928 N.W.2d 69
Iowa2019Background
- SEIU Local 199 (≈3,500 UIHC employees) and the Iowa Board of Regents negotiated a tentative collective bargaining agreement in Jan. 2017; SEIU's negotiator informed the Regents' negotiator on Jan. 25 that SEIU accepted the Regents' Jan. 10 final offer and SEIU membership ratified the tentative agreement on Feb. 7, 2017.
- PERB rule 621-6.5(3) (originally adopted in 1976) requires the public employer to meet to accept or reject a tentative agreement (and notify the union) before the agreement becomes effective; the ten-day deadline in the rule does not apply to the Board of Regents.
- The Board of Regents did not vote to approve the SEIU-ratified tentative agreement; historically the Regents had voted after union ratification on prior contracts (2009, 2011, 2015).
- SEIU sued under Iowa Code § 20.17(5) to enforce the collective bargaining agreement, arguing the agreement became effective upon the union membership ratification per § 20.17(4) and that PERB rule 621-6.5(3) is invalid.
- The Board moved for summary judgment relying on PERB rule 621-6.5(3); the district court upheld the rule (reading chapters 20 and 21 together) and granted summary judgment for the Board; the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SEIU) | Defendant's Argument (Regents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of PERB rule 621-6.5(3) requiring employer vote to accept/reject tentative agreement | Rule invalid: § 20.17(4) only requires union ratification; PERB exceeded statutory authority by adding employer ratification | Rule valid: PERB was authorized to interpret and implement chapter 20; rule implements related public voting/open-meetings requirements | Held valid: PERB acted within delegated authority; rule has force of law |
| Whether an enforceable collective bargaining agreement existed after SEIU membership ratification but without Regents' vote | Agreement effective on union ratification under § 20.17(4) | No enforceable agreement because employer had not accepted/ratified per PERB rule and chapter 21 open-meetings requirements | No enforceable agreement: summary judgment for Regents affirmed |
| Proper scope of statutory interpretation/deference to PERB | (Implicit) PERB lacks authority to impose new employer requirement beyond § 20.17(4) | PERB has express interpretive authority (2010 amendments) and longstanding rulemaking power under § 20.6 | Court defers to PERB's interpretation (not irrational/wholly unjustifiable) and upholds rule |
| Interaction of chapter 20 ratification rule and chapter 21 open-meetings law | § 20.17(4) controls; silent as to employer vote, so PERB rule is improper | Chapters 20 and 21 must be harmonized; chapter 21 requires final action in open session and supports employer vote requirement implemented by PERB | Court harmonizes statutes: rule implements both union secret-ballot requirement and employers' open-meeting/final-action duties |
Key Cases Cited
- AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. Iowa Pub. Emp't Relations Bd., 846 N.W.2d 873 (Iowa 2014) (discusses PERB's interpretive authority and standard for deference)
- City of Des Moines v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 911 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2018) (agency rules ordinarily have force of law; validity depends on statutory authority)
- Jew v. Univ. of Iowa, 398 N.W.2d 861 (Iowa 1987) (party aggrieved by application of an administrative rule may challenge its validity in independent action)
- Hutchison v. Shull, 878 N.W.2d 221 (Iowa 2016) (final action by a public board must be taken in open session; open-meetings law scope)
- City of Akron v. Akron Westfield Cmty. Sch. Dist., 659 N.W.2d 223 (Iowa 2003) (contracts void if executed without required formal statutory approval)
- Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue, 921 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2018) (legislative inaction can be viewed as tacit approval of longstanding agency practice)