Wing v. The City of Edwardsville
341 P.3d 607
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Edwardsville, KS, had opted into the Public Employer-Employee Relations Act (the Act) in 1999 and thereby recognized collective bargaining rights for certain city employees (firefighters).
- On August 26, 2013 the City voted to rescind its coverage under K.S.A. 75-4321(c); the City ceased following the Act on January 1, 2014 after ending its 2013 budget year on December 31, 2013.
- The firefighters’ union (IAFF Local No. 64) sued, seeking injunctive relief, arguing the opt-out could not take effect until the end of the next complete budget year (i.e., December 31, 2014).
- The district court entered a temporary injunction requiring the City to continue complying with the Act, to recognize the union, and to meet bargaining obligations; the City appealed.
- The district court relied on evidence that the City issued unilateral compensation and benefit letters effective January 5, 2014, and an affidavit from the union president that bargaining was denied, supporting irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City could make its opt-out effective at the end of the current budget year (2013) or must wait until the end of the next complete budget year (2014) under K.S.A. 75-4321(c) | Statute requires waiting until end of the next complete budget year (2014) | "Next" means the immediately following/closest budget-year end (2013) so the City could cease compliance at year end 2013 | The statute unambiguously requires waiting through the next complete budget year; City acted prematurely (injunction proper) |
| Whether damages would be an adequate remedy (necessity of injunction) | Damages are speculative and inadequate to remedy loss of bargaining rights | (City did not press a coherent adequacy argument on appeal) | Legal remedies inadequate; injunction appropriate for ongoing denial of collective bargaining |
| Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm absent an injunction | Loss of collective-bargaining and chilling of union activity constitutes irreparable harm; supported by company letters and affidavit | Insufficient evidence of irreparable harm | Substantial evidence supported irreparable harm finding |
| Whether statutory injunction requirements (specificity, notice, bond) were satisfied | Journal entry tied injunction to the disputed statutory question; City had notice and did not object; bond can be waived | Order lacked specific findings and specificity; notice/bond defects | Court had sufficient specificity and context; City had reasonable notice and waived bond objection; procedural requirements satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- State Dept. of Administration v. Public Employees Relations Bd., 257 Kan. 275 (1995) (explaining rights conferred by opting into the Act)
- Downtown Bar and Grill v. State, 294 Kan. 188 (2012) (sets five-part test for temporary injunction)
- Idbeis v. Wichita Surgical Specialists, P.A., 285 Kan. 485 (2007) (standard for substantial likelihood of success on the merits for injunctions)
- Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802 (1974) (loss of union support and bargaining rights can be irreparable injury)
- N.L.R.B. v. Electro-Voice, Inc., 83 F.3d 1559 (7th Cir. 1996) (denial of collective bargaining and its chilling effect support injunctive relief)
- Small v. Avanti Health Sys., LLC, 661 F.3d 1180 (2011) (recognizes irreparable harm from interference with union activity)