt or hu b..n
n.glect.d by th.m, the court .hall have power
to remove the board ... and appoint for the
unexpired term. other qualified penon. in
th.ir .t.ad, .ubj.ct to the provieionl of thi.
act .11
Third, Section 1106 of the Public School Code .tatee the duty
that 1. the .ubject of the pres.nt dhpute I "The board of .chool
directore in ev.ry .chool dhtrict .hall employ the n.c....ry
qualified prof..eional employee, .ubstitutee and temporary
profe..ional employ.. to keep the public echoot. open in their
r'.pectiv. districts in complianc. with the providon. of thie
II Act of Maroh 10, 1949, P.L. 30, 5318, II amend.d, 24 p...
53-318.
-4-
(\
a<lt.-"
In thi. regard, it hlle b.en noted that" the underlying purpo.e
of the Sohool Code i. to aid the <lhildren of the Commonwealth to
obtain a better education. The .eparate .eotion. of th. <lode all
derive their in.pJ.ration frolD thh .our<le. Though containing
individual polici.. in thelD181v8l, each i. .ubordinate to thil
cardinal purpo.... Hornell v. Ht. Cllrmel 2Wp. Soh. DJ..t., 23
Northumberland L.J. 90, 94, .tt'd .uh nom., Hornell v. Kline, 368
Pa. 173, 81 A.2d 542 (1951).
Fourth, .everal rule. of .tatutory con.truation are of
a..htance herein. "(T]he object of all interpretation and
con.truction of .tatutelJ h to a.certain and effectuate the
intention of the General Al8embly." u
.When the word. of a .tatute are clear and free from all
ambiguity, the letter of it h not to be dhugarded under the
pretext of punuing it. epirie."u "Words and phraee. [are to] be
con.trued ... according to their oOll1ll\on and approved u14ge .....n
"When the word. of a atatute are not explicit, the intention
of the General A..embly may b~ ascertained by considering, among
other matterll
II Aot of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, 51106, liB amended, 24 P.S.
511-1106.
u Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, 53, 1 Pa. C.S.A.
51921(a) (1994 Supp.).
It Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, 53, 1 Pa. e.S.A.
11921(b) (1994 Supp.).
II Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, 53, 1 Pa. e.S.A.
51903(a) (1994 Supp.).
-5-
.....,.
f""'\
(3) The mi.chief to be remedied.
(4) The object to be obtained. ,,16
rifth, it ha. been held that "[al written contract ... [i.)
not ... di.po.itive of the i.sue of an employee" .tatu.." Pl.tko
v. Laurel Highl.nd, Soh. Di.t., 49 Pa. Commw. 210, 214-215, 410
A.2d 960, 963 (1980).
Apc1ic4tion of Law to Facta
An app1ioation of the foregoing point. of law to the fact. of
the pre.ent ca.e lead. to a oonclusion that Petitioner.' petition
for removal of R8Ipondent. from office .hould not be qranted.
Fir.t, the cOllllllon meaning of the word "employ" i. a. follow"
.provide with a job that pay. wages or a ulery .... "II Sino" one
can provide another with a job that pays wage. or a .alary without
the exi.tence of a formal, written contractual agreement, it would
.eem that in cOllllllon u.age one oan "employ. even though there i. no
formal contract governing that eniployment.
Seoond, the mischief to be remedied by the act can be
ameliorated even though no contractual agreem~nt i. pre.ent. The
publio .chools in the Carli.le Area School Oi.trict have been kept
open in the ab.ence of a formal oontraot.
Third, tho objeot to be obtained by the aot can be achieved
even if the teach.re are not employed under a formal, written
contraot. Ravinq a formal oontract with the teaoher., while highly
.. Act of Oecember 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, 53, 1 Pa. C.S.A.
11921(0)(31, (4) (1994 Supp.).
II
Web.ter" New Third International Oictionary 743 (1963).
-6-
.
IN ~ COMHONWEAurH COURT OF PE~YLVANIA
NOTICE OF DOCIC:ETING APPEAl.
Docket NOI 1956 C.D. 1994 riled Dlltel 08/09/94
Rei PARENTS FOR QUALITY ED.ETAL VBARNHART ETA~
Low.r Court No.1 606CIV 1994
A Notic. ot Appeal a aopy ot whiah ia enoloaeei, from IIn order of
your oourt ha. b.en dock.t.d in the Commonw.alth Court ot P.nnaylvania.
The dock.t numb.r in the Commonwealth Court ia .ndaraed on thia notio..
The Commonw.alth Court dock.t numb.r muat b. on all oorr..pond.nc.
and docum.nta tiled with the Court.
Under Chapter 19 ot the P.nnaylvania Rul.. of Appellat. proo.dur.,
the Notio. of Appeal hae the .tteat ot direotinq the Court to tran.mit
the oertiti.d r.cord in the matter to the Prothonotary of the
Commonwealth Court.
The oompl.te relJol'd inaJ.ucHnq the opinion of the trial jUdqe,
ahould be forwarded to the Commonwelllth Court within forty (401 day.
ot the dllte ot tilinq ot the Notia. ot Appeal. Do not tranamit a
partial reoord.
~a. R.A.P. 1931 to 1933 provide. the atandarde for preparation,
oertitication and tran.mi.aion of the record.
The aadre.. to which the Court i. to transmit the record ia set
torth on paqe 2 of thi. notice.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
A oopy ot thi. notice i. beinq s.nt to all partiea or counsel
indicated on the proot of aerviae accompanyinq the Notiae ot Appeal.
Th. app.arano. of all ooun.el has been entered on the reoord in the
Commonwealth Court. Coun.el haa thirty (30) daya from the date ot
filinq of the Notice at Appeal to tile a praecipe to withdraw their
app.aranoe purauant to PR. R.A.P. 907(b).
App.llant or Appellant's attorner ahould review the record ot the
trial court, in ord.r to inaure that t is oomplete pr,ior to
aertifioation to th1a Court. (Notel A oopy ot the 20nin9 ordinanae
muat aocompany r.corda in Zoninq Appeal oases).
Th. addr..... to whioh you are to tranamit documents to this Court
are aet forth on Paql 2 of thia Notic..
It you have .p.eial ne.da, please oontact thia court in writinq aa
.oon aa poaaibl..
Low.r Court Judqel Honorable J. Wesley Oler Jr.
Attorney. Arthur T. McDermott Esq.
Attorney I Jam.a Plow.r
Notioll Exit I 08/19/94 Prothonotary
,,,,
t:
".t
r'"'
I ~
, 1'/'.:;""
, . ,tll
,
~
\:.'\
>','
-;.>>;
it.
, '-,
"'r'
. "
.
I
I................
.
SS"
".....,
,.....
Addre.. alJ vritte. communication. tOI
Ottice ot the Prothonotary
Commonwealth Court ot penn.ylvania
P. O. Box 11730
Harri.burq, PA 17108
filin91 may be made in per,oD at the tollowin9 addre.. (exolpt on
Saturday., Sunday. and le911 Holiday. ob.ervd by Penn.ylvania
court.) between 9100 a.m. and 4100 p.m.
Ottic. ot the Chief Clerk
Commonwealth Court ot penn.ylvania
Room 624
Sixth Floor
South Office Buildin9
Harri.burq, PA 17120
Pleadinq. and limilar p"pers (but not paperbook. or certiUed
record.) may al.o be tiled iD per,oD oDly atl
Oftice of the Prothonotary
Commonwealth Court of Pennlylvania
riUnq otfice
suite 990
The Widener Buildinq
One South Penn Square
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 560-5742
The hour. of the Philadelphia rilinq ottice are 9100 a.m. to 4100
p.m.
Under PA, R.A.P. ~702, writs or oth.r proce.. i..uinq out of
commonwealth Court .hall exi.t only trom the Harrisburq Oftice
.hall be returnable thereto.
the
and
I.
,f'
,
"
'. ,II ."1 m7"~""'~""~~~~ f 'I Hi,." \
""'\-':' 'r\r~...c-rrl~.LI.. _"
1'""\ .' ." PIIIJ"'IIlP'- "
'..0. 10. ,... ;,
, C.u,lf, "'~I..",. 170t3.()2A6 '
(717) 7.43.7107' T.laru W-9766
......
-
PARlNTS rOR QUALITY
IDUCA'1'ION, INC.
a. rrank lichelber;e~,
Henry W. Treffinger,and
LuAnn Wagnu, Ridgley It.
Snyder, Sr., Cynthia P.
Varner, Hilary H. Albright,
John P. Durnin, Charle. B.
Swi.her, John W. Pittenger,
and Ruth B. Ronnan,
PlaintUh
v..
Earl N. Barnhart,
DAle O. Hart..ll, Jr., and
Gerald .. .by,
Defendant
',. . t'..... ~
"'rr~"'l'
:.I, .'
" "~1'~ '
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
IN THE COURT or COKMON PLIAS or
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNl VANIA
(~
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
11c;u ef) 01
NO. SOS CIVIL 1994
I .
~;s
t,....~
NOTIC. or APPIAL
,..
~~
,.. -
. .
--
.
L.rl
COMB NOW, PldnUff, Puente for Quality Education, by and
through their .tto~ney., Arthur T. McDermott And Aalociatee, by
Arthur T. McDermott, .Iquire, and hereby appeal to the
Commonwealth Court of Pennlylvania from the Order entered in thi.
matter on the lIth day of July, 1994, dilmiuinq PlaintUf.'
Petition.
Re.pectfully lubmitted,
ARTHUR T. MCDERMOTT' ASSOCIATES
~tll;;-T~ .Iqu)re
50 Baet Hiqh Street
Carlillet PA 17013
(717) 243-7807
TRUE COpy FROM RGCORO
In TeSllrnony wheroof, I ~(O urri$ '.r.1 my hCl~
If\d tilt ~lloll 01 G.:l:d GOHlt at r.;1rll~!:I, h,
This </ ~-lWf of ~ 19 'IV
L'-' a. &-. i A+~,
Prothonotary
S7
, '
~
,-..
AU9U.t 1IJ, lU4
.UDJICTI Numb.rl at Dooum.nt Copi..
TOI All Admini.trative Per.onn'l
FROM I
Clerk((l.~
C.R. Ho.tutllr, D.puty ProthonotarY/Chi.t
IlCper1ena. ha. proV.n that wa are ucaivinlllDore copi.. of.
docum.nt, than Ir. nec".~ry. Ther.tor., in the tuture w. will
accept the tollowinlll
Q.lIalNJ.t I.Im ONI con
Motion tor IlCten.ion (2nd - $10., 3rd' ,ube.quent _
'25)
Pra.aip.e
Motion to Di.mi"/Quaeh
Motion tor Superued.ae
pralilDinarr Obj.ctione
All Pr'-Tr al Motion.
ORIalNAt I.Im no caput
Petition tor Revi.w - $55.
Petition tor Permi..ion to ApPaal _ $55. (C.D.I)
Petition tor Revi.w or App.al.
Huna Pro ~unc - SS5.
13U(b) Petition tor Revi.w _ $55.
Petition tor Reconeid.ration at Sin'lle JUdge
Ord.r. - Original Juri.diction _ $15.
IxcepUone
QUalNAto I.Im .UTIlIlN ClOPIIlI
Petition tor Reconsideration at Sin9l. JUd91
Ord.r. - Appellat. Juri'diotion _ $15.
Motion t? Publi.r Opinion
Petition tor Reargument En Bane _ $15.
..nT.IlN 00.12,
Briat.
Memoranda of Law
alORT COPra
ReprOduc.d R,cord.
'I
.
r
-"~""""'.,
" '
-
; i II
i.~~s ~ ~
~~'E~ ~
!~iB~ i
B!~~~ i'
~~5!ir. p.~
, "
,
,i'
,/
, '
"I I
, I
, ,
.---
==
f I
, ~
i~ J-
iU
I~
t::
~ ~
~~
~I
I;
'00
~ ~
~~
, ,
"
.J I
,
, I j
;.1
I "I I I
,"I,
.., ~
... I::
~~~~~; ~~!I
~~~f-tn:> ~ '>-
~~~i~1 !~U
~~i~~~ o~o~
o~5 =~ ~~~~
Ii ~ :~:~
.!i___
,J. 'I I;
,I' ;
, ,
I
I I
,
I. '
I I I ' ~,
, ,
""-"
.
'.
'I,
I , 'I
I I
, I
;I I
, I ,
I' 'I
, '
I
I I
I . ~
, "-'
( ,<.,
,-;/r
MAY 11 l~r
, ,
.:\..,II~~~I'W\P..,...,.rt
~
~
Speclflcelly, Petltlonere essert that Respondents have not complied with Section 1108 of the
School COde2; that Section 318 of the School Code authorlzee removal of school director. It they
refuse to perform any mandated duty Imposed upon them by the School Code; that the labor
contrect with the Carlisle Education Association has expired and no new contract has been entered
Into, and that hence Section 1106 of the School Code has been violated,
The Petition asserts mattere Involved In School District labor negotiations, which ere
co~sequently not germane to the prayer of the Petition, being exclusively within the jurisdiction of
the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.3
The essence of the Petition Is set forth In Paragraph 30 as follows:
"School directors have the mandated duty to employ professionals to
teach the students. Failure to contract with the teachers constitutes non-
feasance In regards to this mandatory duty, and Is grounds for removal, "
The gravamen of the Petition Is that the SchOOl Board has not entered Into a contract with
Ihelabor union repres13ntlng Its employees, rogardless of whether the Union's terms lire reesonablo,
The Petition, In 8ffect, seeks to remove the members of the negotiating committee from the School
Board, on the grounds that they have not given In to the Union's demands.
'I
24 PIS. 11-1106 . "The board of school directors In evcry school district shall employ the necessary
qualified professional employees, substitutes and temporary professional employees to keep the public schools
open In their respective districts In compliance with Ihe provisions of Ihls ael,'
I Section 1301, 43 P.S. 1101.1301 . "The board i4 empowered, III hereinafter provided, to prevent any
pcrso~ from enRaging In any unfair practice ", This power shall be exclusive ",'
2
"\,,,II~~IIooI~,",
~
. "'"
"doel not oompel eIther party to sgre. to a proposal or requIre the
makIng of a concessIon,"
Not only doee the School Board not have a duty to agrfJe tu a specific: propos a' or to make
conclIlslons, th.y have a duty on behalf of the t8l<payerl and the School DI8trlct al a whole to
negotiate a r.asonable contract, so that the District can remain 80lvent and continue to be cepoble
of achieving It I funcllon, providing education for the pupils In the District. To find In favor of
Petitioners would be to promote 8n absurd result. It would be tantamount to telling the members
of the negotiating committee that unless they accepled the proposed contract terml of the union,
regardless of how unreasoneble they were, they would be deemed to be failing to perform their
duties, and could be removed from office.
B, PETITIONERS ASSERT THE RESPONDENTS
FAiLr;D TO MEET THE OBLIGATION OF THE
SCHOOL BOARD TO EMPLOY INDIVIDUAL
TEACHERS TO INSTRUCT AS SET FORTH
IN SCHOOL CODE SECTION 1108
The membere of the union, Carlisle Area Educallon Association, Ir. employees of the School
District. Were they not, the School District would have no duty to bargain with It', Each of thoee
employees hive b..n employed pursuant to Section 1106 of the School Code. Section 1108 has
no bearing on any contract between the Union end the School District.
6 43 P.S. 1101.606 . 'Representative. .elected by public employees III I unit appropriate ror collective
bargaining purposes shall be the exclu.lve repre5enllltlve or ;\11 the empltlyeelln such unit to bargain on wages,
hours, terms and eondltlonl or employment ,.."
4
63
t*'\
r-
PARENTI POR QUALITY EDl'JCATION,
INC.,
G. pr.nk Elohelberger,
Henry W. Trefllnger, and
LuAnn Wagner, Rldgl.y K.
'nyd.r, 'r., Cynthl. P. Varner,
Hilary H. Albright,
John P. Durnin, Chlrl.,.. 8wllher,
John W. Pittenger, Ind Ruth B. Ronnln,
Petltlon,r,
IN THI COURT OF COMMON PLEAI OP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN8VLVANIA
CIVIL. ACTION. LAW
v.
NO. eoe CIVIL 1884
PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF 8CHOOL
DIRECTOR8 OF CARLISLe AREA
SCHOOL DI8TRICT
EARL M. BARNHART,
DALE O. HARTZELL, JR. .nd
GERALD I. IBV,
"..pond.nt.
WIJ.fJC~
AND now, this 11th _ day of May ,1994, I, James D, Flower, Esquire, of the law firm
of FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys, hereby certify that I served the within
Brief this day by depositing same In the United States Mall, First Class, Postage Prepaid, In Carllele,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
ARTHUR T. McDEiRMOrr, I.qulr.
50 East High Street
p, 0, Box 246
C8rllsle, PA 17013
FLOWER, MORQENTHAL. FLOWER 1& LINDSAY
AttorneYI for Rllpondentl
, By-
limes 0, Flower, Esquire
If 06272
1 1 Ellat High Street
CerUlle, Pennlylvllnlll 17013
(717) 243.!l!l 1 3
.
1""'\
(' \
/",..
, ,
i ' /
MAY 20 199. JA..
.
PARENTS 'OR QUALITY
IlDUCATION, INC.
G. 'rank Eichelberger,
Henry W. Treffinger,and
LuAnn Wagner, Ridgley K,
Snyder, Sr., Cynthia P.
Varner, Hilary H. Albright,
John f. Durnin, Charles E.
Swisher, John W. Pittenger,
and Ruth B. Ronnan,
Petitionerll
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 0'
CUMIU:RLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
vs.
NO. ,;,,' CIVIL 1994
.
Earl M. Barnhart,
Dale O. Hartzell, Jr., and
Gerald E. Eby,
Respondents
,I.
"
'I:
I.
\ "
PLAINTIFF'S BRIar IN RlSPONSI '1'0
DI'INDAHT'S PRlLIKIHARY OallCTIONS
"
I
,\
.
'I'
.
I',
.!
~. .
. ,
ARTHUR T. MCDERMOTT' ASSOCIATES
Arthur T. McDermott, Esquire
50 East High Street
Carlisle, fA 17013
(717) 243-7807
,
II
" .
I
!:
~
,...,
PARBN'l'S rOlt QUAI.ITY
BDUCATION, INC.
G. Frank Eichelberger,
Henry W. Treffinger,and
LuAnn Wagner, Ridgley K.
Snyder, Sr., Cynthia P.
Varner, Hilary H, Albright,
John P. Durnin, Charles E.
Sw1ahor, John W. Pittenger,
And ~uth B. Ronnan,
Petitioners
IN THE COURT OF COMMON P~EAS or
CUMBERLANO COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
vs.
NO. I' (.
CIVIL 1994
Earl H. Barnhart,
Dale O. Hartlell, Jr., and
Gerald E. Eby,
Respondontl
PBTITION 'OR RBKOVAL 0' SCHOOL
DIRlC'1'ORS or CARLISLE AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT
I. 'ACTUAL BACJClROUND
The Carlisle Area School tioard (hereinafter Board or
Dbtr1ct) entered into a collective bargaining agreement
(Contract) with the Carlisle Area Education Associati.on
(hereinafter C~A or Association) in October, 1989. The contract
expired on August 15, 1992. The members of C~^ (Teachers) have
been working since the contract expired as professional employees
of the School District. Prior to the expiration of the contract,
both parties had appointed negotiating teams and had met to
engage in negotiations for a successor collective bargaining
agreement.
During the course of those negotiations the Board engaged in
a course of conduct which includod various actions determined by
the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) to be unfair labor
practices,
The events determined to constitute unfair labor
practices included.
1
6&'
.
,tII\
fAI
.
1 )
On or about AU(Juut 24, 1992, the Chairperson Qf
.
the Carlisle Are" School Board Noqotiating Team caused to
have published in ~he Se~tinol (a daily newspaper publi.hed
in CorUsle) an "Open Lettea:' to Parents and the Conununity."
(A copy of that material i. attached hereto as Attachment '1
and included herein by reference.) That "Open Letter"
purported to reiterate the buic component. of an offer
allegedly mftde by the District to the A..ociation.
While portions of that offer summary were previously
presented to the Association, other provisions plainly ~I!
not presented to the representatives of the A8Iociation.
SpeCifically, the District never included as part of any
proposal to the AlIBociation "an informal agreement not to
furlough teachers during the 1992-93 school year."
The publication of this "offer" to the general public
prior to its pr'Qsentation to the representatives of the
Association was an attempt to bypa81 the exclusive
representative and a violation of Section 1201 (a) (1) [43
P.S. Section 1101.1201(a)(1),J Likewise the publication of
this "offer" immediately prior to the scheduled beginning Qf
the 1992-93 school year WAS an effort by the District to
attempt to influence the members of the bargaining unit with
respect to collective bargaining and thereby circumvent the
collective bargaining procellB, a violation of Section 1201
(a) (2) [43 P.S, Section 1102,1201(4) (2).)
2) During the course of negotiations, the Association
at a bargAining session on June 17, 1992, indicated that it
2
.
~
1"'\
dosired to initiat,') the U130 of tho lIarvices of the Btata
mediator IIIIsi\}nod by th'J Pennsylvania Bureau of Mediation.
The first session with the mediator present was condijcted on
August 5, 1992, at which time tho Association pre.ented to
the mediator and tho Board, 4 complete itemization of all
topics that either party had introduced for neCjjotiation as
of that date.
At the followin\} mediation lession, on Auqult 27, 1992,
the Board prennted a "new propolal" which liCjjnif1cantly
increaled the number of topics to be addresled throuqh the
ne\}otiation process, Iuues which neither party had
previously proposed to negotiate were introduced by the
Board as part of that proposal. The Board continued to
purlue these newly introduced topics to impasse and Fact
Findinq was ordered by the PLRB at Caso NO. ACT 88-92-13-B.
The action of unilaterally placing additional items on
the barqaininq table followin\} the initiation of the
mediation was indicative of the Board's failure to meet
their obligation to barqain J,n good faith and a violation of
Section 1201 (a) (5) [43 P,S. Section 1102 .1201(a) (5).)
3) As part of the negotiation proce.s, the
appropriate compensation to be paid to several newly cr~ated
positions had been discussed. The positJ.ons of "Dean of
Students," "Team Advisors," and "Head Teachors" were created
by the Board prior to the beqinning of the 1992.93 8chool
year. While both parties had made proposals concernlnCjj the
3
~
r--
appropr iate compensation for each of these posi tion., no
agreement had been reached concerning this issue.
Boginning with the first pay of the new school year, on
or about August 28, 199J, the District bogan to unilaterally
implement their oUer concernint) tho rate of compensation
for th~lle positions. That unilateral act by the District is
in violation of Section 1201 (a) (5) [43 P.S. Section
1102.1201(0)(5).)
.
On December 23, 1992 the CA.EA filed chargos with the PLRB
that the above actions conlltituted unfair labor practices in
violation of Sections 1201(a)(1), 1201(a)(2) and 1201(a)(5) of
the Public Employee Rellltions Act (fERA), 43 f.S. Sections
1101.1201(a) et seQ.
Those sections provided as fol10wsI
S~ation 1201. a) Public Employers, their agents
or representatives are prohibited f.roml
1) Interfering, restraining or coercing
emplorees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Artic e IV of this Act.
2) Dominating or interfering with the
formation, existence or administration of any employee
organization.
. .
"
"
'.
5) Refusing to bargain collectively in good
faith with on emploree representative which is the
exclusive representat ve of employees in an appropriate
unit, including but not limited to the discussJ.nq of
grievances with the exclusive representative.
On February 3, 1993 the first of two hearings on the charqes
was held.
A second hearing was held on February 22, 1993.
'.
Briefs were filed on April 27, 1993 by CAEA and on April 29, 1993
by the Board.
4
~
1""1
The hearing ~xaminer, on tho basia of the hearing, testimony
,
and ltxhibltll and from all otllar mattQrB and documents of record,
made the following findings of factI
1. That the Diltrict is a public employer with its
principal place of business located at 623 West Penn Street,
Carlille, Pennlylvania 17013.
2. That the .....ociation is an employe orqanization
with its principal place of business located at 31 East Kain
Street, New RingltoWll, Pennlylvania 17072,
3. That the "'uociat1rm is the Board-certified
exclulivlt representative of a bargaining unit comprised of
certain profe.lional employes of the Diltrict. (Joint
Exhibit 1)'
4. That on October 19, 1989, the parties entered into
a collective bal'gaining agreement with a torm to ...ugust 15,
1992. In Article II, Section K of that aqreemltnt, the
pal.tiell agued that "TillS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING "'GREEMENT
SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED IN WIIOLE OR IN PART EXCEPT 8Y
INSTRUMENT, IN WRITING, DULY EXECUTED BY BOTH PARTIES." In
Article III, Section C of that Agreement, the partiel agreed
to "extra pay" of $1,054 for working u a "TEAM LEADER-
MIDDLE SCHOOL" for tho 1991-92 Ichool year. (Joint Exhibit
1) I
5. That on September 19, 1991, tho parti,os entered
into a wr1ttQII memorandum of understandinq sotting forth the
lalariea to bl paid for working in several newly created
pOlitionl of head teacher, (N.T. I 63, Association Exhibit
11)'
'.
6. '\'hat by letter dated January 6, 1992, tho Distri,ct
informed the Allociation 4S followsl
.. ,.. .Pleale be informed that Dr. Earl Barnhart will be
lervinq al the chief neqotiator for the Board and that
Mr. Wos Jamel will be the diltrict contact person. ...11
communicationl related to negotiations Ihould be
directed to Mr. Jamel. In the event of an emergency if
Mr, Jame. is not available, please foel froe to contact
Dr. Barnhart. We requost that you refrain from
.
.---
I No PLRO Exhibitl are included with this Brief.
5
.
.
~
"....
.
contaoting any other
personnel concerning
nllgQtiations."
board membere or diQtr1ct
any 1teml rolated to
(Joint Exhibit 3)
7. That on January 30, 1992, the partiel held their
firat bargAining lellll10n for a lucceuor collective
bargaining Agreement. The Association presented a written
l~~page proposal to add provisions to or change certain
provisions of the parties' 1989-92 agreement. One proposed
addition Wll8 for a sick leave bank. ,,"oth~r. proposed
addition relAted to reductions in force as folloWl1
"Reductions
acoount of
alteration or
of Ichools.
in force shall be effeoted lolely on
a substantial decline in enrollment,
curtailment of program, or consolidation
",or purpoles of this section, 'Reduction in Force'
means a reduction in the number of regular full~time
positione in the bargaining unit, a corresponding
inorease in regular part-time positions with no ohange
in the number of regular full~time positions, or a
reduction in hours of work a8l.tgned to an employee
(demotion) .
"The employer Ihall furniBh the AuooJ,ation with all
information, including copies of pertinent dooumentl,
u..d in making determinations relevant to reduotion in
foX'ce.
"When reduction in force is balled upon a substantial
decline in enrollment, the percentage by which the work
force is reduced Ihall not exceed the percentage of
decline in enrollment.
"Suspensions shall not be effected unless and until the
work force has been realigned. In the event of
suspension, any person identified for suspension shall
be realigned into any fOlition which he/she is
certififld to hold, A l realignmentl shall b.
accomplished in suoh a manlier as to sUlpend the leut
lenior employee.
"Provided further that an employee identified for
suspension shall be retained in his/her position if
more ulnior employees, not themselves identified for
luspension, can be realigned into areas for which they
are c~rtified. This seotion only goes into ~ffect if
all straight line options have been exhausted."
6
.
"""
1""".
.
Thu m""t1n~ undud whon thQ 01utrict indicated
timo t<., rllv10w t.hll ASlIociation'fj propoeal.
71, 11 !}I ^l.llloc1ath~n Exhib1t 1)
0, That 1n i~bruary 1992 Dr. Gerald Fowler, who had
bUlIn oUurud thu pOllition of 8uper.lntendent for the
Ohtrie!:., informed the pruidont of thfJ Aesociation (Aaron
Hurwitz) of an administrative reorganilll1tion he had in mind
for tho 1~92-1993 8chool yoar. During .evoral di8cu81ion8
butwollln thorn in that regard, Dr. Fowlor indicated that a8
part of that roorganization he wanted to create the
bug4in.l.ng unit p08ition of delln of .tudenta at an annual
ulary of $1500. Whon Dr. Fowler aho indicated that 48
part of that reorganization he want.d to r.cr.at. the
barg41ning unit poBition of toam lead.r which had be.n
.liminated in th. palt but was conc.rnod that the Diltrict'.
board of directorl would not do 10 becau.. of it. co.t, Hr.
Hurwitz referred him to the AuocJ.ation'8 chief negotiator
(Micheel ~ulik08ky), who had boen a team leader in the pa8t.
Dr. rowler and Hr. Kulikosky then di3cuI.ed recreating team
l.ad..... a8 team advisers at a r.duced u14ry of $800.
During h1s diBcu..ions with Mr. Hurwitz and Hr. Kulikolky,
Dr. rowler indicated to ono of them that he would like to
ke.p the creation of the dean of 8tudent8 and team l.ader
politionl at thOle l414riea out of the negotiation8 for a
SUCC.S80r collective bargaining agreement. Wh.n h. did not
h..... an obj.ction, Dr. Fowler understood that h. had an
agre.ment with the AS80ciation not to make the .alarie. for
tho.. pOlitionl part at. those nogotiation8. Dr. Fowl.r a180
und.....tood, bued on a commont by Mr. Hurwitz, that the
8alariel for thou positions ultimately would have to be
bargained. (N,T,! 94-100, 102-108, 122-127, 129, 131-133)
9. That on March 16, 1992, the partie8 held th.ir
next bllrgllining s08llion. In advanco of the 8e..ion, the
Diltrict prepared a 23-pago proposal for prelentation to the
A810ciation. At the 8ession, Dr. Barnhart indicated that the
District could rospond to the ABlooiation'l proposal of
January 30, 1992, in one of three waYI, none of which was to
itl liking, and alked if the A8sociation would be willing to
limit the 8cope of its proposal. Tapping packages
containing the Distriot's proposal, Dr. Barnhart allo laid
that tho District haeS a lengthy propolt\L of itl own. Dr.
Barnhart did not pre8ent t.he IHstrict' 8 proposal to the
Allociation at that time. (N.T. I 2~-28, 72-77, II 5-9, 24-
25, 30-31, 44-4~, 88-90, AS80ciation Exhibit 9)
10. That on March 31, 1992, the ASlociation'l
pI.' lna ipal .poke.pe....on (Car 11n Wenc;.r) and Dr. Barnhart Met.
Mr. Wenger said that if the District would be willing to
con8ider a one-year collective bargaining agreement, the
""00 lation would be willing to limit the number of iuuell
to be bargained. Included among tho.e limited issue8 were
tho A8110ciation's sick leave bank and reduction in force
7
that it neoded
(N.T. I 22-2~,
.
'.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
I.
I
i"""I
,-,
p/:'opolah. Dr, Barnhart undaratood Kr, WenCJor to uy that
the Allociation would considor a ono, two, three-year term.
Dr. Barnhart indicated that he neoded to CJot back to hil
negotiating committee to dLscuBB Mr. Wenger'l proposal. Dr.
Barnhart aho indicated that tho Diltrict had a lengthy
propolal of itl o....n. Dr. Barnhart did not pre8llnt that
propoul at that time, (N,T. I 19, 29-33, 60-151, 69, 72,
75-79/ II 31-34, 99-99/ Joint Exhibit 3, Allociation Exhibit
3/ Board Exhibit 3)
11. That e)O May 4, 1992, the parties held their next
bargaining lellion. In advance of the lellion, Dr. Barnhart
prepared notes for the preeentation of four proposition. to
the Alsociation. He wrote under proposition 2 "n2 lick" and
"Reduction to force-no." He ....rote under propoll-lt:ion 3 "no
.ick" and "no reduction in force." At the lellion, Dr.
Barnhart indicated that he knew reduction in force was one
area of concern to the Association and presented hi. four
propo.itionl. The first propolition he presented was not
relponding to the ASlociation'. January 30, 1992, propolal
because of its length and cost. The lecond propolition he
prelented ....as for a three-year collective bargaining
agreemont with no lick leave bank and no reduction in force
claule. The third proposition he presented wal for a three-
year collective bargaining agreement with no lick leave bank
and no reduction in force clause al propoled by the
Aslociation. The fourth proposition he presented wal for a
three-year collective bargaining agreement with 4
gentlemen'l agreement over the procedure for implementing a
reduction in force. Dr. Barnhart indicated that any of the
propositions would have to be accepted as presented. The
Allociation asked the District to reduce proposition 4 in
....riting. (N.T. I 34-39, 56-57, 72, 79-90/ II 9-16, 34-39,
45-52, 75-78, 84, 96-88, 94-95, 97-98; Board Exhibits 1 and
4)
.
12. That on May 18, 1992, the Asaociation received the
District'l fourth proposition of May 4, 1992, in writing.
The fourth propoaition was for a collective bargaining
Agreement with a three-year term beginning on August 16,
1992, and included the followin9 re9arding reduction in
force I "The employer ia willing to diacusa 41 a gentlemen' a
agreement the proceaa, prooedures, and guidelines for
reduction of force / not as part of the .:ontract." (N. T. I
36-37/ II 46; Association Exhibit 4)
13. That on June 17, 1992, the partiea held their next
bargaining seasion. After they reviewed the District'l
fourth propolition{ the Association preaented a written
counterpropolal, the cover sheet of which provided aa
followa I
.
8
7S
~
I"""
I
"On January 30, 1992, the Carlisle Area Education
Association presented to the Carlisle Area School
District the formal collective bargaining proposals of
the l\88oc iation.
"Sublequent to tho submission of those proposals, the
District indicated that it wao not deoiroull of
negotiating based upon all the factors included in that
propo.al. In response to that position taken by the
District, the Association advised the District that it
W41 not wi11inq to formally withdraw complete sections
of that initial barqaining propolal.
"The ASElociation is, nevertheless, willing to pursue
consideration of proposals more limited in scope while
not abandoning ita formal podtion 41 presented in the
package of January 30, 1992."
The Association's counterproposal also Jndicated that
it "noods to receive from the District a proposal
identifying the new positions created 4B a consequence of
the adminiltrative realignments." The District rejected the
Aasociation's counterproposal. When Dr. Barnhart exprelled
disappointment with the length of the Association'.
counterproposal and indicated that the District had a
lengthy proposal of its own, an argument ensued with Mr.
Wenger over whether or not Dr. Barnhart had so indicated at
their meetinq of Harch 31, 1992,1 Hr. Wenger sugqested that
a mediator be called. (N.T. 40-44, 72, II 17-19, 101-102
A.lociation Exhibit 5, Board Exhibit 5)
14. That by memorandum dated July 22, 1992, the
Association informed its membership of the status of
negotiations. The memorandum did not montion that the
District had presented a proposition for an aqreement with
no reduction in force. (Board Exhibit 2)
15. That after reading the Association's memorandum
Dr. Barnhart did not tell the A88ociation that it had
misrepresented the status of negotiations, (N.T. II 69-71)
16. At the next meeting between the Associates and the
District on August 5, 1992 a mediator was in attendance for
the firlt time, Mr. Wenger gave the mediator a summary of
the positions of both parties. The summary included all of
the i88u81 the Association had placed on the table to that
point ill time and all of the issues eet forth in the
District'. fourth proposition. Dr. Barnhart indicated that
if the ABlociation was going to keep all of its issues on
1 Hr. Wenger testified from memory that this argument occurred on
August 5, 1992 (N.T. I 74-75). It has been found as fact that
the argument occurred on June 17, 1992, because Hr. James' notos
for that date reference that argument. (Board Exhibit 5)
9
.
.
""'"
,-
the table, then the District had other iasues that it was
going to put on the table. Dr, Bllrnhart did not indicate
what those iIIsues were. (N,T. I 43~47, 51, 61-62, 81, 83~
84/ II 191 Association Exhibit 6)
17. That by letter dated August 20, 1992, the District
informed the Association as follows 1
"Please be informed of the new positions currently
being considered by the Board which are created as a
consequence of administrative realignments.
1 ,
2.
3.
(12) . "
(N.T. I 83, 89/ Association Exhibit 7)
Lamberton and Wilson M.l,ddle School Deans (2)
West Building Dean (1)
Telllll AdviBoT.s fl,r each middle school telllll
18. That on August 24 1992, the
advertisement appeared in the Carlisle Sentinell
"As many of you may have heard, negotiations between
the Carlisle Area Education Association and the
Carlisle Area Board of Direotors have failed to produce
a new collective bargaining agreement. During a period
of severe economic conditions with many community
members los~ng jobs and foregoing raises, and coming on
the heols of the highest school tax increases in
CarliBle history, the board negotiating te4lll is both
puzzled and disappoJ.ntlld that the teachers' union has
belln unwilling to seriously considllx' its offer of a
threll parcent increase in salary and a cost Bharing
arrangllmllnt for bllnllfits, which would result in up to
eight pllrcent raislls for some teachllrB, along with an
informal agrellment not to furlough tllachers during the
1992/93 Bchool year.
following
"Our disappointment is further underBcored by the
union' B failure to recognize thll obvioUB and drlllllatic
impact the most recent agrellment had on staffing,
educational materials, and building maintenance and
renovations proqrllllls. Most budqllt accounts were
drained or frozen BO that funds could be redirected to
covllr thll teachllr Balary increases, (All othllr
salaries accounted for approximately nine percent of
the total budget.) Dozens of positionB havlI blllln
eliminatlld and many staff mllmbers havlI bllen furloughlld
or demotlld. It has only belll\ within the laBt year that
the administration has been able to free Bome fundB to
purchase badly needed computer equipment to Bupport
growing classroom dllmands and one important renovation
project at the LeTort School. Yet, the only
significant Bource of new revenulI continues to be tax
increases.
10
~
r-.
.
"We aro conunitt,ed to work toward a rU400nabla
uttlement. We will direct tho administration to try
to keep tho schools opon fully or partially as
circumstancos dictate whilo nogotiations continue,
With your continued lupport, we will arrive at a
contract that reprosents tho bost options for teachers,
children, and the conununity."
The advertisoment WII placed by Dr. Barnhart a few days
before the Itart of Ichool in keeping with a prior pledge by
the DiBtriCt' s negotiating conunitt61>) to keep tha conununity
informed of what was going on in negotiations. (N.T. I 55/
II 38-39, 43/ ASlociation Exhibit 10)
19. That. on August 27, 1992, the parties held their
next bargaining 181000n. The DlItdct presented A 23-page
propolal dated March 1992. The proposal was for a
collective bargaining agreement with a three-year term
beginning on the date of its execution. The proposal
included changes to the partiell' 1989-1992 agreement as
follows I a .pecific hourly rate of PAY in lieu of per diem
pay for .wnmer work, the elJJn1.nation of re!mbunements to
vocational instructors for college creditl earned beyond 24,
An increase in the workday, limiting reimburlement for
Attending profeslional meetings to thOle OccAlionl when
attendance was required by the District and changing
preparation periods from one per day to five per week. None
of thOle proposed changes had been rai8ed by the District to
that point in time. (N.'!', I 48-55, 58..60, 62-63/ II 19-21,
24, 39-42, 44-45, 75/ Association Exhibit 9)
20. That in September 1992 Mr, Kulikosky'l pay check
included pay for work as a team advisor. (N.T. X 109)
21. That in Novlllmbal' 1992 Mr, Kulikolky informed the
A..ochtion's bargaining conunittee that he was being paid
for work as a team advisor. (N.T. I 110-111, 115)
22. That Mr. J(ulikosky was aware of the District's
obligation to bargain the pay for work performed by members
of the bargaining unit. (N.T. I 117)
23. That the parties are currently negotiating the
8alaries for the dean of student8 and teAlll adviser
poo1tions, (N.T. II 64-67)
The following significant incidents occurred subsequent to
.
.
.
the PLRB Fact Finding decis Lon of May 24, 1993.
Carlisle Evening Sentinel articles).
(Source -
11
~
,....,
Kay 25, 1993 - CA~A asked the BOdrd to agree to non-blnding
arbitration.
Juno 4, 1993 - Tho Board indicated it would Appoal the count
of tho PI.RB which tound it nogotiated in bad fllith, and the Board
voted 8-0 against agreeing to non-bindinq arbitration.
Juno 10, 1993 - The Board offered CAEA a "cafeteria plan" in
which members ch\)oQe between an array of diffot'ence coverages,
but the premium COllts of benefits would be capped at 85,000.00
per teacher.
CAEA cut its salary demand for tho years 1993-94 and 1994-
95.
August 19, 1993
signatures of 1600 district
the negotiations.
August 25, 1993 - The Board lowe~ its salary offer to
teachers. Defendant Ba,mhart stated the reduction WIlS to
presflrve benefits. The ABlJociation again asked the Board to
agree to binding arbitration,
The Poard t'eceived petitions with
residents calling for settlement of
August 26, 1993 - The Association members voted to adopt a
.work-to-rule'" policy if the Board did not accept binding
arbi tration.
September 16, 1993 - The Board votes 8-0 against binding
arbitration.
September 24, 1993 - Members of the Association handed out
leaflets (informational picketing) at Parent-Tacher Organization
meetings.
September 24, \993 The Association president (Aaron
Hurwitz) offered to resign from the CAEA if Barnhart will resign
from the Board, Barnhart turned down the offer and both men
remained in their respective status.
September 27, 1993 - The Carlisle Mayor called for "round-
the-clock" bargaininq to resolve the dispute. Hurwitz raised
practical concerns. Barnhart flatly rejected the idea.
October 6, 1993 - CAEA reduced its salary proposal to an
average increase for 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95.
October 21, 1993 - The Board rejected the proposal as "still
being more than double our maximum proposal."
October 27, 1993 - The PLRB upheld its earlier ruling that
the Board had bargained in bad faith.
· In "work-to-rule", the teachers do nothing beyond which is
required by contracts.
12
~
"...,
HovOlllber: 18, 1993 - A petition was presented to the Board
with signatures of one-halt of the students of Wilson Middle
School asking for: settlement of the talks.
Decembor 17, 1993 - Barnhart suggests thdt the Board may sue
CAEA over work-to-rule to find out if. it reAlly constitutes a
strike.
DecOlllber 20, 1993 - The Board asks CAEA to drop work-to-
rule. CAEA membeu again vote to authorize the leadenhip to
call a Itrike. CAEA IIsks the Board to agree to binding 2! non-
binding arbitration, otherwise the Itrike could begin III early as
January 3, 1994.
December 21, 1993 - CAEA votes to rescind work-to-rule.
December 27, 1993 - THe Board votes 6-3 against arbitration.
Three members favor: non-binding arbitration, but OppOIO binding.
The Association asks for face to face negotiations before January
3, to avert a Itrike. Barnhart declines because Board members
have plana for the holidays.
December 30, 1993 - The Association announces it is on
Itrike effective January 3. Hurwitz denounced the Board's
. failure to agree to talks as a "delaying tactic".
January 3, 1994 -
progress. The strike
unless the contract
Arbi tra t ion.
The Itrike begins. Talks aro held without
is scheduled to end on January 24, 1994,
is settled or the Board agrees to
.
January 6, 1994 - Several district residents organized a
"public forum" on the contract talks. CAEA participated. The
Board declined to be represented officially.
January 11, 1994 - The AlUociation sent a proposal to the
Board to end the strike if the Board would agree to non-binding
arbitration. Barnhart laid the offer was not worth another vote
by the Board. One of the other Board negotiating team members
(E:bYl said the otter should be considered. The otter was not
cons de red or voted on by the Board. A second public forum was
Icheduled.
.
.
.
January 14, 1994 - The Board announced it would send no
formal representative to the publiC forum,
The Board Director of Finances released a full disclosure of
current employee salaries to the Carlisle Area Taxpayers for
Quality Education. This release was published as a full page
advertiBement in the Evening Sentinel.
.
13
.
~
I'*'
.
Janu4ry 15, 1994 - Tho School District Sup~rintendant
expr~ss~d di8appointm~nt with the printing of tho salarios in tho
S~ntin~l. The Board announced it would not participate at public
forums.
.
'ebruary 1, 1994 - Arbitration Board appointees were
announced. Mr. Floyd Montgomery was nominated by the Association
and Dr. Earl Barnhart was nominat~d by he Board.
'~bruary 4, 1994 - Th~ Board submitted its best offer (which
was the same offer submitted in the summer of 1993).
Dr. Gerald Brandon was selected as the independent
Arbitrator. Arbitration commenced.
May 9, 1994 - The Report of tho Arbitration Board W41
preeented. Tho report was approved by the Association and
reject.ed by the Board.
May 10, 1994 - The Board delivered a new proposal to the
Association.
May 17, 1994 - The Board's new proposal was voted down by
the CAEA members.
If,4y 20, 1994 - As this Brief is submitted, there is no
aqreement.
.
.
II. P~HD~ HISTORY or THE CABH
On February 9, 1994, Plaintiff's filed a Petition for the
Removal of three named Directors for the Carlisle Area School
District who constituted the Board's negotiating team.
Respondents filed Preliminary Objections in the Nature of a
Demurrer on February 10, 1994, and these Preliminary Objections
were listed for argument on May 25, 1994. Briefs have been filed
and this matter is ready for Arqument on that date.
ill. IS!!UES PRESENTED
A. SHOULD RESPONDeNT'S PReLIMINARY OBJECTION BE SUSTAINED?
(Suggested Answer in the Negative).
B. MAY MEMBERS OF THE CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL BOARD BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR NEGOTIATING WITH THE ASSOCIATION IN BAD
FAITH AND ENGAGING IN OTHER UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FRUSTRATING
14
~
,.....,
THE NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS AND CAUSING THE DIST/tICT' S SCHOOLS TO
CX.OSE AND TIIUS BE INEFFICIEN'l't,'{ OPERATED? (SuggEl/Jted Answer in
the Affirmative)
C. ARE THE MEMBERS OF THe ASSOCIATION EMPLOYED WITHIN THB
MEANING 0.' THE Pl}BLIC SCHOOL CODE OF 1949, WH2N TH2Y ARE IN FAC'!'
NOT UNDER CONTRACT, AND THE Nri'GOTIATIONS TOWARD SAID CONTRACT ARB
BEING CONDUCTED IN BAD FAITH BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT NEGOTIATING
TEAM? (Suggested Answer in the Negative)
IV. ARGUMBH'l'
A. SHOULD RESPONDENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BE SUSTAINBD?
(Suggested Answer in the Negative) .
It is well settled law in Pennsylvania that Defendants by
their preliminary objections admit as true all facts which are
averred in the Complaint, but not the pleader's conclusions of
law. See e.g. Narehood v. Pearson, 374 Pa, 299, 302.
When sustaining the preliminary objections will result in
the denial of Plaintiff's clllim or a dismiual of Plaintiff's
lIuit, a preliminary objection should be sustained only where the
case is clear and free from doubt. London v. Xinqsley, 368 Pa,
109, Waldman v. Weinstein, 367 Pa. 587, Sevies v. Weinstein, 395
fa. 173.
Under the above criteria, Petitioners believe that the
averments in the Ctlmplaint (which are presumed admitted) show
good cause for granting Petitioner's the relief requested. The
Respondent's preliminary objections are not dispositive, clear or
free from doubt. Therefore Respondent's preliminary Objections
15
g2.
"'"
.......
should be dismissed, and this case should proceed to trial on the
merits.
B. KAY MEMBERS OF THE CARLISLE AREA SCHOOL BOARD BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR NEGOTIATING WITH THE ASSOCIATION IN BAD
FAITH AND ENGAGING IN OTHER UN~AIR LABOR PRACTICES FRUSTRATING
THE NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS AND CAUS INO THE DISTRICT'S SCHOOLS TO
CLOSE AND THUS BE INEFFICIENTLY OPERATEO? (Suggested Answer in
the Affirmative)
Research on this subject indicates that this may be a case
of first impression in Pennsylvania. There are several ca.es
involving the removal of School Board directors, e.g. In Ret.
Removal of School Directors of Jackson Township, 7 Lebanon 238,
Marnell v. Mount Carmel Twp School District, 23 Northumb. LJ 90,
Beahan v. Scranton School Dist 72 Lack. Jur. 107/ however, none
of these cases are on point with the C4se at bar.
The statutory law applicable to the case at bar is found at
Section 318 of the School Code, which states in pertinent part as
followlI
"If the board of school directors in any district.. . (2)
refuse or neglect to perform any duty imposed upon H.
by the provi.ions of this act relating to school
districts. . . , any ten resident taxpayers in the
district...may present their or its petition in
writing verified by the oath or affirmation of at
leaet three such resident taxpayers... to the court of
common pleas of the county in which district...is
located, setting forth the facts of such refusal or
neglect of duty on the part of such .chool director..
The Court shall grant a rule upon the school director.,
returnable in not leu than ten nor more than twenty
days from the date of issue thereof, to .how cause why
they .hould not be removed from office...
... If the facts set forth in the petitions, or any
material part thereof is denied, the Court Ihall hear
the several parties on such matters as are contained in
16
~3
~
'"
the petition. If on luch hearing, or if when no an.wer
is filed denying the facts let forth in the petition,
the court shall be of tho opinion that any duty impo.ed
on tho board of Bchool directors, which il by provilion
of this act mado mandatory upon them to perform, has
not been done or has been neglected by them. The court
.hall have the power to remove the board, or .uch of
itl number as in its opinion is proper, and appoint for
the unexpired teX'llU' other qualified penons in their
stead, .ubject to the provilion of this act.
The court .hall impose the COlt of .uch proceeding
upon the petitioners, or upon the school directorl, or
upon the school diltrict, or may apportion the .4lIIe
4lIIong them as it .hall deem just and proper.
Any perlon .0 removed from the ofUce of .chool
director Ihall not be eligible again al Ichool director
for the period of five (5) years thereafter.
Section 1106 of the School Code reads in pertinent part as
follows I
1106 Duty to employ
"The board of school directors in every .chool
dietrict ehall employ the necelsary qualified
profenional employees, lubstitute. and temporary
professional employees to keep the public .choole open
in their respective districts in compliance with the
provisions of this act....,"
Since the pl884ge of are Public Employes Relations Act (43
P.S. Section 1201.101 et seq.), employment of professional
, . employees (e. q. teachers) has been qovlilrned by that act, and
teacher contracts are arrived at thro\1gh the collective
bargaininq pr.ocess between the Board and the Atlsociation. The
. Board has consistently resisted the concept of collective
barqaining and has intractably refused to negotiate in good faith
and has been found by the PLRB to have enqaqed in unfair labol.'
. practices. The Board's recalcitrance in the negotiating process
has led to the currant eituation where the teachers are .tUl
without a contract and have been 10, since Auqust 16, 1992.
17
~
I""'.
Petitioners believe and have stated in thoir Petition that the
current intolerable situation is the result of the Boord
negotiating team's tactics which constitutes bod fAith and unfair
lobor practices. "Bad faith" 18 a mixed question of law and
fact, and i. particularly su.ceptiable to determination by II
court hearing.
The Board argues in its Brief that the ~.ociation's terms
are unreA80nable and that the Petitioners ..ek removal of the
Re.pond.nts on the ground that the Respondent. have not "given
in" to the Union'. demands. The Board', arqument hll been
succinctly .tated that -- the Board has no mandatory duty to
contract with the Aesociation "reqardlell of terms". That
argument bege the questions. Obviously, the Board does not have
a duty to bow to unreasonable demands, but they do have a duty to
negotiate in good faith to resolve thl! diUerence. between the
Boord'. position and the Association's position. The petitioners
believe the Board hll failed in its duty to "negotiate" those
differences in good faith, by refusing to consid.r any position
other than their own.
The Petitioners want to see that the negotiations process b.
carried on by both sides in a responsible and good faith manner
to achieve a re801ution of the difference8. Petitioner'8 believe
th6t the member. of the Board's ne90tiatin9 team have
demonstrated an unwillingnel8 to do 80, and that .uch
demonstration of purpose endangers the education process in the
Diltrict, and that the Re8pondents removal from the process will
8mooth the way for resolution.
18
8.S-
.
\,
~
""'1
. That ilt for thilt Jlonorabla Court to decJ.de sublaquent to a
heAring.
C. ARE THE MEMBERS OF TilE ASSOCIATION EMP[,OYED WITHIN THE
. MEANING OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL CODE OF 1949, WJlEN THEY AR2 IN FACT
NOT UNDER CONTRACT, 'AND THE NEGOTIATIONS TOWARD SAID CONTRACT AR2
BIING CONDUCTED IN BAD FAITH BY THE SCHOOL BOARD'S NEGOTIATING
. T!AM7 (Suggelted Answer in the NegAtive)
The Petitioner" reject the Ro.pondent'. polition that the
JIl.llmben of. the ABlociation are .employad" within the meaning of
, . the Public School Code, particularly if read in pari ~ate~ia with
the Public Employe Relations Act (Iupra). The que.tion of
whether the teachers are employed when they are not under
, . c::ontract, and the term8 and conditions of the employment have not
been agreed to is a queRtion for the Court to determine after
hearing. The petiti'!nere concede that the teachers Are "working"
. and the schools Are currently open, however until the collective
bargAining procee8 is completed, the question is in doubt as to
whether the current stAtus of the teachers i8 employment. That
question i8 further clouded by the lack of good faith And
fairness by the Re8pondents in the collective bargaining procesl.
V. CON~J.lSIO"
Respondent's Preliminary Objections should be denied. The
Respondents .hould be removed frum office and replaced by the
Court lince they have neglected to properly and fairly conduct
collective bargaining negotiations with the representatives of
the teachers, and the Respondents should be asselsed the costs of
19
"""
"....,
this litigation.
The teachers, in their current dtuation,
cannnot be considered to be "employed".
VI. RILl" RlQUJ8TID
The Petitioner. request the Court to remove the Re.pondentl
from the Carli.l. Area School Di.trict Board of Director. and to
r.plac. them with persons committed to re.olving the current
.ituation through r..pon.J.ble negotiation.
Th. Court i.
requ..t.d to impo.. the co.ts of this litigation on the
Re.pondents.
Re.pectfully .ubmitted,
ARTHUR T. MCDERMOTT . ASSOCXATIS
C ./ .:;;;;;~
Arthur T. Mcl)ermott, I.quire
50 lalt High Street
Carli.le! PA 17013
(717) 24J-7807
~
I ,
"
,
'I
,I
I'
'I
,
, I
I'
I'
',I
.
, ,
20
.
.
ot larl B.rnh.rt, Dale H.rtldl, .nd Gerald Iby (.chool elinctor.),
.lle9in9 th.t the .chool dinoton ne91.cteel to p.rtor. th.ir
..nd.tory duty to ".mploy the n.c....ry qu.Ufi.d prote.donal
.mploy.. ... to k..p the publio .ohool. op.n" in the CarU.l. Ar.a
School Di.trict. 24 P.S. 11-1106. Althou9h the pUblic .chool.
r.main.el op.n, the taxpay.r. a...rt.el that the t.ach.r. were not
".mploy.el" b.cau.. th.y w.r. workin9 without . collective
bar9ainin9 8qre.m.nt.2
Common Pl.a. .u.tain.d the .chool dir.ctor.' pr.liminary
obj.ction. in the nature of a demurrer, which ....rt.d th.t eohool
dir.ctor. have no duty to contraot with a t.ach.r.' union .nel elid
not br.aoh a duty to employ because all memb.r. of CAEA an
.mploy... ot the .chool di.trict. Applyinq the rule. ot .t.tutory
oon.truction, Common Pl.a. rea.on.d that one can .mploy (i...,
provide with a job that pay. wa9.1I) without the exist.noe of a
oontract, th.refor., the .ohool director.' duty to employ i. not a
duty to oontract. Common Pl.a. conoluded that the .ohool dir.ctoX'l
did not breach a duty to employ beoau.e the Carlisle Area teach.r.
ar. .mploYftd within the common meanin9 of the word.
Beton this Court the taxpay.n oontend that Common Pl.a.
.rr.d. Th. taxpay.r. a..ert that the .ohool dir.otor.' duty to
1 ( . . . oont1nu.el)
p.tition tor removal of .ohool dir.ctor. who r.tu.. or ne9l.et to
p.rtorm any duty impo.ed by the proviaien. ot this act r.latin9 to
aehool eli.trieta.
2 The 1989 collective bar9ainin9 agr.ement b.twe.n the .chool
boarel and the CarUIl. Ar.a Education A..oeiation (CAlI.) hael
expir.d, anel the t.acher. w.re workin9 without a contract.
:2
e.ploy, when ~eAd in >>IIi ~atefia with the Publio Employe Relation.
Aot (PERA), 3 beoome. a duty to enter into a written oolleoUve
bargaininq aqreement. speoifioally, the taxpayen oitel 1)
seotion 101 of PERA, the publio polioy provi.ion., whioh expre..
the Oene~.l A..embly'. belief that the Aot'. purpo.e of promotinq
oon.t~uotive employment ~elationahipD oan be.t be .erved by
requirinq publio employe~. to bargain with employe. organilation.
and enter into written aqreement., 43 P.B. 51101.101, and a)
seotion 1201, whioh prohibit. unfair practice., .uoh a. inte~fering
with employee.' ex.roile of thei~ rights and ~efu.ing to barqain in
good faith. 43 P.S. 51101.1201.
We find the taxpayers' argument to be without merit. The
fact that PERA requirea a School Diatrict to bargain in good faith
with employee organizations doe. not lead to the conclu.ion that
.uch employees are not employed until bargaining re.ult. in a
written agreement. A Bchool diltriot's duty to bargain in qood
faith and enter into a written agreement applies only to employe..,
not to prospective employees. Under School Code Section 508, It
di.triat employs teaohers by appointment upon affirmative vote of
a majority of the memberB of itB Bchool board. 24 P.S. 55-50..
Teacher. mUBt first become employee. of the school di.triot before
their riqht to organize and chooBe representative. ari.e. and
before the .chool board's duty to barqain ariBe..
Aooordingly, the Bchool director. in the instant oa..
3 Aot of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, U am.nded, 43 P.B.
151101.101 - 1101.2301.
3
clarify penn.ylvania law on the definition of the word employ to
mean" when u.ed in relpeot to a Bervant or hired lAborer, the
term 11 equlvalent to hidnq, which impUel a reque.t and ..
contract for oampen.ation," 'I;'.onellee ~oal Iron and ~. Cli'. V8.
~u.cod. Looal No. 123, Ala. 321 U.S. 50, 64 Sot. 698 703, 705 88
L.!d. 949 (1943).
4 . Denied.
A. Petltloners' posltion wal lupported, to their
belief by the U. S. Supreme Court rule in 'l;'ennellee Coal v..
MUloode (supra) whioh wae oited in their Brief. It 1. noted that
Respondents Brief in this matter contained !I,Q. leqal citation.
.upporting their pOlition.
B. Petitioners deny that their position as .tated in
this matter wa. that the Board must accede to union demand., but
rather that the word "employ" included the duty to "barqain in
good falth to reach a contract". Petitioners would further note
that the LAW does not always follow "common lense" and clt..
Charles Dickel'll in OAiver Twist (1837-38) "If the law suppose.
that/ the law il a (de) all, a (sio) idiot." (Mr. Bumbl., op
eit)
C . Denied. The Petition for removal W81 f !led to
caule the Board to do what it eventually did, i.e., to negotiate
in qood f^ith to reach a contraot with the Teachers union.
5. Denied. PFQ! believes its position was meritorioul and
definitely not "frivolous".
WH.RlrOR., Relpondentl' Petition Ihould be dilmi.led.
ReMpecttully lubmitted,
ARTHUR T. HCDBRMOTT . ASSOCIATIS
--~~
~ McDermott, "quirl
'0 .alt High Street
Carlill., PA 17013
(717) 243-7807
,
"
I,
'\
"
,lit
"
"
1 '
I, , ~: '
I,
"
,
,
, '
il
I'
',',11
.1
"
"
"
"
I,
'I
,;'1
,I
'.
f
'I
"
CIRTIrICATI or SlaVICI
I hereby oertify that a true oopY of the foreqolnq Anlwer to
aule to Show Caule W41 8erved by on the below named perlOn(I),
fir.t cla.. mail, po.tage prepaid, addr...ed tOI
J.... D. rlowr: , Jr., ..quire
11 la.t High Street
Car:ll.le, PA 17013
Date
7/1<</q~
, , I
~ .
~--:: r~ ~
~r: ~. Dermot, ..~e
eo Ba.t High Street
Carll.le, PA 17013
,(717) 243"7807
..,
I.
, ;1'
, "
I,
01
"I
"
I'
,I
I'
",
,
I I I I
I,
"
"
'I
I,
I
I
'I
~f~; p-.; r
~F .'
~;.! ~'-~ .1
t , " I
.,' .' .J
j.. :,'.: ) ~-~!I "
./", 1,,-:-1
ll) \ '..1 '>'.1"
[.1' ,'.I.l
'I I !. ,
h:' , I'" I,~\~ I
.. f, - ~'
I t.;..:
" or,
.
'-.' 1.,)1
,
"
"
, 1
"
"
"
'I'i
'I
,\ j'
I'
I'
I,
1I:\rllr~nl~,'lr,
July IM,I'm
PARENTS FOR QUALITY EDUCATION,
INC.,
O. Fr.nk Eichelberger,
Henry W. Trlfllno,r, Ind
LuAnn Wagner, Ftldgl'y K.
snyder, Sr" Cynthl' P. Vlrner,
HII.ry H. Albright,
John p, Durnin, Charles E, Swisher,
John W. Pittenger, and Ruth B. Ronnan,
Plalntllls
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION . LAW
NO. 606 CIVIL 1994
va.
EARL M. BARNHART,
DALE O. HARTZELL, JR"
Ind GERALD E. EBV,
PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF SCHOOL
DIRECTORS OF CARLISLE AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Defendants
fBAE.cJfE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please submit Defendants' Petition for Rule to show cause and Plaintiffs' response to that
Rule to show causa to the Court for determination In accordance with Pa,R.C.P.206.7(c), which
provides that, discovery not being applicable, the Petition shali be decided on Petition and Answer
and averments of fact responslvo to the Petition and properly pleaded sl1all be deemed admitted.
7/<).//97
Q..h.'Et.. he ( (01'1 ~ K,c:.k -P,[fi(l.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
;Dei ~l( -lie"...! "I.., b l..J
pLt..n.~u.~..rI -Ic.J C. f),
BY\ (tVcd 1}.rQ q,,, >
. James D. FI.e)' er, Jr., Esquire
, ID # 2774"1/
\) 11 East High Street
Cerlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243.5513
~ ~ G
tl;; .. ';1,,-
-It
'c. 'l" llJ
"') ~.,
(;/. ~~ ;,~.
.),:J
9[; m ", 'ii
- -',I!..>
{"", "", ..I:'~'"
r:' ...~ '.II/,}
~I )ll.
I' ~ "r
.) 0
"
;j
,
"
i
,
,
'I \,
01'
, ,
"
,
,
'.'i
"
"
,
1
,
"
"
"
"
J
,
,
,
,
I'
, I
, I
I,
"