 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
South Dakota Education Ass'n v. Barnett7/29/1998
SOUTH DAKOTA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION/NEA, By and Through Its President, Elaine Roberts; and South Dakota Education Association Council on Higher Education, By and Through Its President James Zeman; Lona Lewis; Barb Peterson; Jerry Sweeney; Lela Holcomb; Henry Linares; David Boyles; Kathleen Parrow; Julie Smith; Curtis Olson; Diane Kummer; and Robert Stevens, Petitioners, v. MARK BARNETT, Attorney General of South Dakota In His Official Capacity; The South Dakota Board of Regents; and Robert T. Tad Perry, Its Executive Director, Respondents.
South Dakota Supreme Court ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Argued Jun 3, 1998
[ ] The South Dakota Education Association and its Council on Higher Education (COHE) challenge the constitutionality of the general appropriations bill adopted by the 1998 Legislature. They seek a peremptory writ of prohibition ordering the South Dakota Board of Regents to cease implementing portions of the 1998 appropriations bill concerning salary increases for certain Regents' employees.
FACTS
[ ] COHE is an affiliate of the South Dakota Education Association. Its membership consists of certain public employees who teach at the State's universities and other special schools under the Regents' control. COHE is the recognized bargaining representative for these educators under South Dakota's public employee collective bargaining law. See SDCL ch 3-18.
[ ] While COHE asserts it annually enters into collective bargaining with the Regents, the Regents outline a more detailed history of the relationship. The Regents assert a multi-year master agreement with COHE expired on June 30, 1996 and that since that time the two entities have continued to bargain collectively in pursuit of a new agreement. Both COHE and the Regents agree that, after an impasse in the spring of 1997, the Regents unilaterally imposed interim terms and conditions of employment consisting of terms from both the expired agreement and the Regents' last best offer. While the Regents concede most of these interim terms remain in effect, they assert those concerning the distribution of salary increases do not. In that regard, the Regents contend they reached a limited agreement with COHE governing distribution of salary increases for fiscal year 1998, but that the agreement was not intended to apply to moneys appropriated for salary increases for fiscal year 1999. The Regents affirmatively assert that before the 1998 legislative session they resumed active negotiations with COHE on distribution of salary increases for fiscal year 1999, but that no agreement or understanding in that regard was reached.
[ ] During the 1998 legislative session, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 242 (SB 242), the general appropriations bill. The bill contained an appropriation for salary increases for the Regents' employees. Section 31 of SB 242 provides:
It is the intent of this Act that the distribution of salary increases to non-CSA employees of the Board of Regents be made in a manner to be determined at the sole discretion of the Board of Regents, any other provisions of chapter 3-18 notwithstanding. (footnote added).
[ ] After passage of the appropriations bill, the Regents apparently took the position they were not required to engage in any further negotiations with COHE on the issue of distribution of salary increases. The agenda for a Regents' meeting in late March 1998 reflects this view:
Through language incorporated in the general appropriations bill, the Legislature directed that "the distribution of salary increases to non-CSA employees of the Board of Regents be made in a manner to be determined at the sole discretion of t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|