STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 80-10
____________________________________
)
MEDWAY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. )
)
MEDWAY SCHOOL COMMITTEE, ) DECISION AND ORDER
Town of Medway, and )
)
EDWARD M. SAVAGE, Superintendent )
of Schools, Town of Medway, )
)
Respondents. )
____________________________________)
The Medway Teachers Association ("Association") filed this prohibited
practice complaint on October 15, 1979. The Medway School Committee and
Edward M. Savage filed a response. A pre-hearing conference was held on
November 13, 1979, by Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber, who issued a Pre-
Hearing Conference Memorandum and Order dated November 19, 1979, the contents
of which are incorporated herein by reference.
The matter was heard by the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") on
December 12, 1979, Chairman Edward H. Keith presiding, with Alternate Employee
Representative Harold S. Noddin and Alternate Employer Representative Thacher
E. Turner. The Association was represented by Milton R. Wright, Maine
Teachers Association, and the School Committee and Edward Savage by Dean A.
Beaupain, Esq. The representatives waived briefs and made oral argument to
the Board at the conclusion of the hearing.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of the Board to hear and decide this case lies in Section
968(5) of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act ("the Act"),
26 M.R.S.A. 968(5).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Complainant Association is the recognized "bargaining agent" for
a bargaining unit of teachers in the employ of the Medway School
Committee, the "public employer." See 26 M.R.S.A. 962(2);
962(7). Norman Thompson, Jr., Robert Pelkey, Harold Beatham,
Paul Snowman, and Norman Thompson, Sr., are the members of the
School Committee. Edward M. Savage is the Superintendent of
Schools of School Union 113 which includes the Towns of Medway,
East Millinocket, and Woodville, and he is the Secretary of the
School Committee. He is a public employer acting on behalf of
the School Committee.
2. A collective bargaining agreement was in effect between the Associa-
tion and the School Committee from September 1, 1977, to August 31,
1979. Negotiations for a successor agreement for the period Septem-
ber 1, 1979, to August 31, 1981, concluded with a tentative agreement
on all issues including health insurance at a bargaining session held
-1-
______________________________________________________________________________
on May 30, 1979. The agreement was contingent upon a ratification
vote by the teachers. There was no other contingency by explicit
agreement and understanding.
3. The teachers voted to ratify the tentative agreement (19-1 in favor)
on June 4, 1979, and notified the Superintendent by phone of this
fact immediately thereafter. Although the current and past ground
rule agreements provided for notice of ratification by notarized
statement, that rule had been disregarded in the past and the notice
and verity of the ratification vote was not contested on this occa-
sion. Savage and Association Negotiation Team Chairman Robert
Bouchard met on June 15, 1979, and reviewed all the details of the
agreement.
4. The ratified agreement contained a health insurance provision for
full-family coverage. Both sides had proposed this. The expiring
1977 agreement had also provided for full-family coverage.
5. On June 20, 1979, the voters at the Town Meeting voted to reduce the
"fixed charges" line account of the proposed School Committee budget
by $5,000. This line account item includes health insurance for
teachers and a few other employees, fire insurance,and an unemploy-
ment insurance allocation. The reduction did not leave enough money
to pay full-family coverage for the teachers without underinsuring
school property in violation of state statutes. The tenor of the
Town Meeting cut-back vote was dissatisfaction with the provision
for full-family coverage.
6. A similar Town Meeting vote had transpired in 1978. In that year,
however, the School Committee chose to honor the existing 1977-79
collective bargaining agreement provision for full-family coverage
by overdrawing the line account.
7. Prior to the next School Committee meeting after the 1979 cut-back
vote, the Association requested to meet and consult with the Committee
regarding the budget cut-back. This was accomplished at the School
Committee meeting of July 12, 1979. The Association lodged its ob-
jections to any change in the agreement. The School Committee asked
Bouchard if the Association wanted to renegotiate the agreement and
also if the discussion satisfied the Association's meet-and-consult
request. Bouchard did not indicate that the Association wanted to
renegotiate the agreement and objected to the proposed action of the
Committee to change the agreed-upon insurance coverage. Bouchard
did acknowledge that the discussion had satisfied his request for an
opportunity to consult prior to planned Committee action in response
to the cut-back. The School Committee then decided to reduce the
health insurance coverage of the teachers to single subscriber.
8. After this meeting and before Savage had prepared a typed copy of
the agreement, Bouchard told Savage that he would not sign a copy of
the agreement unless it included the agreed-upon full-family coverage.
9. Association representatives also attended the School Committee meeting
of September 13, 1979. A typed copy of the changed version of the
agreement was available. The Association was again asked if the
Association wanted to renegotiate the agreement. The Association
again objected to the change, maintained its position that it did not
want to renegotiate the unchanged agreement and indicated its inten-
tion to file a prohibited practice complaint regarding the School
Committee's conduct. At no time did the School Committee propose to
renegotiate the agreement or acknowledge that the agreement was bind-
ing.
10. By letter dated September 13, 1979, the Association requested of
Savage that a correct copy of the agreement be signed in accordance
with the negotiations. Savage did not do so and instead offered on
September 18, 1979, a copy of an agreement which contained single
subscriber coverage only. The Association refused to sign this
changed agreement.
-2-
______________________________________________________________________________
11. Article V of the 1979-81 Agreement, entitled "Salaries," provides:
"The School Committee reserves the right: . . . (2) In the event
sufficient funds are not appropriated to implement this contract,
its terms shall be subject to renegotiation."
DECISION
The Association urges that the School Committee has violated 26 M.R.S.A.
964(1)(E) by changing the agreement when reducing it to writing and by uni-
laterally reducing the health insurance benefit for teachers from full-family
to single subscriber. 26 M.R.S.A. 965(1)(C) and (D) are relevant here.
The School Committee urges that financial and legal strictures left it
no choice but to undertake to reduce the health insurance coverage and that
the Association was asked to renegotiate the agreement but refused.
We conclude that the School Committee has violated the Act for both
reasons advanced by the Association.
The tentative agreement reached on May 20, 1979, was clearly conditioned
on only one contingency, a favorable ratification vote by the teachers, and
this conclusion was not seriously contested. As soon as that vote transpired
and the School Committee was notified of it, a binding agreement existed.
Section 965(1)(D) of the Act makes it an absolute obligation to execute this
agreement in writing. The Association requested such and the School
Committee refused to do so. Thus the School Committee has failed to bargain
collectively and has violated 26 M.R.S.A. 964(1)(F) which prohibits such
conduct.
The School Committee has not asked the Association to renegotiate the
agreement. The interchanges between the parties at the two School Committee
meetings were not requests by the School Committee to renegotiate the agree-
ment as argued. Rather, the School Committee only asked if the Association
wanted to renegotiate the agreement. The difference is important as it has
legal consequences.
If the Committee feels it can invoke Article V(A)(2) of the agreement
because of insufficient funding, it should do so after executing the written
version of the ratified agreement. The Committee should be clear that the
burden is not on the Association to request renegotiation; the Association
does not want to change its bargained and still binding agreement and has
objected to any unilateral change by the Committee. The burden is on the
Committee to comply with the law, that is, to sign a written version of the
May 30, 1979, agreement and to abide by the terms of that agreement until
such time as they are changed by bilateral agreement or otherwise.
The actual reduction of the health insurance benefit is also a unilateral
change in the collectively bargained working conditions and as such violates
26 M.R.S.A. 964(1)(E) through 26 M.R.S.A. 965(1)(C) which prohibits
unilateral changes. See, e.g., Easton Teachers Association v. Easton School
Committee, MLRB No. 79-14 (March 13, 1979).
There is no evidence that Respondent Savage has acted other than at the
direction of the School Committee and the complaint is dismissed as against
him.
-3-
______________________________________________________________________________
REMEDY
The Association members are entitled to the benefits of the agreement
struck on May 30, 1979, (as ratified) from September 1, 1979, until such time
as the agreement is modified or expires. Accordingly, we will direct the
Committee to reinstitute the full-family coverage immediately and in order to
restore the situation as nearly as possible to that which would have obtained
had the Committee abided by the working conditions set forth in the agreement,
we will direct that the Committee make an unconditional offer to reimburse
each employee in the bargaining unit for what the employee actually paid to
maintain two-person or family health insurance coverage or what the employee
would have paid for full coverage with the School Committee's carrier, which-
ever is greater. The acceptance of such payment will not necessarily consti-
tute a waiver of any claim for other expenses incurred during the term of the
noncoverage that may be raised in another forum. The period of reimbursement
shall run from September 1, 1979, until either the benefit is restored or the
agreement is modified.
If the Association and Committee cannot agree as to the amounts due under
this order within thirty days from date, the Association may apply for an
order for a specific amount by affidavit and written argument postmarked
within 40 days and the Committee may similarly respond within 50 days.
ORDER
1. Respondent Medway School Committee, its members, and successors,
agents and representatives, shall cease and desist from refusing
to bargain collectively with the Medway Teachers Association by
failing to execute in writing any agreements arrived at or by
makinq unilateral changes in wages, hours, working conditions
or contract grievance arbitration as prohibited by 26 M.R.S.A.
965(1)(C) and (D).
2. Respondent Medway School Committee must take the affirmative
action of:
(a) immediately reinstituting full family or two-
person coverage as appropriate for the employees
in this bargaining unit;
(b) making an unconditional offer to reimburse each
of the affected employees for what they actually
paid to maintain two-person or family health in-
surance coverage or what they would have paid for
full coverage had they utilized the School Com-
mittee's carrier, whichever is greater. The
period of reimbursement shall run from September 1,
1979, until either the benefit is restored or the
agreement is modified. If the Association does
not agree that the proper amounts due under this
order have been unconditionally offered within
thirty days from date, it may apply to the Board
for a supplemental order for a specific amount by
submitting affidavits and written argument postmarked
no later than forty days from date. The Committee
may respond in similar fashion within fifty days
from date.
-4-
______________________________________________________________________________
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 10th day of January, 1980.
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
/s/____________________________________
Edward H. Keith
Chairman
/s/____________________________________
Harold S. Noddin
Alternate Employee Representative
/s/____________________________________
Thacher E. Turner
Alternate Employer Representative
-5-