00-0277 Dodgeland Education Assoc. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission

Listen to this article

“[W]e are satisfied that the amount of preparation time provided to teachers during the workday directly impacts on fundamental educational policy issues such as: (1) how many and what types of classes can be offered to students; (2) how will existing school buildings be used; and (3) how should the student day be structured. Balanced against this impact on educational policy choices is the impact on employe[e] hours and conditions of employment generated by the reality that: (1) if teachers do not receive preparation time during the scheduled work day, the various tasks typically accomplished during preparation time . . . will need to [be] performed at times outside the scheduled work day; and (2) to the extent preparation time can legitimately be used as paid break time, reduced preparation time reduces break time.”

Accordingly, we agree with the WERC’s decision that teacher prep time is a permissive subject of bargaining and permissive subjects of bargaining are not “fringe benefits” under applicable state statutes.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

DISSENTING OPINION: Bablitch, J., with whom Abrahamson, Ch. J., and Bradley, J., join. “In its interpretation of ‘fringe benefits,’ the majority fails to recognize the significant bargaining power granted to school districts under the QEO law and fails to interpret the statute in light of the overall purpose of collective bargaining legislation, that is, to maintain a level playing field for both labor and management. The effect of the majority opinion is further chip away at the collective bargaining rights of teachers. Indeed, if the QEO law is interpreted to permit school districts to unilaterally eliminate something as valuable to teachers as preparation time without their ability to bargain collectively on this issue, the future for fair collective bargaining between Wisconsin teachers and school districts is bleak. I therefore must respectfully dissent.”

Court of Appeals; Crooks, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Melissa A. Cherney, Chris Galinat, Bruce Meredith, Madison

For Respondent: William H. Ramsey, James E. Doyle, Madison