254 P.3d 678
Okla.2011Background
- City of Oklahoma City and IAFF Local 157 negotiated FY2010 under the Fire and Police Arbitration Act; after unsuccessful talks they extended the FY2009 contract into FY2010.
- An interest arbitration panel was convened; both sides submitted last best offers before hearing as required.
- IAFF moved to strike City’s last best offer for alleged bad-faith bargaining due to unilateral wage language change.
- Arbitrators sustained IAFF’s motion to strike City’s offer, removing City’s last best offer from consideration and adopting IAFF’s offer.
- City filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that the arbitration board lacked authority and that its decision was void, seeking to enjoin IAFF from enforcing IAFF’s offer.
- Trial court voided the arbitration decision; the issue appealed concerns the board’s statutory authority and the ballot consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the arbitration board exceed its authority by striking City's last best offer? | City argues the board voided City's offer and erred by removing it from consideration. | IAFF contends the board properly struck City’s offer for bad-faith bargaining and selected IAFF's offer. | Yes; the board exceeded its authority by striking the last best offer and modifying the process. |
| Was reliance on unfair labor practice within the board's permissible criteria? | City alleges the board based its decision on unfair labor practices not within five statutory criteria. | IAFF argues the board relied on authorized criteria and not on impermissible grounds. | Yes; reliance on unfair labor practice exceeded the board’s statutory role under §51-108(A)(4). |
| Does 11 O.S. Supp.2004 § 51-108(A)(4) limit board decision-making to five criteria in § 51-109? | City contends the board is bound by the five criteria and cannot modify the offers. | IAFF argues the language allows other factors via § 51-109. | Yes; the statute limits selection to five criteria, and the board exceeded authority. |
| What is the effect of Senate Bill 1173 (1994) on the board’s authority? | City emphasizes SB1173 clarifies restrictions on the board's decision-making. | IAFF asserts no further restriction beyond the statutory five criteria. | SB1173 clarifies and restricts board authority to the five criteria in §51-109. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Hugo v. State ex rel. Public Employees Relations Bd., 886 P.2d 485 (Okla. 1994) (statutory agency powers not expandable by agency itself)
- Brown v. Marker, 410 P.2d 61 (Okla. 1965) (general rule of giving effect to most recent legislative expressions)
- Carmichael v. Beller, 914 P.2d 1051 (Okla. 1996) (de novo review standard for summary judgment rulings; authority questions for courts)
- Naylor v. Petuskey, 834 P.2d 439 (Okla. 1992) (interpretation of legislative intent and statutory construction principles)
- In re Durant Nat. Bank, 230 P.712 (Okla. 1923) (use of related statutes to resolve purpose of acts)