 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
South Dakota Education Ass'n v. Barnett7/29/1998
as scheduled to run only until June 30, 1998. COHE can claim no better version of the facts than it has itself presented. See Miller v. Lake Area Hosp., 1996 SD 89, § 14, 551 NW2d 817, 820-21 (claimant cannot claim a better version of the facts than her own testimony). Since the most recent imposed contract expired on June 30, 1998 and the 1998 general appropriations bill took effect on July 1, 1998 (SDCL 2-14-16), there is no basis on which to bind distribution of salary increases for fiscal year 1999 to the salary schedule established under the expired contract. Accordingly, COHE's petition for a writ of prohibition in this regard is denied.
[ ] Finally, we must consider whether COHE is entitled to that part of the writ it seeks ordering the Regents to, "desist or refrain from issuing contracts based upon, and from paying, or distributing or allocating any funds ... without adherence to the provisions of SDCL Chapter 3-18[.]" This request we grant. By their own concession, in distributing salary increases for fiscal year 1999 and in implementing their salary competitiveness improvement plan, the Regents have attempted to bypass collective bargaining obligations to COHE that are otherwise imposed by SDCL ch 3-18. They have followed this course with reliance on a clause of section 31 of the 1998 general appropriations bill which we have determined to be unconstitutional. To arrest further proceedings by the Regents in this regard, we order them and their executive director, immediately upon service of the peremptory writ of prohibition we now grant, to cease distribution of funds appropriated for salary increases for fiscal year 1999 without first adhering to whatever further collective bargaining obligations may be imposed upon them by SDCL ch 3-18.
[ ] It is so ordered.
[ ] SABERS, and AMUNDSON, Justices, concur.
[ ] GILBERTSON, Justice, concurs with writing.
[ ] ZINTER, Circuit Judge, concurs in part and Dissents in part.
[ ] ZINTER, Circuit Judge, for KONENKAMP, Justice, disqualified.
GILBERTSON, Justice (concurring).
[ ] I fully join in the opinion of the Court. I write only to examine points on two issues.
[ ] As to issue two, the situation here is far different from that where the Legislature enacts a three percent raise for all COHE members. In such an instance, there is nothing for the Regents or COHE to negotiate as by Legislative mandate all will get three percent no matter what subsequent COHE-Regents negotiations yield. Whatever Legislative direction contained in Section 31 of SB 242 is far different. Placing salary dollars with the Regents to be distributed "at the sole discretion of the Board of Regents" allows it in theory to give all the funds to one professor, to a limited group of professors at one institution, or any infinite combinations up to and including an across-the-board raise. Obviously, the discretionary formula for this distribution of funds affects COHE membership and its representatives should be allowed to be heard thereon. To conclude that this bill changes SDCL ch 3-18 requires no more than an examination of the text of SDCL 3-18-2, which provides in part, " ublic employees shall have the right to designate representatives for the purpose of meeting and negotiating with the governmental agency or representatives designated by it with respect to ... conditions of employment[.]" To this is now added a caveat; except funds appropriated by §31 of SB 242 for 1998 which are to be distributed "at the sole discretion of the Board of Regents."
[ ] I do not view issue four as being determined by statements of individual legislators concerning the intent of th
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.
|
|