The other term relevant to our analysis, « Conditions of Professional Service », is defined by law with two categories of specific subjects and a collective term: (1) topics such as wages and salaries, overtime pay, hours and amounts worked, insurance and disciplinary proceedings; (2) the privileges granted to the recognized PEO, including issues such as voluntary payroll deductions, the use of school facilities for meetings, and the dissemination of information about the professional bargaining process; and (3) « other matters on which the parties mutually agree, which are reasonably related to the professional service ». See K.S.A. 72-5413(l)(2)(A), (B) and (C). We consider that the District Court`s legal finding denying KANAAE access to the postal system because the use for dissemination of trading information or related matters was the exclusive privilege of another PEO, oneA is sufficiently supported by factual findings based on substantial competent evidence. Unrau, 271 Kan. to 747. « The use of school mail facilities allows PEA [union] to effectively discharge its obligations as the exclusive representative of all teachers in perry Township. Conversely, PLEA [rival union] has no formal responsibility related to the school district and does not have to have the same rights of access to the school`s mailboxes. We note that exclusive access to recognized collective bargaining representatives is an authorized work practice in the public sector. 460 U.S. to 51. The district was now facing KANAAE`s allegations that refusing to allow the distribution of brochures through the postal system would violate KANAAE members` rights to freedom of expression and association. On the other hand, the district was confronted with ONEA`s allegations that such distribution would be a prohibited practice under the Negotiation Act.
Accordingly, on June 2, 2000, the District filed an application for a decision with the Johnson County District Court. However, KANAAE seems to argue that the commercial judgment rule prohibits us from paying substantial attention to these findings of the District Court. This argument is unfounded. When properly applied, the commercial judgment rule acts as a shield to protect directors and officers from liability for unprofitable or harmful business transactions conducted in good faith, with due diligence and under the authority of directors or officers. Unrau v. Kidron Bethel Retirement Services, Inc., 271 Kan. 759; 18b Am. Jur. 2d, Companies §§ 1703, 1704. However, as the school district points out, KANAAE is trying to use it as a sword to attack the correctness of a trial court`s decision, which is based on other competent evidence.
In other words, KANAAE tries to present the rule as somehow disposing about its own intent. This argument contradicts the concept of a hearing in which all parties present evidence that supports their position and contradicts others. See e.B. Brown v. United Methodist Homes for the Elderly, 249 Kan. to 133 (intent is usually a question of fact and can be demonstrated by actions, circumstances and conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from it and that do not need to be proven by direct evidence.). During its direct investigation, Snowbarger testified that although KANAAE is an association composed primarily of professional educators and sees itself as an alternative to unions, it has no interest in negotiating with the district on terms and conditions of professional employment. However, during cross-examination, Snowbarger admitted that he was the author of a promotional pamphlet titled « 10 REASONS TO LEAVE THE UNION AND JOIN KANAAE. » The leaflet described the philosophy and benefits of KANAAE membership: 2.
A district court`s finding that an organization is a union under Kansas law does not require a person to be a member of a union. On the contrary, current members of the organization can exercise their constitutional and legal rights not to belong to a union by resigning. KANAAE, the School District and the Olathe National Education Association (ONEA) (which has access to the internal postal system) are asking us to determine whether the District Court erred in concluding that: (1) KANAAE is a « professional organization of workers » within the meaning of the Professional Negotiations Act (Negotiations Act or Negotiations Act), K.S.A. 72-5413 et seq.; (2) the Education Committee of the school district duly refused to allow kanaae to use the postal system to distribute its materials to members; and (3) this refusal did not violate KANAAE members` rights to freedom of association under the First Amendment. We confirm the District Court in all respects. However, the school district rightly points out that there are significant doubts as to whether there is a First Amendment challenge in the pre-trial order under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-216(e) or otherwise brought by KANAAE in court. We recognize that the issue does not appear in the pre-trial order or in the diary entry of the judgment. Moreover, we have long argued that when constitutional grounds for annulment are first raised on appeal, they are not properly considered by the Court of Appeal .. . .
.