Judge Refuses to Order Dickson County Board of Education to Negotiate

A judge has refused to make the Dickson County Board of Education return to the bargaining table with the local teacher’s union.

Dickson County teachers thought they had a deal with the local school board – a contract agreed on last year that would run through 2013. Under that contract, the union could re-open pay negotiations each year.

But this spring the Dickson County school board walked away from the bargaining table, citing the new state law abolishing the Tennessee Education Association’s collective bargaining rights.

TEA attorney Rick Colbert asked for a preliminary injunction to make the local board go back to the table. Chancellor George Sexton refused, saying he would wait for the full hearing on the facts of the case. Colbert was disappointed.

“Every day that we don’t get to negotiate …is a day that the teachers lose their right to have a say in their terms and conditions of employment.”

One problem with the union’s argument is the expiration date of the current contract. Teachers thought when they left the table last year that it reached to 2013. That’s what an official cover letter says. But the signed copy of the contract has an expiration date of June 30, this year.

Meanwhile, a TEA chapter in Blount County, in East Tennessee also asked a court this week to force the local school board there back into negotiations. No date is set for that hearing.

WEB EXTRA:
The Dickson County case revolves around multi-year contracts that have “re-openers,” clauses that allow a re-negotiation each year on issues of pay, health insurance, and other terms of employment.

Colbert says Dickson isn’t the only county with those types of agreements.

“We have locals like the Dickson County Association, all over the state, that still have contracts in place, that do have re-opener provisions in them. And interestingly enough, the commissioner of education published a set of frequently asked questions, and told local school boards that PECCA [Professional Educator Collaborative Conferencing Act] doesn’t have any effect on re-opener provisions. If you’ve got a contract with a re-opener provision, you have to engage in those negotiations, not withstanding PECCA.”

That’s only one of the issues raised by the new “collaborative conferencing” law, which overturns the 1978 Professional Educator Negotiations Act. That act required school boards to negotiate with an properly elected local TEA chapter.

“Anytime the legislature passes a new law that is this pervasive, they are going to be legal issues that arise, and we’ve got issues that are cropping up, in different settings, all over the state.”

Jack Garton, the attorney for the Dickson County school board, says the court was correct in not requiring his client to go back to the negotiating table.

“Usually injunctions are used to stop someone from doing something, but in this case, in effect, what the education association was trying to do, was to order the board of education to take some action.”

“It’s really difficult for a court to decide, less than two weeks after the lawsuit has even been filed, whether or not to make one party perform an act.”

The Dickson County case is now expected to be heard in a full-blown hearing on the facts of the case and the merits of each argument. No date has been set for that hearing. But Colbert says his side isn’t sitting back.

“We obviously will try to push it along, because, as I say, every day without bargaining is a day that the teachers are losing the right that they’re supposed to have, under their contract.”

The state Attorney General’s office Wednesday filed a “memo opinion” with Dickson County chancery court, answering TEA charges that the overall collaborative conferencing bill is unconstitutional.

Colbert says the TEA alleges that the bill is unconstitutional on three grounds:

1. The new law retroactively removes some powers that TEA had gotten over the years. TEA argues that the law goes too far in those retroactive actions. [AG says: No, that’s defensible.]

2. The law as passed is broader than its “caption,” the title at the top of the front page. That “caption” is supposed to fairly describe what the bill does – and the final collaborative conferencing bill dips into areas that aren’t part of that caption. [AG says: No, that’s defensible.]

3. TEA says where contracts say the union can “re-open” issues, that contract is still good until the expiration date. [AG says: We’ll wait to weigh in on that one.]