Opinion
No. 77-539
Decided August 17, 1978.
In interpleader action to determine the rightful claimant or claimants to funds deducted from teachers' pay as teacher association dues, the trial court ruled that the funds should be paid to the teacher association, and individual teachers appealed.
Reversed
1. PARTIES — State and National Teacher Association — Not — Indispensable — — Interpleader Action — Recover Dues Withheld — Local Association. Where the only reference in the record to state and national education associations was contained in dues authorization card signed by teachers which stated that amount withheld was to be "sufficient to provide for regular payment of the annual or life membership dues" of the local teacher association and its "State and National Affiliates," those state and national education associations were not indispensable parties to action in which certain teachers sought return of the funds deducted pursuant to that dues authorization.
2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS — Negotiations — Meetings — Master Teacher Contract — In Secret — Resulting Agreement — Void. Where all sessions in which school district's labor negotiating team met with teacher association team, and in which the school district's board of education met with its team to review the progress of negotiations and to determine policy as well as strategy, were sessions closed to the public, the resulting Master Agreement was void as being in violation of the public meetings law.
3. Master Teacher Contract — Void — Revocation of Dues Authorization — Limitation — Also Void — Late Revocation — Effective — Funds Deducted — Returnable — Revoking Teachers. Where authorization by teachers for payroll deductions for the payment of dues to teacher association completely mirrored and was tailored to related Master Agreement between the teacher association and the school district, and where that Master Agreement was void as being arrived at in violation of the Public Meetings Law, it follows that the time limitation placed on a revocation of the dues authorization that was contained in the authorization was also void, and thus the late revocation of that authorization by certain teachers was effective and the funds deducted after that revocation must be returned to those teachers.
Appeal from the District Court of El Paso County, Honorable Bernard R. Baker, Judge.
No appearance for plaintiff.
Hobbs Waldbaum, P.C., Larry F. Hobbs, Kristie A. Hansen, for defendant-appellee.
Dale L. Holst, for defendants-appellants.
School District No. 11 of El Paso County (the District) brought this interpleader action pursuant to C.R.C.P. 22 to determine the rightful claimant or claimants to a sum of money which the District had accumulated from teacher payroll dues deductions. From a judgment determining that the fund should be paid to the Colorado Springs Teacher Association (CSTA), Jan I. Peer and Janice J. Cromwell, individually and as representatives of a class of 74 other teachers similarly situated (the teacher-claimants), appeal. We reverse.
In January 1975, the District and the CSTA, on behalf of itself and the District's teachers, entered into a Master Agreement governing the parties' relationship and recognizing the CSTA as the District's teachers' exclusive bargaining agent. The Master agreement provided for the District's deduction of dues from the salary of those of the District's teachers requesting such deductions, and for transmission of the dues, on a monthly basis, to the CSTA. Specifically, Article III, Section 3.1 of the Master agreement provides:
"The Board agrees to deduct from the salary of members of the Association an amount of money sufficient to pay the member's dues and contributions as certified by the Association, where such deductions have been requested in writing by the individual members. The Board further agrees to transmit all such monies so deducted to the Association on a regular monthly basis."
Each of the teacher-claimants executed a "Membership Form and Dues Authorization Card" for the 1975-76 school year. The dues authorization portion of that document provides:
"I herewith request and authorize School District No. 11, El Paso County, Colorado Springs, Colorado, to deduct from my earnings and transmit to the Colorado Springs Teachers Association an amount sufficient to provide for regular payment of the annual or life membership dues of CSTA and its State and National affiliates, as certified by CSTA, over the remainder of the present contract year and for following school years. I understand that the District will discontinue such deductions for any school year only if I notify the District to do so through the Colorado Springs Teachers Association not later than September 30 of that school year. I hereby waive all rights and claims for said monies so deducted and transmitted in accordance with this authorization and the Master Agreement between the Colorado Springs Teachers Association and the Board of Education and all its officers and employees from any liability resulting from their reliance upon this request." (emphasis in original)
Pursuant to the Master Agreement and dues authorization, the District deducted and forwarded to the CSTA dues of the District's teachers requesting such deductions.
Subsequent to the September 30 date provided for revocation of the dues authorization, and apparently after a strike called December 4 by the CSTA against the District, each of the teacher-claimants notified the District of his or her desire to terminate membership in the CSTA and to revoke the District's authority to deduct dues from earnings for the remainder of the school year. After receipt of such notification, the District retained the payroll deductions in a separate fund, the payee of which is the subject of this litigation.
I.
[1] At the outset, we reject the CSTA's contention that the Colorado Education Association and the National Education Association are indispensable parties to this litigation, such that the teacher-claimants' failure to join them requires dismissal of this appeal. The only reference in the record to these parties is the dues authorization's request that "an amount sufficient to provide for regular payment of the annual or life membership dues of CSTA and its State and National affiliates, as certified by the CSTA" be deducted. That the CSTA might consider affiliate dues in determining the amount to certify to the District falls far short of establishing any obligation of the District's teachers or the District to those affiliates. And, we decline to speculate as to any "interest" the affiliates may have in the disputed funds by virtue of agreements with the CSTA, independent of the dues authorization and not apparent from the record.
II.
[2] We also observe as a preliminary matter, and the CSTA makes no argument to the contrary, that the Master Agreement is void. As in Littleton Education Association v. Arapahoe County School District, 191 Colo. 411, 553 P.2d 793 (1976), all sessions in which the District's negotiating team met with the CSTA team, and in which the District's board met with its team to review the progress of negotiations and to determine policy as well as strategy, were closed to the public. Accordingly, the Colorado Supreme Court's holding that the agreement in Littleton was void as in violation of the Public Meetings Law, § 29-9-101, C.R.S. 1973 (1977 Replacement Vol.) and § 22-32-108, C.R.S. 1973, is fully applicable to invalidate the Master Agreement here.
III.
The determinative issue in this dispute thus becomes whether the dues authorization remains in full force and effect such that the teacher-claimants' attempted revocation was ineffectual, despite the absence of a valid Master Agreement.
The trial court ruled that the dues authorization was "sufficient in and of itself to bind the subject teacher without any reference to the Master Agreement." Since, however, all of the facts are stipulated and the relevant documents are before us, that conclusion is not binding on review. Southeastern Colorado Cooperative v. Ebright, 39 Colo. 326, 563 P.2d 30 (1977).
[3] Initially, we iterate that the dues authorization "waive[d] all rights and claims for [payroll monies] . . . deducted and transmitted in accordance with this authorization and the Master Agreement. . . ." (emphasis added) Moreover, comparison of the dues authorization and the Master Agreement reveals that the authorization completely mirrors and is tailored to, the relevant portions of the Master Agreement, including Article III, Section 3.2, which purports to limit revocation of such an authorization to September 30 of the school year. Finally, although apparently overlooked in the proceedings below, Article II, Section 4 of the Master Agreement expressly mandates that any individual agreement "between the [District] and any individual teacher . . . hereafter executed shall be subject to and dependent upon the provision of this Agreement."
We therefore conclude that the revocability of the dues authorization was necessarily bound up with the fate of the Master Agreement. Having determined the latter issue adversely to the CSTA, we hold that the District should return the withheld payroll monies to the teacher-claimants.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.
JUDGE ENOCH and JUDGE VAN CISE concur.