Massa, J.
For the 2017–2018 school year, four Teachers Associations and their respective school corporations collectively bargained over various ancillary duties, such as supervising detention. The Indiana Education Employment Relations Board found the parties violated Indiana law, because they bargained over impermissible subjects and curtailed the schools’ unfettered authority to direct teachers’ performance of these various ancillary duties. The Teachers Associations jointly petitioned for judicial review, which the trial court denied. We are asked to decide whether teachers unions and schools may collectively bargain over a limitation on—or a definition of—ancillary duties. Because the plain language of the relevant statutes prohibits the parties from bargaining over what constitutes an ancillary duty, we affirm the trial court.
….
The Teachers Associations argue “there is nothing in Indiana law that prevents the parties from describing the conditions for which the pay will be provided.” Appellants’ App. Vol. III, p.185. In support of their argument, they claim the holdings in Indiana Education Employment Relations Board v. Nettle Creek Classroom Teachers Association and Jay Classroom Teachers Association v. Jay School Corporation make “clear that [the] parties have the ability to agree on what constitutes an ancillary duty and specifically define the job for which the person is to be paid.” Id. (citing 26 N.E.3d 47 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015); 45 N.E.3d 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 55 N.E.3d 813 (Ind. 2016)).
We first conclude that the relevant statutes prohibit the parties from bargaining over what constitutes ancillary duties. Next, we review the holdings of Nettle Creek and Jay Classroom and conclude they allow bargaining over wages for ancillary duties, but not over the duties themselves. Because we conclude these statutes and holdings do not authorize the bargaining at issue, we affirm.
I. The General Assembly imposed strict limitations on bargainable subjects and vested schools with the authority to direct teachers’ work assignments.
….
II. Indiana precedent allows schools and teachers to bargain over wages for ancillary duties, but not over the duties themselves.
….
III. Neither the relevant statutes nor precedent allow the type of bargaining at issue here.
….
Conclusion
All four provisions impermissibly bargained over what constitutes an ancillary duty and improperly curtailed the authority of schools to direct their teachers. Going forward, teachers organizations and schools may bargain over wages for ancillary duties, and describe the conditions with proper disclaimers. But they may not engage in the type of bargaining at issue here. Because the provisions were properly struck by the Board, the trial court correctly denied judicial review.
We affirm.
Rush, C.J., and David, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.