846 N.W.2d 873
Iowa2014Background
- AFSCME (union) and the State negotiated a 2013–2015 collective bargaining agreement; the State proposed deleting an existing provision that protected employees displaced by outsourcing.
- Proposal 8(B) would remove a contract clause requiring the State to offer displaced employees other in-state government positions without loss or reduction of pay (or allow layoff as an alternative).
- The State filed an expedited negotiability petition with the Iowa Public Employment Relations Board (PERB); PERB ruled Proposal 8(B) is a mandatory subject because its predominant purpose is a procedure for implementing staff reduction.
- The district court reversed PERB only as to Proposal 8(B), holding that "procedures for staff reduction" means procedures whose purpose is to reduce staff and that Proposal 8(B) instead addresses post-reduction consequences.
- The Iowa Supreme Court (this opinion) reviewed whether PERB’s interpretation and its application to Proposal 8(B) were rational and remanded for further factual development on competing interpretations (retention vs. bumping leading to layoffs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposal 8(B) is a "procedure[] for staff reduction" (mandatory topic under Iowa Code § 20.9) | AFSCME: 8(B) sets out processes after outsourcing that implement staff reduction and thus is a mandatory bargaining subject | State: 8(B) requires retention of displaced employees (no net staff reduction) and therefore is permissive | Court: PERB's definition of "procedures for staff reduction" is permissible, but the record is ambiguous as to Proposal 8(B)'s predominant purpose; remand for factfinding on whether it effectively forces staff reduction via "bumping" or instead prevents staff reduction (retention) |
| Proper interpretation of "procedures for staff reduction" | AFSCME/PERB: means matters involving order and manner of carrying out a staff reduction | State/district court: "for" means purpose; should be limited to procedures whose goal is to reduce staff | Held: PERB’s broader definition is consistent with ordinary meaning and is not irrational; court rejects district court’s narrow reading |
| Whether PERB may interpret chapter 20 | AFSCME/PERB: Legislature vested PERB with interpretive authority | State: earlier caselaw left some doubt | Held: Legislature granted PERB authority to interpret/apply chapter 20; review of PERB is deferential (irrational/illogical/unjustifiable standard) |
| Remedy given factual uncertainty about "bumping" and effects of 8(B) | AFSCME: 8(B) will allow bumping and ultimately reduce other employees' employment (mandatory) | State: 8(B) binds employer to retain employees and prevents layoffs (permissive) | Held: Because record does not show whether bumping/layoffs would result, court reverses district court on 8(B) and remands to PERB for further proceedings to resolve factual consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- Waterloo Educ. Ass’n v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Bd., 740 N.W.2d 418 (Iowa 2007) (adopts the two-pronged Waterloo II test for determining predominant purpose and scope-of-bargaining analysis)
- Charles City Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Bd., 275 N.W.2d 766 (Iowa 1979) (early ‘‘topics’’ test for negotiability)
- State v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Bd., 508 N.W.2d 668 (Iowa 1993) (focuses on what employer would be bound to do if proposal adopted)
- Saydel Educ. Ass’n v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Bd., 333 N.W.2d 486 (Iowa 1983) (interpreting “procedures” in § 20.9 broadly)
- Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 2010) (agency interpretive authority recognized where statute so provides)
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue, 789 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 2010) (defining standards for judicial review of agency interpretations)