Bonner victory helps all members

Can your boss transfer you to a different job against your will? Not until your union has a chance to bargain the transfer process, thanks to a January 2008 Supreme Court ruling brought about by MEA-MFT. It's a landmark decision that could help all public employees.

Here's how it started: MEA-MFT member Julie Foley taught fourth grade at Bonner School for years. She took special workshops and bought classroom supplies specifically for the fourth grade, investing a good deal of her own time and money over the years to become a great fourth grade teacher.

Then, five years ago, she heard an announcement at a staff meeting that the district's new superintendent planned to reassign her to teach fifth and sixth grade special education.

Foley was stunned. So were three other Bonner teachers who heard at the same meeting that they were being transferred to different grades.

"I was happy teaching fourth grade," Foley said. "I had good evaluations. I didn't see why I had to be moved. Nobody in this school had ever been moved involuntarily in 40 years. But because of that, we had never bargained language in our contract about transfers."

Foley's local union, the Bonner Education Association (BEA), challenged the superintendent's decision and demanded to negotiate a process for making transfers.

Five years and a lot of legal work later, MEA-MFT took the case to the Montana Supreme Court on behalf of BEA members. In a unanimous decision in January, the court upheld the Bonner teachers.

"This is a victory for all teachers, for labor, and for students," said Foley. "The decision allows us to sit down with school administrators and negotiate the terms of our employment so we can focus on teaching the children."

"We're just glad to know we can't be moved around on a whim without negotiating first," said Judy Karl, a third grade teacher at Bonner and co-president of BEA.

"We're willing to talk about being moved if there's a good reason, but we didn't want to be moved for no reason at all."

The Supreme Court affirmed what MEA-MFT has said for years, according to MEA-MFT President Eric Feaver. "School districts and teachers must collectively bargain in good faith on matters of salaries, fringe benefits, and working conditions," he said.

"The court recognizes that the conditions in which teachers teach do matter and shouldn't be arbitrarily or unilaterally changed."

Attorney Karl Englund, who represented MEA-MFT and BEA in the case, said: "This is a great decision that is good for collective bargaining, good for teachers, and good for all public employees."

Now, according to BEA co-president Susan Harrison, a second grade teacher, "we have to open up the contract and bargain the transfer language." Congratulations, BEA!

Bonner case history
The Bonner case begins in 2003-04 when a new school superintendent announces plans to move four teachers against their wishes to different teaching assignments.

The Bonner Education Association (BEA) challenges the superintendent's decision, demanding to bargain contract language regarding transfers.

The Montana School Boards Association (MTSBA) advises the Bonner School District that because the contract does not specifically address transfers, the district can transfer staff without consulting or negotiating with the BEA. The district implements the transfers.

MEA-MFT files a complaint with the Montana Board of Personnel Appeals, saying transfers are a condition of employment and therefore a mandatory subject of bargaining.
The Board of Personnel Appeals agrees with MEA-MFT and rejects MTSBA's position, telling the Bonner District to bargain terms and conditions of transfers with the BEA.

Again on the advice of MTSBA, the district refuses to bargain and files an appeal with district court. District Judge Dorothy McCarter agrees with the district.

MEA-MFT, on behalf of BEA, appeals McCarter's decision to the Montana Supreme Court.

The Montana Supreme Court, in a January 2008 decision signed by all seven justices, agrees with MEA-MFT and rejects MTSBA's arguments.

The court says that language in the contract and in state law does not relieve the district of its duty to bargain "in good faith with respect to wages, hours, fringe benefits, and other conditions of employment. ..."

Congratulations, Bonner!