This a guest post from MSTA Senior Staff Attorney Vera Campfield on the recent Missouri Supreme Court Rulings.
Districts in Missouri now have a clearer picture, but not an exact definition of what bargaining “in good faith” means.
In one of three Supreme Court rulings from Nov. 20, both public sector parties involved in a dispute must meet and confer with a good faith intent to reach an agreement. Since many, including MSTA, already understood that to be implicit in collective bargaining, it doesn't add much to the state of the current law.
Although the public employer can accept or reject bargaining proposals, it is implicit in the bargaining process that the parties act in good faith; without it bargaining would be "nullified or redundant,” according to the Court’s reasoning. Bargaining would not be meaningful without good faith because one party could thwart the intent to bargain or the intent to reach an agreement. This would invalidate the whole purpose of collective bargaining.
The two other cases involve police officers and the Supreme Court came down entirely on the employer's side. The Court reiterates that public sector employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively. However, the Court does not impose any new requirements on the employer to provide a framework or process for organizing and bargaining.
The Supreme Court does not require employers to set rules regarding an appropriate bargaining unit, procedures for an election to choose a representative, procedures for an election, and procedures for the meet and confer process.
Under these three cases, districts have to be willing to listen and actually negotiate in good faith, but districts can set the procedures for negotiating. Districts will have to show that they at least met and conferred and tried to work through the dispute.
Recent Comments