Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Document(1)
1.
Denver Ass'n of Educ. Office Personnel v. School Dist. No. 1, 972 P.2d 1047
Client/Matter: TABOR
Content Type
Cases
Narrowed by
Court: Colorado
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright 2015 | LexisNexis.
Julianna Wade
| Caution
Core Terms
negotiations, school district, parties, reopen, salaries,
collective bargaining agreement, provisions, changes,
trial court, budget, tentative agreement, reclassification,
annual, summary judgment, requires, multi-year,
employees, increases, recommendation, funding,
salaries and benefits, budget process, initiate, provides,
salaried employee, conditional, benefits, Finance,
issues, existing agreement
Case Summary
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff Denver Association of Educational Office
Personnel (DAEOP) sought review of the judgment of
the District Court of the City and County of Denver
(Colorado) which held that the DAEOP was not entitled
to damages in its action alleging breach of a collective
bargaining agreement. Defendant school district
cross-appealed from a summary judgment entered in
favor of DAEOP as to the issue of breach of contract.
Overview
LexisNexis Headnotes
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Summary Judgment Review >
General Overview
Civil Procedure > Appeals > Summary Judgment Review >
Standards of Review
Julianna Wade
Page 2 of 10
972 P.2d 1047, *1047; 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS 124, **1
Civil Procedure > ... > Summary Judgment > Entitlement
as Matter of Law > General Overview
Civil Procedure > ... > Summary Judgment > Entitlement
as Matter of Law > Genuine Disputes
Civil Procedure > ... > Summary Judgment > Entitlement
as Matter of Law > Materiality of Facts
Julianna Wade
Page 3 of 10
972 P.2d 1047, *1047; 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS 124, **1
Judges: Opinion by JUDGE JONES. Taubman, J.,
concurs. Criswell, J., dissents.
Opinion by: JONES
Opinion
[*1049] In this action alleging breach of a collective
Julianna Wade
Page 4 of 10
972 P.2d 1047, *1050; 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS 124, **5
The School District contends that the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of DAEOP on the
issue of breach of contract. It argues that the trial court
erroneously found that the School District did not comply
with the collective bargaining agreement provisions
concerning the reopening of negotiations and thereby
breached the agreement by not instituting the agreed
upon salary increase. We agree with the School District.
Julianna Wade
Page 5 of 10
972 P.2d 1047, *1051; 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS 124, **9
22-63-401 by requiring them to include a provision
mandating annual negotiations in any contract
concerning wages and salaries that exceeds one year
in duration. This requirement, which is at the heart of the
present dispute, is set forth at HN4 22-32-110(5),
C.R.S. 1997, and provides:
No board of education shall enter into an agreement
with any group, association, or organization
representing employees of the district which commits
revenues raised or received pursuant to Article 53 of
this title for a period of time in excess of one year unless
such agreement includes a provision which allows for
the reopening of the portion of the agreement relating to
salaries and benefits.
This statute was recently interpreted by a division of this
court in Denver Classroom Teachers Ass'n v. School
District No. 1, 911 P.2d 690 (Colo. App. 1995)(DCTA).
Though written after the court here had acted,
nevertheless, the opinion's interpretation of the statute
is instructive in this case.
The dispute [**10] in the DCTA case arose from a
factual situation that, in some respects, is similar to the
one here. The teachers association filed suit against the
school district and board of education, alleging breach
of a collective bargaining agreement caused by the
school district's failure to adopt a wage increase. As
here, the school district attempted to renegotiate the
salary provisions but the teachers association refused.
There, the court granted the school district's
cross-motion for summary judgment on the ground that
language in the contract complying with 22-32-110(5)
permitted the school district to initiate negotiations
concerning salaries and benefits. As to the requirements
of 22-32-110(5), the court stated:
These provisions of state law [22-63-401 and
22-44-115(3)] made it incumbent upon the parties to
allow for annual reopening of salary and benefit
provisions that could result from changes in the funds
available to, or the needs of, the District.
DCTA, supra, 911 P.2d at 695 (emphasis added).
The holding in DCTA suggests that in order to further
the legislative intent behind 22-32-110(5), contractual
provisions allowing for annual negotiations must do
more than simply provide [**11] for the reopening of
negotiations during some agreed upon period each
Julianna Wade
Page 6 of 10
972 P.2d 1047, *1052; 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS 124, **13
In addition, this provision permits the parties to initiate
negotiations as to salaries and benefits in the narrow
circumstance of budget changes. Therefore, it may be
construed harmoniously with the introductory language
in Article 4, which we interpret as a restriction on
negotiations involving issues other than salary and
benefits. See Pepcol Manufacturing Co. v. Denver
Union Corp., 687 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1984).
The record here indicates that the School District sought
to reopen the agreement as to salaries after weighing
the impact of the TABOR amendment, and after budget
realities revealed that anticipated financial support
would not be forthcoming, both of which factors made it
extremely difficult for the School District to comply with
the wage increase as contemplated by the agreement.
Because we find that the School District's initiation of
these negotiations was permissible pursuant to the
language in Article 4.1.10 read in pari materia with
relevant statutes, we conclude that, in refusing the
School District's reasonable request to reopen
negotiations, [**14] DAEOP waived its right to negotiate
and that it must abide by the School District's
determination of salaries for the 1993-94 school year.
In summary, based on the relevant statutes respecting
School District budgeting and matters of salaries,
wages, and benefits, we conclude that HN5 any
provision of a multi-year collective bargaining
agreement is void as against public policy and,
therefore, unenforceable, if it limits any party to such
agreement from requesting in good faith to reopen
negotiations concerning issues of compensation and
benefits within a reasonable period after that party
becomes aware of the need therefor as a consequence
of the legal budget adoption process at either the state
or local level. The limitations set forth in such provisions,
however, remain enforceable as to issues subject to
negotiation other than compensation and benefits.
DAEOP's contentions are rendered moot by our reversal
of the trial court's denial of the school district's motion
for summary judgment and, therefore, we do not
consider them.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded
for entry of summary judgment in favor of the school
district and against DAEOP, and for further proceedings
[**15] consistent with this opinion.
JUDGE TAUBMAN concurs.
JUDGE CRISWELL dissents.
Dissent
[*1053] JUDGE CRISWELL dissenting.
Julianna Wade
Page 7 of 10
972 P.2d 1047, *1053; 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS 124, **16
-After the final adoption and approval of any "tentative
Agreement," the "final agreement" will be signed by the
District and the Association, and it will become an
"addendum to this Agreement." (all emphasis supplied)
It is undisputed that, after its negotiation in 1991, [**17]
each of the parties signed the present agreement, and
each implemented its terms.
In the late summer of 1991, representatives of the
DAEOP presented a proposed reclassification plan to
the School District for salaried employees only. In
addition, the DAEOP contemplated that there would
also be annual increases of 3.75% on September 1,
1992, and September 1, 1993, for those employees.
The total cost of the two negotiated annual increases of
3.5% for September 1992 and 1993 for these employees
and the total cost of the reclassification plan alone were
substantially equal. The cost of the proposed increases
of 3.75% in 1992 and 1993, however, when added to
the cost of the reclassification plan, would have
increased the total costs to the School District during
those two years by some $ 700,000.
The School District agreed to the reclassification plan,
but its approval was based on the DAEOP's
representation that its cost did not exceed the cost of
the annual increases described in the agreement. It
denied that it agreed to pay any additional costs.
Nevertheless, it gave its salaried employees a 3.75%
raise, effective September 1, 1992. Later, however,
when it computed its costs for [**18] such payment, it
refused to give a similar increase in 1993.
In addition, on April 8, 1993, the School District wrote a
letter to the DAEOP, saying that, as "strictly a
precautionary measure," it wanted "to reopen, if
necessary, the portions of the Collective Bargaining
Agreements relating to salaries for the fiscal year
1993-1994." The DAEOP, however, refused to reopen
the agreement, asserting that, because negotiations
were to start in March 1994 for a new contract, it would
"not be [*1054] beneficial" to enter into negotiations in
the summer of 1993.
On September 1, 1993, the School District failed to
provide to the hourly employees the 3.5% raise called
for by the agreement. Likewise, the salaried employees
did not receive the 3.75% raise that the DAEOP
contends they were entitled to receive as of that date.
Julianna Wade
Page 8 of 10
972 P.2d 1047, *1054; 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS 124, **20
a request therefor must be made between March 1 and
March 7. Negotiations must commence at that time and
be completed by June 1. Any further agreement
reached, however, will be only "tentative," and the
parties' approval will be "conditional" upon completion
of the budget process. If that process does not require
any amendments to the tentative agreement, the parties
will sign it after the budget is adopted, and it will become
[**21] the "final agreement." However, if the "tentative
agreement" that the parties have previously only
conditionally approved requires changes because of
the budget process, the parties have agreed to negotiate
changes to that agreement.
Julianna Wade
Page 9 of 10
972 P.2d 1047, *1055; 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS 124, **24
Further, at the time of the adoption of 22-32-110(5), the
General Assembly was well aware that several of the
school districts in the state had already executed
multi-year contracts containing reopener clauses. See
Tape Recording of Senate Debate on S.B. No. 256,
57th General Assembly, First Session (May 1, 1989).
Given these circumstances, [**25] then, I simply cannot
conceive that, in enacting the simple requirement that a
multi-year contract contain "a provision which allows for
reopening," the General Assembly intended to prohibit
local boards of education and local organizations
representing their employees from agreeing upon a
provision that follows the format of reopening provisions
that are in common use.
The majority apparently agrees that the face of the
statute does not reflect such an intent. However, it
concludes, based on "the [*1056] legislative intent
behind" the statute, that any reopener provision must
allow a school district to renegotiate a presently existing
agreement whenever it determines that there will be a
"change" in the funds available to it. Hence, the majority
concludes that such a provision must allow the School
District to renegotiate even after the "budget process"
has been completed. I detect no such legislative intent.
I note, first, that the majority has failed to describe what
it is about "a provision which allows for the reopening"
that it does not understand or which it claims is
ambiguous. Yet, absent such a determination, reference
to a statute's legislative history is inappropriate.
Mountain [**26] City Meat Co. v. Oqueda, 919 P.2d 246
(Colo. 1996); People v. Andrews, 871 P.2d 1199 (Colo.
1994).
Nevertheless, even if it were proper to consider the
legislative history, that history, I submit, does not support
the majority's conclusion.
First, contrary to the impression given by the majority,
the statute at issue here was not designed to grant
authority to a school district that it did not previously
possess. All school districts in this state have always
had the authority to negotiate a provision that would
allow a contract to be reopened at any time. And, they
still possess that authority. Rather, as the Senate
opponents to the bill that became 22-32-110(5) argued,
it restricted a local school district's authority.
Further, there is no indication either in the hearings on
the pertinent bill or in the floor debates that the bill's
Julianna Wade
Page 10 of 10
972 P.2d 1047, *1056; 1998 Colo. App. LEXIS 124, **28
changes, that purpose is fully served by the agreement
at issue here. So long as a request to reopen is made in
a timely fashion, that agreement requires negotiations
and provides that no final agreement will result until the
budget process is complete. While such a request must
be [**29] made before all budgetary information [*1057]
might be available, that poses no great obstacle. Indeed,
the request actually made by the School District here
was made as "a precautionary measure."
In my view, nothing within 22-32-110(5) or its legislative
history prevents the enforcement of the parties'
voluntary agreement establishing a time limit within
which a request to reopen negotiations must be made.
Hence, I also conclude that the trial court's entry of
Julianna Wade