Date of Graduation


Document Type



The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between longevity, selected concurrent factors, and public education employer unfair labor practices. A documentary analysis method of research was applied to 75 nationally reported cases whose final determination was made at the appellate court level between January 1, 1973 and December 31, 1982. Each case was assigned to one of the five major types of unfair labor practices (Interference, Domination, Discrimination, Refusal to Bargain, and Miscellaneous) according to the primary charge filed, and then placed into one of four longevity categories. The cases were coded according to selected factors which included the classification of the charging party, phase of employer-employee relations, contract status, employer decision level, and the administrative or lower court outcome. Each case was analyzed by examining the frequency and type of charges filed and employer wins and losses relative to the selected factors. The study revealed that the greatest percentage of charges filed reached a final determination at the appellate level during Longevity Category II. Public school employers most often faced a primary charge of refusal to bargain, and charges were filed most frequently by the exclusive representative for professional personnel. Unfair labor practice charges were precipitated most often by central office level decisions, and while charges were filed equally as often during both the negotiation and administration phases, most of the charges occurred during the time when the contract was active. Public school employers lost more unfair labor practice charges than they won; however, as the bargaining relationship matured from Longevity Category I to Longevity Category IV their success rate improved from 20 to 44 percent. Even so, employers lost 70 percent of the total charges that reached final determination at the appellate level. The courts generally adopted a case-by-case approach, but frequently applied a balancing or primary impact test in reaching their decisions. Moreover, the courts were also compelled to hold in favor of the employee when decisions to the contrary would only frustrate instead of promote the purposes of collective bargaining.