official position of the association with respect to the sponsiship ofstate legislation to require negotiations in education.The.1975 .AEA -Assembly of Delegates, conducted January :31-

February 1, 1975, was charged with the responsibility for the forum-lation of the associations official policy regarding statutbry',man-dates for professional negotiations. 'rims the 1975 Assembly ofDelegates was perceived as critical by both proponents and' op-ponehts of such state legislation, Resiilufion 7-43 specified thatAEA would sponsor and support state legislation in the 1975 legis-lature requiring negotiations and binding arbitration for public edu-cation in Alabama. -Wide publicity was -given to resolution 75-43and the imphcations for public education in Alabama were dis-cussed in educational settings throughont the state.

Resolution 75-43, prCpared by the Legislative Commission ofAEA, read as follows:AEA supports the principle of negotiations with governing hoards of schoolsystems and institutions and is diree.ted to develop, introduce, and support ac-ceptable legislation in this area. Any legislation to be developed by AEAinnsrprovide the followMg; (A) All professional personnel except Superin.-tendents and their assistants may be included in a single bargaining unit.Principals and Supervisors may: (1) Be a part of the teacher negotiatingunit.: or, (2) Choose to ,have their own negotiating unit; or, (3) Choose notto be a part of the negotiating process. Such decision shall be made by amajority vote 'of the principals and sipervispts using secret ballots in ,eachcounty and city school system. (B) The right to strike is forbidden, however,provision must be made for resolying impasse in negotiations- by a*three mem-ber:committee, one appointed by the local schoid board or institution, one bythe negotiating unit, and 'a third being mutually agreedzupon by the boardand the negotiating unit. The decision of this panel will be final providingsuch decision does not violate the Fletcher Budget Act.

Educational organizations in Alabama-and their positidnal lead-ers became polarized with regard to the provisions of resolution75-43. Vigorou,,concerted opposition to the enactment 4 the reso-lution was generated hy the Alabama Association of School Admin-istratori through its' 1974-75 president, Dr. Wayne Teague. Abrochure containing the entire. text .of an address delivered by Dr.' Teague at the annual summer conference of AASA on August 4,1074 in. Gulf Shores, Alabama, was given wide distribution to edu-catoes, legislators, and school referenee gioups throughout Alabama.Professional negotiations were .deplored by Dr. Teague in his ad-dress as typified hy the following quotations:

"The possibility of a' teacher negotiations law, in my opinion, is the higgestthreat to publi5 education that any of u.s have 'encountered."

". . . let's make.sure that all educators in Alabama, and yes all legisigorand citizens, know the facts about negotiation laws and their bad effecte

97 'r

9 7

'In till sulq'Yort of AASA's vehement opposition'to any proposed

kgis ttion mandating negotiations in education wyre the Alabama

Ass( dation of School 'Boards; Dr. Randy Quitm, Executive Secre,

tar and the Alabama Congress of Parents and Teachers, Mrs.' Harry

N :lson, Executive Secretary.The Mabama Association of Classroom Teachers, the largest di-

viskin of AEA, and the entire salaried .staff of the AEA vigorously

, gupported the provisions of resolution .75-43 .and exrted concerted

energy in an 'effort ti) secure its enactment. A- pamphlet entitled

"The Truth About Professional Negotiations" was prepared and

circulated widely in Alabama by the. ClasSroom Teachers Associa-

tion. Typical of the contents of the pamphlet are the following

quotations:"Professional negotiations does not dean Oriker No one is asking for a law

to legalize strikes or work halts. The proposed 'AEA resolution on professional

negotiations contains a no strike clause. (a stiff penalty will he inseited into

any legislation.r."Professional 'negotiations does mean freedom from .scare tactics and in-

Prior to, the 1975 Assembly of Delegatec a majority of, beat edu-

cational associations in Alabama, as affiliates a AEA, engaged in a

formalized .process, of instructing their elected delegates regarding

the issues and resolutions to be supported and opposed. At the in-

vitation of numerous .local associations, Dr. -Wayme Teague, AASA

President, and Dr. Paul Hubbard, Executive Secretary, AEA, de-

bated the issueS related td professional negotiations in education

and the proVisions of resolution 75-43. Articles stipporting and.op-

posing the propoSed state legislation regarding professional negeti

tions appeared regularly in the Alabama School Journal (AEA Pub-

lication) prior to the 1975 Delegates- Assembly.

tary and an annual dues structure of $50.000 p'er member. 'The like-.

A guest editorial authored by Dr. Truman Pieree, .bean, School

of Edlication, Auburn UniverSity, in which major philokophical and

educational implications of Professional negotiations were eZamined

critically, was published in The 8irmingham News on Thursday,

January 30, 1975, one day prior to the 1975 AEA Assembly of Dele-

gates. Data obtained_tbrough the researeh conducted by Mr. John

Kupice and subsequently reported in the form of a doctoral dis-

sertation provided one information base for the views expressed b7

Dr: Pierce in his timely and highly instructive editorial.

The foregoing activities and conditions support the contention

that the is'sues inherent in resolution 75=43 generally wOe well

understood by the delegates to the 1975 AEA Assembly Of Dele-

gate. The.116Or debate on resolutimi 75-43 .was animIted and heatedexchanges occurred. Proponents o' the xesolution attempted unsue-eessfullvto Obtain a seer6t ballot 4or determining-its:fate. Charges

..of delegate nitimidation by administrators Nyere heard' frequently._by those who opposed a standinO'ote on the issue at hand,. Op-ponents of resolution 75-43 %yen. successful in upholding the motionfor a staudifig vote lw A1A. UM-serve districts, By the narrowplurality of 9 votes, 337 formal 340 'against, tlw 1975 Assembly of-Delegates defeated resolution '75-43. \Thus, for at. least 'one year,the AEA woold not officially suppoirt 'tlw legal institutionalizationOf an adversarial model for prolession negotiations in Alabama'public eduCation.

.

As ii result of his analysis of the Alabama environnwnt rehifiveto collective negotiatkms in the public sector, MrJohn, Kupiceconcluded that the state of Alabama lacks a readiness 'for the enact-

.

meta of a State law mandating ppifessional negotiatiOns for publiceduCation in, the state. The actit'in taken by du. 1975 Assembly iIl .

rejeci.iAg the lesolution calling for a state ncgotiahons law lendscredikility to the conchision reached by 11--fr. Kupice.

.

Although the AEA:s .policynmking ,body officially reftised tosanctipn a state collectiye bargaining law for education, there seemslittle or no hesitancy on the part of .the delegates to support theenatAment of state legislatiim designed to guarantee to teachers theright to partidpate in-the development of policy at the local schooldistrict

A dlegate.representulg the Gadsden Education Association, Ms.Janet Davis, .submitted a resolution cal ing for state legislation torequire local school boards to -meet an .coufer" with local educa-tors, in conducting the policy-making fin lion. Copies of the resolu-tion were distributed to the delegates diving the registration periodjust prior to the AS'sembly's opening session. The "Meet and confer"resolution came up for consideration hy the Assembly on Saturday,February 1, 1975 :and was worded as follows:

"AEA believes that school boards and educators should meet and confe.ron all matters of .mutual concern. These meetings should be thore than justperfunctory tlwy should deal with issues-about which teachers and principalsare vitally concerned.

They shotzild result in cooperatively developed solutions which attack thpepblem at hand.. 'These proposed solutions should be placed,in.writiug and:studied 'further by .the board and' teachers. Once agreed npon they becomeofficial ,policies not subjeArto change until done through the sarne process.

While it is felt by A.E.A. that few boards would object to this procedure,it is recomEinended that the Legislature pass and AEA will develop proposedstatutes to require any ..b9ard which refuses to meet and' confer .with itsteachers and 1)rii ipah to do so.

99 t-

9 9

a t A

-(;oml faith efforts 'should be required of both the board ,nid educators.'Failure to meet when requesred, of :my inlion designed to thwart good faitlfefforts or tO prolUbit discussions by either the board or educators, should carry

ipe ialties of -law.- . ,

, , ., I,

.

"meet .and confer". resolution was adopted by the 1975Assen44 of Delegates with llmt token opposition noted.

With theadoption of the :ineet and confer" resolution, the AEAcreated a potential base of\ snpport of significant proportions forthe alternative to a state aegotiations la* as advocated by JohnKupice as a result of his research effort. Mr. Kupice contends thatthe 'most appropriate course of action for Alabama would be toamend two sections of the existing Codc of Alabama,. Sections -73and 166 of. Title 52, thereby requiring local school bOards to meet

, and confer with teachers pricir to the adoption of educational poli-cies. Further, the proposed amendments would require the develop-ment and iniplementation of a four-step grievance procedure "ineach local school system to deal with potential disputes resultingfrom the implementation of lOcal 'school' personnel policies.

,

There Seems little doubt that efforts .during the 1975 regular. session of the,Alabama Legislature to enact "meet and confer'legis-

. lation with added provisions for impasse resolution.will meet withformidable./ opposition. The March 17, 1975, edition of like Bir-..mingham News, quoted Dr. Bandy Quinn, Executive Secretary ofthe Alabama Association of School Boards as having said publiclythat$ the AASB/will fight any bill introduced in the 1975 state legis-lature which seeks to promote formal and institutionalized educa-tional negotiations in any form. It is not unlikely that the AlabamaAssnciation of School Administrators also will oppose any legislationperceived as hazardous to the ultimate power and authority oflocal school boards and administrators. The rationale for such op-position implies that "meet and confer" statutes merely are pointsof departure leading ultimately to full blown bargaining legislationincluding binding arhitration. .

The degree to which, all educational personnel. in Alabama willbe guaranteed the.right to participate in the development of edu-

.. cational policy and the extent to which collective bargaining willbe institutionalized in, Alabama public education are issues to be .

--. determined 'by the AlAama, Legislature. Decisions made ultimately

no doubt will depend in no small measure upon the political in-fluence capability of the two Opposing forces within-the total educa-tional "family." in Alabarna.

, Three recent events seem collectively to have reduced signifi-cantly thePolitical power af ale Alabama Education Association and

4 100 .

10 0

its eapabilit5t to infhience legislation affecting (lineation in Alabania.First, chv advocacy position with respect to collective bargaining in

lahiuiia education assunted.by'AEA's si4ff illid officers was rejectedby. the 1975 AEA Assembly of Delegates. Thi.s action raises a politi-cally potent question who really speaks for the majority of Ala-baina:s pnblic educators? Second, organizational and financial stepshave been implemented to combine into a single inchisiye profes-sional organization four eonstitilent organizations as folhiws: TheAlabaina Department of Elementary School.Principals, The AlabamaAssociation of Secondary' School *Principals, The Dcpartnielit ofSupetvisors and Diyectors of Instruction, and the Alabama Associa-tion of School Administragirs, ciinimonly referred to as the sliperin-Oidents: group.' The new "limbrella" organization is known as theAlabama ,Conneil of School Administrator- and 'Snperyisors andeffective NY .1, 1975, will have a hill time salaried Executive Secre-tary and an annnal dnes strnctnre oi$51).00 per member, The like-lihood cxists that slibstantial minibers, perhaps a majority, of. theadministrators apd supervisors ,will withdraw from membership inthe AEA as a resnit of the formation of a 'new association morerepresentative of their collective interests and concerns. Third,additidnal local professional assoiAtions may be organized as alter-matiyes to the local affiliates of AEA. Two such organizations arcnow in existence: The Illllibsville Organization of .Ptofessional Edu-cators, and The Alexander, City Organization of Professional Edn-cators. The new organization in Alexander City was organized inMarch of 1975 following the 1975 AEA Assembly of Delegates.

The foregoing events ,on the contemporary educational 'scenein Alabama indicate-the emetgence of a political bakince`of powerthe results of which are highly speculative. Irrespective of th de-cisions relating .to collective bargaining in .pdblic education ulti-mately to be made by the Alabama Legislature, the. State o§kkld-

- banrunjovs currently an enviable position: The opportunity 'e istsnovelo develop patterns and techniques of communication, coop ,

tion, and shared decision-making aniong local school boards, ad in-istrators and teachers .not available to those states in which acher-S'arial models of bargaining in the public sector have been instiin-

'tionalized by state-law. The most apropriate course of action forAlabama should be determined only after informed parUcipationby those reTonsible for the' formulation .and implementation ofpublic educdr. onal policy.

101

4

VII( A ComparisOn Between Pri*ate Sector AO.PUblic Sector Collective Bargaining And

Its Effect'On Public Policy,

hi isampling the_ Alabama Environment, Kupice explored insome detail the altitudinal dimensions.relative to public'employeebargaining in the private sector including both the industrial. andbuiness components. Further, he Considered specifically the think-ing of leadership personnel as reflective of the organizational posi-tions in Ole non-cducatioind public sector and in the educationalcomponent of the public setting. Kupice also focusedin his analysesof existing state laws upon eoniponents .of bargaining kgislation asa basis for projecting. a possible state law for Alabama. The ma-terial presented in this extending chapter will revisit sonic of these

same areas but from a comparative analyses purpose. /tThe process of collective bargaining as conionnilv pructiced in /the private sector cannot be transplanted iato the. public sector.,.even though collective bargaininvin both sectors, have several/ -

common characteristics, e.g. activities during negotiations; recogny..,tion of eXclfisive bargaining.agents, use of written agreements, e c.But distinct differences between these sectorS cause insiamounti delimitations in applying .private sector collective bargaining to thepublic sector.' Now at a -tide when many states are developin7, orrefining their state statutes and Congress is considering federal legis-lation, these differences must be dealt "with effectively in' public'sector legislation if the public sector is going to avoid repeating themistakes made in "he private sector in the 1930's. To provide theinidetanding of these complex differcnces and possible problemsforthcoming, this:, chapter will focus en the ,comparison betweenprivaie wctor and public sector cellectirc hargaining and its. effect-on public policy.

Unique Characteristics of Public EmploiiincntBefore developingan appreciation fdr the diffcrences in the pub-

lic se .tor, one twist understand the general framework of publicemplo ouent. Clyde Summers has appropriately identified .uniqta

t.

charactetistics that provide the foundation for several of the limita-tions of public scctor collective bargaining. First, he explains thatthe decision-making-process is a political. process. Although influ-enced by market forces, social influences, etc., the process largely

,. 4

' Morton H. Godine, The Labor Problem in the Public 'Service, (Cam-bridge: Rarvard University Press,1951), p. 84.

4102 F

102

remains politiCal. Secondly, in ultimate political theory the public.'is the elliphiyer. It is the %nters to whom the public adinfinstratousare responsible.lind these yoters consist of two overlapping gl'oiips:(1 ) Those who nse the (..ivices priwiaed and (2)- those who pay

;for those services through taxes. Thirdly, there are more voters whoshare the economic interest of the public administrators, e.g. lowercosts, improved' sefvices, ete., than those who share the economicinterests of the public employees, e.g. higher wages, greater security,better working conditions, etc. Last, public employee1.4 are able toparticipate in the *deeision-making 7proc1ss that affects their ownterms and conditinns of .elliphiyment with or, without collectivebargaining: they have a right as citizens of their governmental hintto present i'deas and to be heard by the elected oificials.2

Opinions of DifferencesA wide range of opiiiiims have been expressed concerning the

differences between public sector. and private sector collective bar-.gaining and these opinions difkr not only in the elenwnts of differ.-

.'ence but also in opinions regarding the degree cif importance. Forexample, Shaw and Clark concluded: "The non-profit nature of mostpublic services and the political atmosphere are the most importantdifferences between public sector and private sector collective bln--gaining.

Louis V. jmundo differed and concluded: "The most importantand widely discussed difference between prinate and public sectorlabor relations lies in tbe concept of sov#teignty."''

Without expressing his opinion on their relative importance,George tlilderbrand recognized four main elements that distin-guish collective bargaining in the public sector from bargainingin the private sector.

1. The right to strike or lock out is usually taken away by lawor face public opinion or is relinquished by the union it,self.

2. Most of the services are supplied with no additiOnal.cost andare financed 1,taxes. Thus, there is no substantial loss of revenueduring a work stoppage even though public opinion may.be an in-fluential factor in times when the service iS' essenti.al.

2 Clyde Smmers, "Public Employee Bargaining:- A Political Perspective,"Yale Law Journal, Vol. 83, 1974, pp. 1156-1157.

" Lee Shaw and R. Theodore Clark. jr., "The Practical Differences Ife-tiveen Public and Private Sector Collective Bargaining," UCLA Law Review,Vol. 19, No. 6, 1972. p. 885.

4 Louis V. Imundo, "Federal _Government Sovereignty and 'Its, Effect ouLabor-Management Relations," Labor Law Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, Mardi,1975, p. 146.

-{ 103

103

3., The public adinini0!ator ihav.lack the final authority to ryachan agreement'. bistead, he may be required to gain theconsent ofhigher levels of political authority and nkiinately seek approvalfront the relevant lawmaking body. . .

1 Legislative bodieS' ordinarily want to retain as much jurisdic-tion as ther can and treat the legislative process that goiYrns therelatimuthip ill tlw public seivice as reserved territory Zxvhidedfrom.collective bargaining. Thus, many, of the traditional 'bargain-able topics ,are exempt lw statute from negotiations.in the ptiblicsector.' . .

These opinions and' priority evaluation.s.are impatant for a gen-e 'I-overvicw, now more specific comparisons are requited to gainan accurate appreciation of the differences between public _sectorand priVate sector caective bargaining: .

A/Orket Restraints.° A ptincipal difference between public sector and private sector

elective bargaining results .from internal financial ,' ianagementthe economic environment in which both sector' 9perate. in

the private sector, the market economy acts as a cooStraint on de-mailds of, workers for higher wages and better woring conditions.ThiesAenohk gained.by employees Must be offset b higher workerprochictiqty, lower employer profits, and 'or highe prices to con-surnitrf." .Furthermoresince a degree,of substitut; Ality, of variousprodoc'44nd services exists in the Market economy a price increasein one product or service' without ail concomitan increase in thesubstitutable product Or service causes a shift 'in uralases 'as enstorners 'adjust their.preferenees away from the hi er priced produCt 4

and service. ln this reauction in the demand for he product whichtheir union m:-mbers produce, they may face ; trade-off betweenbenefits extracted for the employer and fewer h. mts of employmentfor the membership. Even when this (Ioes hot oeimr, there continues,to he a threat of substituting.capital equipMeia Onachines), forlabor that is priced high. In addition, union negotiators have tohe aware of the possibility of plant shut downs, phint movementsto other locations, and management's flexii)ility ill shifting' prodia!-.tion from plant to plant (none bf which is .a choice.of the publicemployer). Further, unions must be colitinuonsly cdgnizant of the

.

. ,1

5 George Hilderbrand, "The Public Sector.," Frontiers in ColleOtice. Bargain-

ing,"ed. John T.'Dunlop and Neil W. Chamberlain, (New York: Harper and

Row Publishers.' 1961), pp. 126-127. ..

" Michael Moskow. 1. J. Loewenbergand E. C. Koziara;', "Collecitive iar-gaining in PuhlEmployment," (New York: Randent House. 1970), pp. 14-14

vi.

.i 104

104'

, "non-union labor in different ldations which-may offer their servicesat a lower price (wage). Thus, with -all these interwoven factorsto be considered, costs of collective bargaining must be kept withinthe limits of the market system.' ..

In the public sector, trade-offs between increased benefits andemployment by employees are not iis prevalent. Services providedliy the/ public employer rarely have close substitutes and are gen-erally not ,subject to cornlytition from non-union organizations.Where there ar yse substitutes, e.g., private schools; selection ism

slad be on the of factors other than tosts. Comisumnem in the

public sector usually chi not have a real choiix in the pure ases oftheir servcces, e.g. garbage collection, and they usually are r (wiredby law to pav for 'these-services thrgugh 'taxes, regardles ( theextent (stf their Ilse, e.g. pay samiil tax even thougchildren at endprivate schools or no children atteild school. Unlike the pri It('sector, government in effect has a Monopoly,..reduction in servic .swill he cesisted hy the voters and Aork stoppages will not he toleated. Thus, Many times government officials are forced to settl_labor disp-utel ,under pressure. Then, after'settlement, 'they' Mustseek new sources of revenue or shift funds from other services caus-ing a redistribution of income by government rather than the allo-cation Of resources by the market fOrces,"- In the final analysis, thepublic employer has a limited number 'of choices that are availableto, the private employer. .

..

,. .

Doctrines of Sovereignty and.11 !gal Delegation- of PowerThe thictrine of sovtheigmmtyf means. .that, sivrenie power is in-

herent in the political state" and the doctrine of the' illegal delega-tion of power is a constitutional docerine which forbids government'from sharing its power with others 'except under certain tonditions.

,Bccause these doctrines reiluire that et:I-tains discretionary. decisions, b6 made solely on the h'asis of the judgment of a designated official,

sublects of vital interests to.publie employees, cannot be resolvedthrough the collective bargaining process.hecanse authority to makethese decisions are by law non-delegable.'"

,

Harry T. Wellington, and Ralph K. Winter, Jr., 'Structuring CollectiveBargaining in Public Employment,' Yak Law Journal, Vol. 79, No. 5, April,

1970p. 806:. 8 Ibid., p. 807.

" Imundo, op. cit., Vol. 26, p. 146. . .

'" Han-v. . H. Wellington and Ralph K. Winter, Jr., "The Limits of Col-lective Bargaining in Public Employment:" Yale Lauf Journal, Vol. 78, No. 7,

' June, 1969, p. 1108. \4 105 F

105

Because of this litintatiOn, collective bargaining as practiced Iii .

the private sector is not applicable to the public sector. Unionnegotiators do not know whetlu.r their counterpart cam or cannotmake bhaling,dmisions. For example, if the superintendent agreesto yertain issues, e.g..class site, book supplies, additimml resources,lint 'the sdiool board, city council, or state kgislature refuse tosupply fmuls, has anything been accomplished in negotiations? Whois du. employer? Who has the autlunity to 1)argain?

State statutes mid federal executive orders continue to be care-fully shaped arotind presisrving the,sovereiguty doctrine, and mostpublic employees stilkare denied certain rights, e.g. the righf tostriVe and to bargain over certain subjects classified tinder wages.hours, and other term.: of employment." On the other hand, federalstatute in private sco has assured that the parties bargain as equalwith certain rights guaranteed. III the public sector, the.sovereigntydoctrine continues to make bargaining equality impossible" andfew will argue that the collective bargaining process is seriouslylimited.

ln regard to the sovereignty issin. in public sector cidlectivelitrgaining, serious questions remain: I fow much 'sovereignty doesthe gm ernment require? Is it necessary for the governinent to applythe sovereignty doctrine to all areas of decision-making? Nationalsecurity, health, and welfare would find little .argument, but is itnecessary to continne to use the doctrine of sovereignty th supportunilateral decision-making power of du. governnient iii determining.

4., wages, terms and conditions of employment? The federal govern-wilt has already iacted legislation limiting its sovereignty 1111-

11 in tort and contract eases: Ina in the areas of labor-mapage-ment relations, goyermmsnts at all levels have remained inflexibleand have ezirefidly word-NI executive orders and statutes to protectgovernment sovereignty.

Political Process and Right to StrikeOne of the most contrayersial issues in public sector collective

bargaining is the right to strike. Since the right to strike has beentraditionally limited or made illegal 'by the statutes, this subjectwill be coupled with the political processes for explanation.

Proponents favoring the right to strike in the public sector con-

" Look V. -Imundo, Jr.. "Some Comparison Between Public Sector andPrivate Sector Collective Bargaining,- Labor Law Journal, Vol, 24, No. 12.De'i'embpr. 1973, p. 812.

p. 810." liMmdo, op. cit., Vol. '26. p. 150.

-I, 106

t. 106:

tend. that this right has been acmrded legal status as a social andeconomic weapon in the private wenn- since 111:17). Ind, law-illakerS.has e essentially prohibited the right to strike ill the pnblie sector 'for two relisinis:' ( 1 ) szoveriWient SOS ereily,flty ( esploined otiose 1.aTid (2) the essentiality ol services." Law-makers roinenil that. any '

disrliption of essential serS ices would .eptidiate the fondamental - .function ol government. chi thc; other hand, proponents argued..that a ban 1,11 .the strike Hegates collectise bill-gaining in the realsense. of the .word because tbe impasse procedure, e.g. arbitration, ,

fact 4inding, ete., is sulistitined for the right to stay, and flit-partiesfind themselves preparing not for collective bargaining but insteadfor the arIntralittil or fact findlng procedure. Thus, prolunient.s (-)n-(dude that the baii.nt.,a.. strike accompanied by a predeterMined im-passe procediire destrovs'anypossibility of effective bargaining.'

,,.()t1liTs 'dil not ...,4'\\. the 1.11-',ht to triki* \14\' 111\141116 IR'Clint'tIll'y bl'llesl' the, tigh`t" to strike wdl allow minim to esercjse.ii dis-proportimiate share of !Nivel' in the decision-making proci:ss./Theycontend dila if public employee unions' are allowid the right .to. ,_

strike, Oey also Wi,11 use varions methods of political pressure toallow them to accumulate More than an- equal share of bargainingpower,. If they call do this, other interest groups which (I() Mit havethe ability to strike but which (h) ,ha5'e1 competing claims for fundsand appropriations will he competitively disadvantaged and thepoliti .al proce.ss Will be dist9rted." For esample. 'if teachers, fire-men, ..mlicemen, or any other public groups were allowed to strikeand tl e public employer consented to a eollcitIve bargaining agree-ment vhich ridsed salaries and other benefits ;ubstantially thefunds Youlel haVe to be shifted from other government divisionsunk:ss i dditional 'funds. call be obtained. ( I,ately, citizens have notsupport d.tiO: incroases.

;knot ler possibility ill -which the collective bargaining process ,.-

will' be s .riously undermined in the political decision-making arenarests vitt the ninon's, ability to make an "end-rini"" call& duringor after n !gotiatimis. 'Since unions are often potent politied forces,elective o 'cials tend to be receptive to political approac ws from

1 1 \leans he demand for ti e. prbdoct is inetrstic.15 lintind«ip. cit.. Vol..2-1, pp, 815-817. 4.

"1 WCHing on and Winter, op. 'cit., Vol. 79, ii. 807.17 :End-rn 1ts involve an attempt by the Ullioli to circumvent di c011et.,tive

bargabthig pn .esS 'bc,. makiin( a direct apral to the kgislative 1»dv that isresponsible for makingithe final decision. For example, teachers legotiate ,i

\_10 rreeut supi lement to their salaries with the sehool board, thei go cliructivto-the ciei, coon 11 aod pleml for a 12 percent increase.

-i 1071-

, 107 w

ninon 1111(i:i1s. Hirt. the piocess t collectic 1),II v01611144 cannot. \\id%

1.11)4.11(I II) th).'im1)11)....11.101. IIIII -rod Hoe," jtc lewd k Immo%

mid Alm\ public pIlicials. ' IiiIii (()ilIf)Ii ism) tt) the in k Mr WC-till .11114Utlahlr, air (Ii.102:oktud ;Ilifliurih to make decisions s itli-

iii limits le specified prior to .urgotiatinits, these

'It ti%lons cone(ining \\ IH)111,, and condition% 01 1'1111111k !milt

ni.ide dining negotiation., and top olarr.o4emeot vAll tin

moon old\ throov,11 leprewotatives %elected 1uI'llII nrgoti.iting team:

II .IttelllIrt 1 1% tile dili1/11 t1). C11111111% ile(4()11iltif)let 11:1)11ili in

1%11'g:1611111! \Vitill/Ilt /Ilk he lei/likedk nip olail.I.L;eoleot. Tlioc, ill tile Ink :lb. %eutor till' arc

not tolerated and an' 1110

ti( o.11:'IW \I. \IN.17%(. \NI) 11t1 \ 111111 Sl,tiTrAi,

The %tope of bargaining in oh es the issue% which are cOlisidered

to be negotiable ill l'ull'erLk hl ti inkatk. Wetor theseila beril hR Med the National Labor ;Ielations Board

into three categori('s:: ( I.). milawlid, (2) mandatory, and (3) non-mandatory or permissiv(..'" 1,71)lawfail eliised shops and

_hot cargo elanses are forhiddev from negotiation and areiiluentorceable. Mandatory. issifes, e.g. ss'agi's, pelisiOns: /011115. Ill/-

Strike (Like, rte., :Iry bargai.nable and negotiation iii -good faith"over these issues is required by statnte.. In this yasc cit.! ,r party

can demand a mandatory issne and refuse to Ni,:to, hn a, -cementunless its demand is satisfied. Non-mandatory issues. e.g. deman(ithat a superior he disehargcd, demand for withdrawal:of an unfair.1.1,1;or practiCel etc., niVokeN slibjeCtS Whieh the' tWO parties .ati,rce,

to negotiate. eYeir thong!) t WV arc not. require& by law to do slit°Specific designation of issnes into these three' Categories are made

on an ad hoe basis by the Natioval.tabor ItelatiOns lioard and de-

eisiOns these 'categories continue to be updated.

1Vhile the private sector has an...wlininistrative and judicial pro-cedure established for determining the scope of bargaining, in the'pnblic sector the line of distinction between issues is often not clear

alul laws ttiat exist do Hot usually specify exclusionary issues. TIms,in coMparing The public .iector with the private sector, much lessis generally accomplished by statute id administrative decisions

1` Shaw and Clark. op. fIt., p. 872.1" Edwin Beal. E(Iward I). Wklershain. and Philhp Kienast, Yractice

a Collective Bargaining. lIoniewood, Illinois: Ridiard I). Irwin, 1972),

pp. -198-199.

. --regarding the subiect Mager of collective bargaining.2" Withoutstatutory or adniinistratiVe,guidance, much time will be lost in ne-Rgotiations trying to determine the negotiable issues. Further, With- ,

out distinguishing bptween mandatory, permissive, and illegal issues,difficult -and fnistrating'problems, will b faced..

Possible Conflict with Merit .

Collective bargaining? ,public sector has been festrieted'bY*the merit system in many st 4,and few would argue that -collectivebargafning has the potential for minimizing or eliminating some ofthe basic principle's underlying the merit systein in public empkly=rnent.2'

Before discussing the cionflicts between collective bargaining andis,the merit srstem; a distinciion betmleen the merit system and themerit, principlOnust be made. DaVict Stanley explained this dis-tinction clearly: ,

The merit, principle [is 41 concept] under which public employep areTecruited, selected, and advanced under conditions of FrolitIcal neutrality7 equalopportunity and competition on the basis of merit and Competence.22

Wainer and Hennessy' also presented their interpretation of themerit principle:

T1)e merit principle mll'azo. that personnel decisions regarding selection,assignments, career progresAm, promotion, layoff and disCharge should de-pend solely upon .,a,person s merit with no consideration given to either per-

*nal or political support.

Ip practice, the unions have generally ad al the merit prin-ciple and have done little to weaken it; however, they view meritsystems as unilateraf programs designed to exclude important per-sonnel policies, rtiles; and procedures from collective bargaining.For example, reliance on seniority in determining personnel mattersor discharge of employees for refusing to pay dues under a. unionshop clause are viewed as being inconsistent with merit System pro-cedures. Since unions are definitely interested in negotiating .overthese issues, they definitely view mcrit systems as conflicting with

20 Harry T. Edwards, "The Emerging Diity to 'Bargain in the PublicSector," Michigan Law Review, Vol. 72, April 1973, pp. 885-934.

21 1. B. Helburn and N. D. Bennett, "Public Employee Bargaining aad theMerit Principle,", Labor Law Journal, 23, No. 10, October, 1972, p. 619.

22 David Stanley, "What Are Unions Doing to the Merit System?" Publicpersonnel Review, XXXI, April, 1970, pp'. 108-109.

.Kenneth Warner and Mary Hennessy, Public Management at the Bar-gaining Table, (Chicago: Public Personnel Association, 1967), p. 284.

4 109 }-

109

eir approach _to establishing personnel practices anci procedurescollective bargaining,g4

.d .

"refoinmodation Between thellerit System andollective Bargaining

An appropriate issue is wh.ether or not conflicts betiveen collec- .

tive bargaining -and the merit system can be reconciled. HeIburn. ar4d Bennett have recommended that accommodation can be

under the -following conditions: ,xt .

..1.. Exelusion of 'the esssential elements of the merit principleom the scope of collective bargaining. This condition is required

to protect the merit principle from possible cornpromises that canrestilt from collective bargaining.

s2. Restriction of the unilateral authority of the merit systemininnlissions to those matters eSsential to the implementation of themerit princiPle. This condition is necessary to provide a scope of

. -bargaining sufficiently broad to encompass a,,nuinber of non-meritversonnel matters whiCh have traditionally 'been within the uni-lateral authOrity of these commissions.25 .

In addition, effective accommodation would' require two sepeorate laws:. (I) a merit system law which would be limited to thestrict application of the merit principle and (2) a public employeecollective bargaining law which would provide the exclusion ofmerit system matters 'from the scope of collective bargaining.26

Deterinination of the Appropriate Bargaining UnitThe appropriate bargaining unit in the private sector is- deter-

mined ly the National Labor Relations Board as the unit whichis deemed most appropriate for collective bargaining,purposes andwhich will contribute most toward accomplishing the objectives, ofthe. Labor-Management Relations Act: The composition of theseunits are determined by previously established NIJIB standards,e.g. community of interests, bargaining history, extent of Organiza-tion. In addition to administrative guidelines, certain categories ofemployees are required or alhiWed to belincludolt'in separate units,

,

e.g. professional employees, guardS, and 'categories, e.g. supervisors,confidential employees, are exempt from the bargaining unit.' .

In the public-sector the question of appropriate bargaining unitis much more complex. With such variation in state statutes orwith no statute at a, decisions in this area are difficult. .Certain

24 Helburn and Bennett, op. cit., pp. 622-623,25 Ibid., p. 626.24 Ibid., p. 627.

states having Commissions or Boards to provide guidance in thisarea and after a considerable experience, decisions on appropriatebargaining unit in the public:- Sector become less difficult. Without-statutory regulations or administrative guidanCe, difficult isues,must be resolved. For example, should supervisors be inchtded iithe same bargaining unit as line et4, oyees? Should principals 1- eincluded in tbe same unit as teacbeili? Shoukl the bargaining 'itencompass a broad range of agencies or division Of governmeho orinclude only one or equivalent agencies? Should the bar ,fining

89unit be local, county-wide, or state-wide? These fjuesti /14 andothers are difficult to answer and without statutory and adr inistra-five guidance, they are even more complex.

h..COnclusions

: Any comparison of collective bargaining in the ,imblic sectbrand the private sector involves a. wide range of differences, 'eventhough structurally many of the concepts of colleetive bargainingthat are prevalent in the private sector .are transfer4ble to the publicsector. The purpose of this section was not to fojus on'tbe commoneharacteristics of these sectors but to investigte the major differ-ences in order to pro*le an appreciation forand understanding ofthe possible conflicts that may be fated in tfte public sec;tor. Sub-ject differences include Market restraints, ,dóctrines of sovereigntyand illegal delegahon of power, thepolitleal process and right tostrike, the scope of bargaining and mvarit'sYstem, and determinationof the appropriate bargaining unit....

Seriou's thought must be given to each of these issues by legis-lators and policy-makers at each level of government and in Avariety of divisions of governmep t:. to anticipate problems and- toward off the 'mistakes and seri#us conflicts that occurred in theprivate sector in the 1930's. .,Many alternatives and. choices are.available; eVen 7more ideas and recommendations has been pre-sented by .many astute individuals. Now that Congress is consider-ing a federal law add over '30 states- have some type of. legislation'dealing with public sectoi collective bargaining, considered atten-tion mu,st be given to these critical issues and these most perplexingroblems, Moreover, legislation :must be passed to set.np'trative procedures to/assure that collective bargaining works -Wherethc parties desire it/or to assure that collective bargaining iS avoidedwhere the.. legislators do not sanction it.

.States seem tey have;.the choice now of passing a law applicableto their specific' environment and peculiar clutracteristics (an alter-native raised* the Kupice study.) or eventually face legislation by/

4 111 }-

. -

the federal government. At the federal level the,choices now seem to .be whether or not to pass a federal law tO encompass all public sectoremployes. If Congress favors legislation, the choices seems to be: (1)to amend the 'Labor:Management Relations Act to remove the ex-ernption of public employees, or ( 2) to pass legislation that' willapply specifically to public employees. If a special law is passed,Conkress may allow individual states to pass their own legislationunder specific guidelines. Congress has sanctioned .in the past statestatutes in other Ili ersonna management areas, e.g. Equal Empl0-ment Opportunity Act (EEOA and Occupational Safety andHealth 'Act (OSHA); Several' s,tates took advantage of the oppor-tunity, although Alabama was not among this number, and now-administer the laws themselves with financial support from *efederal government. If these statutes, e.g. EEOA and OSHA, e.an

be any predictor of the future for public *sector cdlleetive bargain-ing, state legislatuie should be giving serious thought to thehoice'savailable tO them,

112

1

Bibliography

Bove.%

A.SHBY, LOYD W.; MCGINNES, JAME4-E.; A*0 PERSING, THomAs .E. ommonSerse in Negetiations -in Public. Education, ,Danville, Illinois:, TI e InterH

'1. !

& Co.,1961. - 1. ,

.:

BeAL, EDWIN Fl; WICKERMAM, EDWARD D.; AND KIENAST, Pt ILIP. The.. Practice of Collective Bargaining. 4th ed. Homewood, Illino : RichardH

D. Irwin, Inc., 19.72. . .., .

BERNSTEIN, IRVING. A History of the American Worker ii920-19 ,,The Lean,.Years: Boston, Massnchusetts:. Houghton Mifflin Company, 960.

. 4.-DANY HAROLD W. Contemporary Collective Bargaining. 3rd . Englewood \

Cliffs, New Jersey: .Prentice Hall, Inc., .1912.. . . 1

,DOHERTY, ROBERT E.,. ANb OBERER, WALTEit E. -Teachers, Sch ol Boardsand '

,Collective Bargaining! A Changing of thi Gualil. Ithaca, N viYork: CayugaPress of Ithaca, 1967.

state' Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1972. .

BAILEY, TnoNIA.s A. The American Pageant. Boston: -D. CI

EBEL, ROBERT, ed. Encyclopedia of Educational Research., American Educa-tional Research Association. Toronto, 'Canada: The Macmillan. Conipany,1969.. .

. . ./Fox, DAym J. The Research Process in Education. New York: Holt, Reinhart

and Winston, Inc., 1969.GODINE, MORTON R. The Labor Problem in the Public Service. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1951.HART, WILSON R. Collective Bargaining.in the Federal Civil Service. New

York: Harper & Brothers, 1961.HILDERBRAND, GEORGE. The Public Sector," Eds. John T. Dunlop and.Neil

W. Chamberlain. Filontiers in Collective Bargaining. New York: 1-1.$,-pqrand Row, 1967.

JOT-1m, Roe L., AND MORPHET, EDGAR L. The Economics and Financing ofEducation. 2nd ed. Englewood 'Cliffs,. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.,1969.

LIEBERMAN. MYRON AND MOSEOW, MICHAEL H. Collective Negotiations forTeachers: An Approach to School Administration. Chicago: Rand Mc:Nally & Com'pany, 1966.

MACY, JOHN W. JR. "The Role of Bargaining in the Public Service." Ed. SainZagoria. Public Workers and Public Unions. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice Hall, Inc., 1972.

MILLIS, HARVEY A. AND-MoNTCONERY, ROYAL E.'Organized War. New York:McGrawt.Hilt Bijek 'Co., Inc., 1945.

MOSKOW, 'MICHAEL H.; LOEWENBERG, I. JOSEPH; AND KOZIARA, EDWARD cLIF-FORD. Collective Bargaining in Pu Employment. New York: RandomHOuse, 1970.

MYERS, HOWARD. Labor Law and Legislation. 4th ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-. Western Publishing Compaq, 1968.

.6

_

' NI-CRO, FELIX A. Management-Employee Relations..in the 'Public Service, Chi-cago: Public. Personnel Association, 1969. . .,

PERRY, CHARLES R., AND WILDMAN, WESLEY A. The Impact of Negotiatiods. in Public Education. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing- Company, 1970.

..

SELDES, GEORGE. The Great-Quotation.% 4th ed. New 'York: Pocket Books,1969..

. ,_ /

..,

SHAW, LEE C. "The Development of State and Federal Laws." Ed:/

SamZagoria. -Public Workers and Public Unions... The American Assembiy, Co-.lumbia. University. Englewood Cliffs, NeW York Jersey: Prentice Hall,Inc.; '1972. . i .

Sim:S, EDWARD R., AND WI-IITTIER, C. TAYLO1 R. Teachers, Admini.yirators andCollective Bargaining. New York; Thomas Y. Crowell Compa y, 196,&

SHISTER, JOSEPH; AARON, BENJAMIN; AICD SDMMERS, CLYDE. 111.1 iC Policy andCollective Bargaining, New Virk: Harper & Row, 1962.

STINNETT, T. M. Turmoil in Teaching. Ness; York:. The Ma illan Company;' -,k1\)68.

. / 1 .

STINN'tTT, T. M.; KLEINMAN-, JACK H.; fl,ID WARE, MART A L. Professional, Negotiation .in Public Education ew York: The N, cmillan COmpany,

1967. I l-

SYED, ANWAR *HUSSAIN. The Political he,onf of Americ Local-,Government.-New York: Random House, Inc., 966..

VOSLOO, WILLIAM B. Collective Barg ining in the United-States Federal Civil' Service. Chicago: Public Person/lel Association, 1966.

'WARNER, KENNETH 0.2JAND HENNESSY, MARY L. Public Manaement*at theBargaining Tiible. Chicago: Pufilic Personnel Association, 1967.

.

L a WodovvorrrH, ROBERT T., AND PETERSON, RICHARD B. Collective Negotiationsfor Public and Professional Employees. Glenville,' Illinois: Scott Foresmanand 'Co., 1969.

./INTERVIEWS

ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF SCHqbL ADMINISTRATORS, Andalusia; Alabama. In-terview with President. 2 November 1973.

ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, Auburn, Alabama.' Inter-view with President-Elect.' 31 October 1973. . .

ALABAMA ASSOCIATION OF S HooL BOARDS, Tujcaloosa, AJabama. Interviewwith Executive Director. 5 November 1973. k.

ALAPAMA ASSbCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCII.A1S, Mobile, Alabama;Interview With Preside t during annual meeting of the Delega4s Assem-

,bly, Alabama Educati .Association. 31 January 1974. ..

ALABAMA CHAMBER OF MERCE. Montgomery, Alab'ama. Interview (phone)with Executive Dire pr. 6 March 1974:

ALABAMA DEPARTME OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS, Auburn, Ala-, bama. Interview ith Executive Director during Annual Spring Meeting.

18. January 1974.ALABAMA EDUCATIO ' ASSOCIATION,D MOnIgOI/lery, Alabama. Interview vizith.

Executive Direc or./ 12 November 1973. \

/ -,1 i i 14 )-\

'4,

I. .1 \e

gle 47,:7 \/114

dr .S.

ALABAMA LABOR COUNC L/CIO). Birmingham, Alabama. Interview, witt President- at his hdquarters. 25 October 1973.

' A.LAiAAA LABOR COUNC, L . (AU,/ C.I0). 43irmingham, -Xlabama, -Phone call.7. M4rch 1074. I

ALABAMit. LEAGUE OF / MUNICIPALITIES. Montgomery, Alfama: Interview(phoptr) with Executive Director. 9 November 1973. f -

4LABA MA, STATE EMPLOYEES AsSOCIATION 7' Montgomery, Alabama.-Interview(phone)\ with EieCutive Director. 14 November -1973.

I.

AMERICAN AISSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS; ASC11100S0., Alabama. In-,, terview (phone) ith-President, Univerhy of Alabama Chapter. 6 March

1974. I -

AS5OCL1TED INDUSTRIES ALABAMA. 3 Birmingham, Alaly . Interview'(phone) with Ekecu Director: 14 November 1973.

Cri+ OFFICIAL NO. 1, Selected Inchistrialized City. 6 March 1974.t. CITY.I.OFFICIAL No. 2, Selected Industrialized City. 4 MSk1974.

C ITV FFICIAL No. 3, Selected Industrialized City.. 6 March,1974.Com M ifrEE ON MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION, Ala tam a,

League of MuuiCipalities; Auburn, Alabama. Interview with Chairtnan.- 8November 1973.,

-INTERNATONAL LABOR UMW. Birmingham; llaitama. Interview (phone)

with International ,Representative. 20 Novembef 1973.S;riLBY, H0\110RABLE AICHARD C., Member, State Senate of Alabama., Ttisca-

'loosa, Alabama. Interview. (phone). 7*March 1974.SUPERINTENDENT No.-.1, Highly Industrialized City. 4 February 1974.SUPERINTENRENT No. 2,1Highly Indttstrialized City. 1 March 1974.SUPERINTENDENT NO. 3, Highly industrialized City. 1 March 1974.

. s

LEGAL CASES

A: H. Andrews Co. v. Delight §pecial School District; 128, S.W. 361. ,Alabama Labor Council v. Frazier, No. 29,375 (1972).Akibama Reports. 276 Alabatna 426 163 So. 2nd 819 (/9-64).

AP: ATTORNEY GENERAL (opinion). State of Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama.3 August 1973.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ( ) . State of Alabairia, Montgomery, Alabama.15 October 1973.

ATTORNEY dENERAL (opinion). State -of Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama.7 5 February 1974.

Springfield v. Clouse.. 356 Mo; 1239. 206 SW (2nd) 539 (1947).

LEGISLATION

CODE OF AIABAMA, Recompiled, 1058. Charlottesville, Va.: The Miche Co.1960. 1 S.B. 361. Senate, State of AlabaMa, Montgomery, Alabama. 6June 1973.

CODE OF ALABAMA (Recompiled to 12-1973; Title 52 Sec. 73):CODE OF ALABAMA (Recompiled to 12-1973, Title 52 Seg. 166)' .

115

CODE bF ALABAMA. Title 65. State. Sec. 311, 1953 Cumulative to Co. 8. ActNo. 720. Acts 1953, HOuse Bill, 231. Aproved September 17, 1953.

LLorn-LAFOLLETrE ACT. 37 Stat.'555 M12.). As amended in 198.

NE WSPAPER1

REEVES, GARLAND, "Will Administrators' Group Pull Out Evenivally. from theAEA?" The Birmingham News. 17 March 197% .

The Birmingham News. 17 October 1973. ,The Birmingham News. 21 August 1973 and 12 October 1973. "AdminidTators

Threaten rRift in AEA." The Birmingham New* 14.March 1974.

PAM PHLETS

THOMPSON, ARTHUR A. ,"Manufacturing Expansion in Alabama, 1960-1971"Alabama Business, Tuscaloosa, Alabama: Center for Business and Eco-nomic Research, Graduate School of/Business, University of Alabania,

ABC's of the Alabama Minimum Prigram. Alabama Education As- .sociation, .1972.

A Belief in the Merit System." Assembly of qovernment Eniployees,Washington, D.C.

' Alabama Labor Market. Development of Industrial -R elatiOns. Stateof 4labaria. Montgomery, Alabama. January 1974.

Alakama Labor Market. Department of 'Industrial Relations. 'Stateof Alabipa . Montgorriery, Alabama. November. 1973.

ConstitutIon and By-Liws of the Alabama Labor Council AFL /CIO.Alabama Labor Council AFL/CIO. Birmingham, Alabama. 1972.

Laws arid Proposals Affecting Public School.Negotiations. Vol. I.Educational Service Bureau, Inc.Washington, D.C4: (1970).

...... "1972 Alabama Tax Facts," Alaba Cbamber of COmtherce. Mont-.

.gomery, Alabama."Personal Income by Region and State,"Y- The Conference . Board.

Road Maps of Industry No. 1723. New-York. 1 baOE.er- 19_73.

... "Regional Output, Earnings and Employnient.7 . The 'Ciirderenee---Board. Road Maps of Industry No. 1724. .New Yotic. 15 October 1973.

' The Constitution of the Alabaraa,State Empknjees' AssOciation. Ala-bama Employees' Association. Montgontery, Ala. As amended 11 Decem-ber 197I.:

'''Where Alabama Stands 1973." Alabama *Education Association.Montgomery, Alabama. May 1973.

PERIODICALS

Alabama School Journal. --Alabama-, Education glociation. 15 De-cem

Anvisony Corn1jIoN ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL REL NS. "Problems and-Issues-in-Publie-Empleyer-Employee-Relations."... Y.or Management Poli,cks for State and Local Government, in EduCators Negotiating Seririce,Washington, D.C.: October 15, 1970.

.

-I 1161-

1.

. iBUREAU OF NATIONAL. AFFAIRS, INC. "Alaska Teachers: Right to Bargain Col-

lectively.7 Labor &lations Reporter; State Labor .Lav. Washington,Eisi. July 17, 19112,.. SLL 11:203. . .. .

BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFOAIRS, INC, "Connectieut Teachers: Right to Organ-ize and Bal=gain Collectively." Laltor Relltions keporter, State Labor Laws, ,Washington, P.C.: July 30, 1973. No. 364, SL 16:261% .,..

BUROAU OF NATIONAL,* AFFAIRS, INC. -"Hawaii Public Employees: Righ0 toBargain." Labor Relotion4leporter, State_ Lubin. Laws, Witiirigton, D.C.:No. 379, SLL 21:227. ,

BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, Ic. "Indiana Teachers: Right to BargainCollectively." Labor- Relation.v Reportex, State Labor Laws. Washington.**D.C.: April:15, 1974. No. 356, SLL 24:140. . .

BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, ..INC.* "Kansas Teachers: iglu .to Bargain."'Labor Relations Reporter, State Labor Laws. Washingt n, D.C.: Octobera29,1973. No. 372, SLL 26:228.

BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, Ic. '"Maine Public Employees: BargainingRights." Labor Relatiohs Reporter, State Labor Laws.- Washinron D.C.:August 27, 1973. No. 367, Hi 29:213.

.

BUREAU, OF NA11ONAL AFFAIRS, INC. "Maryland Public School Emplovees:Right to Bargain. Collectively." Labor Relatiork Reporters tate 1.-abor .

. Laws: Washirigton, D.C.: November .6, 1972. SLL 30:225.BUREAU OF' NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INc. "Michigan Pdblic Employment Relationcz

Act." Labor, Relation-9 Reporter, Sfezte Labor Laws. Washington, DC,:°. July 30, 1973. No. J64. SLL 32:264. .

BUREAU OF,,NATI/NAL AFFAIRS, INC. "Nebraska TeacherseEight .to BaigainCollectively..7-i Labor Relations Reporter.State Labor laws. Washington,

D.C.:* May 1, 1972. SLL :225.BoREAy OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.' "Nevada Local Government Emplgyees-

ManagernettiRelations Act." Labor Relations Reporter, State Labor Edics.Washingtori,'D.C.: December 17, 14973. No. 377, SLL 38:227.

BUREAU OF AL AFFAIRS, INC. "New Hampshire Public Employees:Collectiv aining." Labor Relations Reporter, State Labor Laws.Washin on, D.C.: March' 22, 1971. SLL 39:204; .,

1.,ot/REXu OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. "New Jersey Ernplikysii,Employeetions Act.' Labor RelationS Reporter, State Ldbor Lai.vi Washington,

- - D.C.: February 4, 1974. NO. 382, SLL 40:249.BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. "iaPh Dakota Teachers: Right to Bar-

gain." Labor Relations Reporter, State. Labor Laws. Washington, 'D.C.:NoveMber 2,4970. SLL 44:223.

BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFAIRS, INC. "Rhode Island Teachers'. BargainingRights." Labor Relations,Reporter, State Labor Laws. Washington, -D.C.:July 30, 1973. No. 364, SLL 50:242 e 242 f.

BUREAr OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. "Union Membership in Public Employ-ment." ;POde of Alabama, 1940. .Labor Relations'Reporter, State Labor ,

Laws. September 18, 1972.. No. 276, SLL 10:275.BUREAU.OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC.. '..Wis6onsin Employment Relations: State

Employees." Labor Relations Reportet, State Labor Laws. Washingtort,D.C,: December 11, 1972. tSLL 60:242 g 242 h.

117

a,

4.

c 7 'COOI3ER, LEWIS. Mayor of Opelika. "When, Unions Try to Run Your City."

Alabama Municipal Journal.: Jly 1973.EDUCATORS NEVOTIATING SERVICE-, "Iowa Public EmPloymeiit Relations Act."

.Edueational Service Bureau. Wa.sinligton, D.C.: June 1, 1974.EDUCATORS NEGOTIATING SERVICE. "New Jersey Teachers Look at Militancy:"

Washington, D.C. EduCational Service Bureau. February 15, 1971.EDUCATORS NEGOTIATING SEIWIYI.E. ."Oklahoma Bargaining Law." Educational

Service BureaU. 'Washington, .b.c.: Noxember 1,1971.EnOCATORS NEGOTIATING SERVICE: 'Oregon Putlic Employee Bargaining Law."

Educationfil Service BUreuu. Washington, D.C.X September I; 1979.EDUCATORS NEGOTIATING SERVICE. "PepnsvIvania/PAlic Employee Relations

Act." Educational Service greau. WasitingtOn, D.C.: September 1, 1970.n

,EDUCATORS NEGOTIATI llNG SERVICE.' "SOui waKtna rilOe cariployee, Bargaining

Law." EducatiopaServke Bureau. Wasliington; D.C.: June .1 1971.EDUCATORS NEGOTI G .SER VICE, "Winttin Act Amendment (Oilifornia),"

EducationarSeryi e Bureau. Washington, D.e.: Noverither 1, 1970.EDUCATORS NEGOTIATING SERVICE. Washington, D.C.: Educational Service .

Bureau, Inc., September, 1973.EDWA,Rps, HARRY T. "The Emerging' Duty to Bargain in the Public Sector."

2giohiga# Litw Review. April 1973.FRANKEL, SA-U17: "Employer-Employee Relations -in the Public Service. .Pub-

.

lic Personnel Reciet. October 19034.HAMILTON, DRAYTON-1 . "The' Legal View Point." The Alabama Municipal

Journal, November 970.HAMILTON, ROBETT E., }AND MORT, PAUL R. ,711cLaw and Public Education.

.1, Brooklyn: The Fouridatinn PreSs, 1959 in Le.Fleur dissertation..

HELBURN, I. B. AND BENNETT, N. D. "Public Employee, Bargaining and the. Merit Principle." Labor Law journal. October 1972.

.

HELSBY, ROBERT D. "A Political System for a Political World.7' Labor Law,Journal. Augulit 1973, p. 505. .

.

.

IMUNDO, LoLn V. "Some Cornparisons Between PUblic Sector 'And PrivateSector' Collective 'Bargaining. Labor Law Journal. December0973.

"Federal Government Sovereignty and, Its Effect On, Labdr-Manage-ment Relations." Labor Law journal. March 1975. , -;e.

KUTTER, STANLEY 1. "Libor, The /Clayton Act, and the Supreine%Court." #

Labor History Vol: 3, number I". W'inter, 1962, p. 19. ..

., .

.

'LIEBERMAN, MYRON, "Negotiations, Past, Present and Future." SchourOlan-ugement. May 1973, p. 14,/ . ..

POSEY, ROLLIN R. '"The New/Militancy of Public Employees." Public Adklin-41' istra,tion Review, (March/ April,- 1968). .SHAW, LEE C., AND CLAIiii, R. THEODORE JR. "The Practical Differences nr-

tween Public .and PriVate Sector Collective Bargaining.' UCLA Law Rikr,view. June 1972. .

..

STANLEY, DAVID: "Nyliat Are Uniims Doing to the MeEit System?" Public Per-%sonny! Reciew./April 1970.

SUMMERS, CLY '. "Public Employee Baegaining: A Political PerspectiVe."Yale Law Journal. 1974.

118

118

UNITED STATES DEP.ARTISENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE. "Fu-ture:Directions for School Financing." National Educational Finance Proj-ect. Gainesville, Florida, 1971.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE. "Status.and Impact of Educational Finance Programs." National Educational Fi-nance Project. Gainesville, Florida, 1971,,

WATKINS, JOHN, ed. Alabama Municipal Journal; Alabama League of Munici-palities, July 1973.

WATKINS, JOUN, ed. Alabama Municipal Journal, Alabama League of Munici-palities, May 1972.

WELLINCTON, HARRY T., AND WINTER, RALPH K. JR.. '"Structuring CollectiveBargaining in Public Employment." Yak Law Journal. April 1970.

"The Limits 'of Collective Bargaining in,Public Employmea."Yale Lair, Joi_!ragkiithe 1969.

UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

HAZARD, WILLIAM ROBERT. "The Legal Status of Collective Negotiations by .

Public School Teachersand Implications (or Public School Administration.Ph.D. dissertation, Northweitern University,. 1966.

LE FLEUR, LAWRENCE WALTER. "Ttie Current- Legal Status and Trenas ofCollettive Bargaining Between Public School Teachers .and School Boardsin the United States.' Ph.D. aissertation,. University of Illinois, 1971.

THORNTON; ROBERT JAMES. "Collective Negotiations for Teachers: Historyand Economic Effects." Ph.D. dissertation; University of Illinois. 1970.

. OTHER ..,

i . . .,-ALABAMA ASSOCIATION oF SCHOOL HOARDS. Tbstimoq presented by Executive

. Director to Business and Labor Committee9 State Senate of Alabama. 5'. ,june 1973.APABAMA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. "Annual- R?port - 1971-72." Montgom-i ery, Alabama. 1973. . ,

,''va'ALABAMA LABOR CouNqu, .(AFL/CIO):-;'.-PreSident, Testimony presented to

Business and Labor Committee, Alabama .Senate, Montgomery. 6 June1973.

ALABAMA LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES, internal C0111111unication, ExecutiveDirector to Municipal Officials, Montgomery, Alabama. 8 November 1973/

ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. "An Analysis of the Enroll", State Appropriatio_ns-and-Per Capita Expenditures for ElementarySecondary Education and -Post Secondary Education, 1968-1979." A

sorking paper, Montgomery,-Alabama: Division of Departmental Services,Office Nanning and Evaluation. ,14 February 1973.

FALZON, JOSEPH. "Summary of Professional Negotiations Statutes." Personalletter with charts. National Education Asociation, Research Division.WashingtoD.C.: (November 8, 1973). '

HUBBERT, PAUL R, Status of the Profession." A4peech delivered to theDelegate Assembly, Alabama Education -Aisociation, Mtibile, Alabama. 1

February 1974.

41191-

Aid

URBAN, WAyNE, J.. "Ideaology and Povier the FloridaPaper presented. to the Southeastern Philosophy ofGamesvile, Florgra, February , 1970r

WHAS RADIO. 'Public Employee argaining A Blessingville, Kentucky. February 1974.

120

4 1201-

Teather Walkout:"Education Striety,

or a Curse:: Louis-

/

QUESTION 1

Organilation - ... Date Official ..; . I

f' N 11E

lirview, questions on -PrfffessiOnal . egotiati ns" in Alabama1. Froiiii Your organization's viewPoi: . where do professional ii tiations

or collective bargaining stand in the stat of Ala ama?. 2. If Ypur organization testffied at he ings b.forithe Senate or:athe Hmise

.4..;;.in the lasti session of the legislature huS sour position changed sinceithat time?

3. Is 'print-tut available of the te .mony at the hearings? :

2 . iat ferm., g any. shoulff a n otiatious law for public- eitplovees in4. W !ere is the best resource for it ormation on negotiatioiis ill. the State5 W

?

Alabama! be? .

. . . 1fit 1( you support a law in No. 0.s- hould the teachers be .covered under a

. , .

separate: law? . . ., .. .. , .:

, ,. tij.._' ,,,,.-,-. -7. What ii the attitude of the' people of -Ahibama towiiii a regotiarms:.- .-.

law for public employees?. .. t"- . ;,

8. *hat is the present status of the,§tilomOn Act? 4 .,,,-.i1., 11-:- ,..-p. if law is pasSed, should .superyisots and teaclwrs be m t e. same

ining unit? ..

, ,,,i

1. Do you know of negotiatiOns With .public'emPloyee's being in existerkein Alaliania? ..-..4ir

Appetdix

:f.-lifikiorahle..:14wrence SidesM4.0.9itii:lif Fairfield

e received your requO;St for an opinion dated October 8. "The City of..:1Fairfie1d had previously requested an Opinion on the check-off of Union.dues-on September 11_1973. ;The. opinion was requested by the Hon. Henry Hardy

i member'of- the Fairfield.City Council.'.We replied to Mr. Hardy that the ."City of Fairfield has the right to check-off Uinion dues. We are enclosing a

;copy of out' letter to Mr. Hardy.,.You seem to b; concerned about whether or not the employees are claSi-

fied ernployces hired, through the Personnel Poard of Jefferson tounry. We donot see that it makes any conceivable difference whether the ihrion" membersare classified or unclassified, -

We are also_ asked if the Nlayor of a city may enter inn* contract withregard to wages, hours, and working condition of city employees. The SupremeCourt of Alabama, in , two recent decisions, have held that public agenciescannot enter into' binding bargaining agreemen& with Union members. SeeInternational Union of OperatiN Engineers vs. Writer Works Board of Cityof Birmingham 276 Ahi. 462; Ala:-.463: 163 So. 2d 619 and Nichols us. Bolding

October 15, .1973.

-122

277 So. 21 868.. These caSes hold that pUblic, agencies, can enter into such.,agreethents only Where they' have express constitutional or legislative authorityto do so. This does not Mean that the Mayor and the City Council cannotmeet and confer ,with members ,of the Sanitation Workers Union. It does notmean that agreements caintot be reached And carried out as a result of suchmeetings. It does not effect the power of the City of Fairfield to participatein a duet chbek-off:,''The' city, in its discretion, may participate in the check-off.The Supreme -COurst jjetisions merely say that bargaining agreements reachedbetween publik; agencies and public employees Unions are not enforceable ina court of lav., In other words, the agreement 'wtiuld be terminable at willby the city of the Union members.

It is our recommendation that the City of Fairfield enter negotiations withthe Sanitation Workers Union, and that the city bargain with the Union ingood faith. As a result Of such bargaining, the city should carry out any agree-ment with the Union that is within the power o( the city. Even though suchan agreement might not be binding in court, it is encumhent unon governmentofficials 'at this time in our history to grant to public employees the samerights and freedom granted to Union members in the private sector.

In summary, it is our opinion; 1) that the city may,41 its discretion, check-off Unioh due; 2) that the Mayor and City Council ihay bargain with Unionmembers; however, any agreement reached as a. result of .such bargaining is'not legallv binding on either party.

Sincerely,WIIAJAM J. BAXLEYAttorney GeneralByWALTER S. TURNERChief Assistant Attorney General

WST/sw

Appendix CALABAMA PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS ACT

Seeti011 1. Alabama Professional Negotiations Act; Purpose. fp order topromote the growth and developMent of education in Alabama which is. es-sential to the welfare of its people, it is hereby declared to be the policy, ofthe state to promote the improvement of per5onn4 Management and relationswith professional employees within the public sclibol districts of the state byproviding a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public school professional employees-- to join organizations' of their own choice. The State ofAlabama ''has determined that the ovemll policy may best lie accomplished hy(1) granting to-professional employees the right to organize 'and choose freelytheir representatives; (2) requiring public school employers to negotiate Withprofessional employees organizations representing professional employees andto enter into written agreements evidencing the result of such negotiations; and(3) establishing procedures to proyicle for the .protection of the rights of the

Public school professional employees, the 'public school employer and thepublic at large.

Section 2. Professional Public School Employees; Participation. Profes--

1231-

123

slibtal public school employees shall have thv ,right to form, join, atid par-tieipate in theactivities of -nrganizations-of their choosing for the purpose of

Itpresentation on all 'matters of employment relations, but no professionOtpublic school employee shall be completed to join such an organization.

Sction 3. Coverage: A professional public school employee means anyprofessional .employee of. a school district, except the chief administrative()nicer.

Section 4. Representatien: When a majority of the professional employeesin a school district have designated an educational organization of their ownchoosing to negotiate for them, the organization shall be recognized by theschool hoard s the exclusive negotiating agent for all the professional staff,except the chief administrative officer. The membership any such recog-nized educational organization shall be composed prin lry of those em--

r ploved in the teaching profession in Ahiltania, and cert cated by the De-partment of Education. .

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent certificated admin-istrative personnel groups, including principals and assistant principals, fromhaving the right to negotiate independently of the other professional personnelif they choose to do so as the result of..a secret ballot.

Section 5. Administrative AgencY: Altbama Education .Employer-Em-.

plovee Relations Commission.(a) There is hereby created a cOmmig/po to be known as the "education

employer-employee relatiOns commission,"Wireinafter called "the commission,"Which shall consist of three members, one.to be appointed by the superintend-ent of public instruction, one by the goveYnor, and one by the attorney general..The arrpointee of the superintendent Of public instruction shall be the chair-man of the commission. The members of the commission shall he personsexperienced in educational activities. The original appointment by the super--intendent of puhlic instruction shall be for a term of three years. The originalappointment by the governor shall be for a term of two years. The originalappointment by the attorney general shall be for a term of 'one year. Theirsuccessors shall be appointed for terms of three years each, except- that anyperson chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the uneXpired termof the member whom he shall succeed. At all times, iwo members of thecominission shall constitute a quorum,

(b) Members of the commission shall receive compensation as establishedbv enabling legislation for their attendance at regular or special meetings, ofthe commission or in the performance of such duties as the commission maydirect. In addition to such compensation, they shall receive an allowance foractual and necessary travel and subsistence expenses while performi4 corn-mission functions away-from their places of residence.- Mediators and factAnders, appointed by the commission, including commissiOn members when!so serving, shall be reimbursed for expense and shall receive suth compensa-.tion as the commission ,shall from Vme to time,establish.

The commission shall exercise those powers and perform those dutieswhich are specifically provided (or in this act.

The commission shall have -authority from time to time to make, amendand rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out theprovisions of this act. Such rules and regulations shall be effective uponpublication in the manner which the' commission shall prescribe.

The cbmmission shall establish after consulting representatives of teacher

4 1241-*

124 .

..organizations and of governing boards, panels of qualified persons 'broadlyrepresentative of-the public to be available to serve as-mediators,- fact findersand members of fact finding boards.

.

.

Section 6. Scope of_ Negotilitilms: : The employer and the exclusive rep-resentative shall meet at reesonable times, including meetings in advance ofthe employer's burget-making process, and shall negotiate in good ,faith withrespect to wages, hours, and other ..terms and conditions of employment, andwhich are to be embodied 0 a written Agreement, but such ohligation ,doesnot compel either party to agree to a proposal or make a concession.

The employer or the exclthsive representative desiring to initiate negotia-tions shall notify the other in writing, setting forth the tilne and place ofthe meeting desired and generally the nature of the business, to be discussed,and shall mail the notice by certified mail to the last known address of theother party suffieiently, in advance of the meeting. ..

Section 7. Grievance Procedures. Governing boards shall negotiate writtenpolicies setting forth grievance procedures by means l which their employeesor reprOyntatives of employees may appeal the int retation, application oryiolatioiCU policies, agreements,and administrative ecisions affecting them,provided that such grievance procedures shall be included in any agreemenrentered into between the governing boards and the representative organization.Such grievance procedure shall provide for binding arbitration as a means forresolving disputes. .

.Section 8. Impasse Resolution. Parties to the dispute pertaining to the

interpretation of professional.- negotiations agreement may agree in writingto iiave the commission or any other appointing agency serve as arbitrator.or may designate any other competent, impartial and disinterested personsto so serve. _

. .,Mediation. The commission may appoint any competent, impartial, dis-interested person to .act as mediator in any dispute either upon its own initia-tive or upbn the request of one of the parties to the dispute. It is the function

11, of such mediator to bring the parties together vo untarily under such favor-able auspices as will tend to ,effectuate settlement of the dispute hut neitherthe mediator nor the 'commission shall have any power or compulsiou-,ü1.media-tion proceedings. , ,.

Fact Finding. If a dispute has not been settled after a reasona e periodof negotiation and in no case to exceed sixty (60) calendar days, and afterthe settlement procedures, if any, established by the parties have been ex-hausted, the representative, Whkh has either been certified by the commis-sion after an election, or has been duly recognized by the employer, as the

\exclusive representative of .employees in an appropriate negotiating unit, andthe employer, its officers and agents, after a reasonable period of ,negotiation,are deadlocked with respect to Any dispute existing between them arising inthe negotiating process, the' parties jointly, may _petition the commission inwriting, to initiate faet finding under this section, and to make recommends,tions to resolve the deadloCk. -- . . .

.

If the parties do not_mutually dgree to Make the findings and recommenda-'tions of the fact finder final and binding, the.governor shall have the emergencypower_ and authority, at thrxrequest of either party, after investigation,.to orderthat the findiOgs.and recommendations bn all or any specified' isstes of afact finder in a particular dispute will be,final and binding. The -exercise ofthis authority by the governor shall Pe made on a case by-case consideration

,

lt 125 I.

125

and siiiiter,,l'Ill lx. made on the basis of his evahlation re log the overall bestand 74tN of tlw state and Al its citizens, the poten fiscal impact both within

11"PI:'111:Itehe thstt'ate or 4 subdivision. .school district, as well as an anger to the safety of the

its ,."(lion 9. UnfoVemployer-employeel radices. (a) A governing board orof lit'" may not ( I). interfere, restrai or coerce an employee in the exerciseminis riots; (2) dominate or inte re with the formation, existence or ad.of t:t'Ittion of au organizatiom discriminate in regard to hire or tenurecom:,,nPloyment Or term or 6ditioii of employment to encourage or dis-au ,VIsts membership ta an ganization; (4) discharge or discriminate againstOr kii,'Plovee hecitse he is signed or filed an affidavit, petition .or complaintWit); ..e't testimony, t er this cImpter;* (5) refuse to negotiate in good faithappr '14 organizati which is the exclusive representative of employees in anthe Ptiate uui ucluding but not limited to the discussing of grievances withage -t'lusivNs

representative; (b) A , labor or employee organization or histhe n ,111; not (1) restrain or coerce, (A) an employee in the exercise ofhis 44-s garanteed in this chapter, (B) a governing board,in the selection of

for the purposes of negotiating .or the adjustment of griev-, .aieeeso:(t;sent)refte to negotiate in good faith with a governing board, if it has

siv:r'esignated in accordance with the provisions of this chapter as the exclu-epresentative of employees in an appropriate unit.

Sec .' erupt() tam 10. Strikes. It shalrhe *unlawful for any school employee, schoolnaut Yee organitt';;;.,,r any affiliate including but not limited to state or

, to take part in in. assist in a strike ligainst a school° affiliates ti

Asch00,5ehool district shall not pay any school employee for any day. when- thetho ' employee foils as a result of a strike to report for work_as required bynrusselt.00l year calendar, and he shall be fined an et al amount for each day

. ..

,ther ni "ou 11. Severability, If any proviSion of this ;nit or-.1he, applicationthe ne,--1` to anY Person or circumstance is invalid, such invalidity shall not affectout tVer provisions or applications of this act, which can be given effect with-act e invalid provision or application, and, to this erid, the provisions of this

re declareu to be severable.,S

. . _

eetion 12. i-fective Date: This law shall take effect on January 1, 1977.