*1 300 20,074.
No. Manager George H. v. al., Pueblo, et Fellows, LaTronica. Vito 547) (377 [2d] P. December
Decided *2 D. in error. for plaintiffs Mr. Gordon Hinds, Faricy in for defendant Messrs. & Tursi, Bellinger, error.
En Banc. of the Court. Moore delivered the Mr. Justice in follows: Plaintiffs as parties refer We will to in error and defendant city, error as Pueblo or the plaintiff. claims, viz: two complaint
The contains two for plaintiff is indebted to city That (1) fireman, a city for services as compensation weeks that Civil vacation; two weeks alternatively Pueblo had directed the Commission of Service other; and that one or the grant to Manager plaintiff had do so the refused. although city to requested Cor- “defendant, Pueblo, a Municipal That (2) International 3, and Local No. Association poration at all times involved in dispute were Fighters Fire a in accordance agreement”; work governed by of the said work agreement, with provisions one is a 3, who member said Local No. plaintiff, requested against an claim city arbitration his Pueblo but same. Plaintiff sought refused to the entry arbitrate city of an order to arbitrate the claim and requiring the to result thereof. comply filed its which a number
Pueblo answer of defenses find it necessary set forth. to consider only were We following: a claim The fails state (1) complaint upon which granted. relief can be order of the Civil Service Commission was
(2) 302 purported illegal and unconstitutional” and
“void, compensation author- in excess of that order of the ized the ordinances upon stipu- case submitted was to the trial court agreement lated facts. The work union between the (Local mentioned) made No. above was Pueblo part plaintiff’s complaint. April It was entered into “Recognition captioned I 1952. Article thereof was Scope” and reads as follows: City recognizes
“The the Union as exclusive bar- gaining representative ap- agreement of, and this shall ply Department, to, all of the Pueblo Fire exception with the of the Chief.” provided Other sections of the contract the cov- “employees” city ered receive certain should pay, vacations with additional “in vacation allowances holidays completed lieu of worked, at the end each *3 year arising of service,” from benefits disabilities from duty, accident or disease incurred on and while other fringe benefits. Article XI of the contract is follows: as agreement,
“Any dispute concerning the terms of this working or the hereunder, conditions and does which require agreement, not a modification of this which can adjusted amicably not be shall arbitra- be submitted to ” * * * (Emphasis supplied.) tion. stipulated May plaintiff It is requested that on 6, 1953, year July vacation leave for the 1953,from June 23 to request approved; this 13, and that was he was however, injured duty by on June and 14, was off reason thereof July compensation until during 29. He received full period policy of time. The administrative of the Pueblo Department Fire was that firemen took their vacations they when were regard scheduled occur, without might matters ap- intervene between the date of proval of vacation leave and the actual the time vacation was scheduled. good purpose by
No detailing would be served by plaintiff a settle- to secure made that were efforts setting by burden- forth the rather claim, ment of his correspondence exchanges lengthy between some say 1959, city. 2, that on June it to Suffice and the him plaintiff claim attorney that the demanded the contract terms of under the submitted to arbitration by the was refused This demand above mentioned. by his
By 7, 1959, dated December letter attorney Commis- matter to Civil Service took the city matter 1959, December 9, where on sion of the January Commis- Civil Service 6, 1960, tabled. was personnel by that was director it informed sion was opinion city attorney had commission that the of the January jurisdiction 1960, matter, in this on no attorney city personnel of the director on advice participate com- declined to further discussions plaintiff’s relating Feb- claim. On or about mission ruary their official in an action recorded in 10, 1960, Civil Service Commission minutes, the members of the Manager, George in a Fellows, letter addressed to question announced as “the their unanimous favor; i.e., his two city Vito LaTronica be resolved in pay weeks’ read to the or time off.” letter was Said meeting February no 10, 1960, at but council its action other than to was taken the council thereon receive and file the same. (much lengthy stipulation
From the rather of facts controlling concerns which matters immaterial to question) the union it is admitted that the contract with purported pay, provision with full to make for a vacation *4 pay. and for sick is admitted leave with full It pay he and that took sick and received his leave pay absence on no and received no for took vacation he could take vacation vacation. It admitted that is not pay time and receive double sick at the same leave provisions the contained in under therefor, the even provision charter of the Pueblo There is no contract. the of authorizing making bargaining agree- ments with labor unions representing this should be city. Accordingly construed issue under a a any arising as decisive contract with labor union where charter or statu- specific provisions such contract. authority exist tory court Ordered, The trial Adjudged, Decreed: “THAT defendants do immediately with Plain- comply tiff’s demand for arbitration of his claim in accordance Article XI of the work agreement.” with seeks review writ of city by error.
Questions Determined. the city Pueblo, First. Does under dis- the facts record, closed have by power to enter bind- into a ing contract or “working agreement” with a labor union members representing city department, by fire which the municipality becomes bound to pay salaries, vacations with provide pay, sick leaves pay, and other fringe provided therein? benefits This is answered question in the negative. An examination of pertinent provisions Home Rule Charter of Pueblo indicates it clearly was the in tention of the people city insure that com pensation, working conditions, vacations, sick leaves, and other benefits connected with employment by city, were matters within exclusively the legislative function duly elected representatives of all the are people who chosen to function in a executive cannot capacity abdicate or bargain away continuing which responsibility such upon rests repre sentatives to exercise their judgment official in trans acting public business committed to their As care. stated H. Eliot recent Kaplan his work on “The Law of Civil at Service,” 333: page “* * * Thus far no has court viewed as binding or valid any agreement between government management and public employees, whether consummated through process of assumed ‘collective bargaining’ or ‘collective
305
by any
On the
term.
semantic
negotiations,5
other
or
courts
been raised
contrary,
has
the issue
wherever
agreements
any
bind
recognize
such
refused to
have
have
cases
government,
in a number of
ing
and
on
authority
such
agencies
make
public
to
without
held the
* *
‘contracts.5
public
do
following
officers
held that
have
cases
bargaining
authority
enter into
not have
agreements
employees.
Brother
public
State v.
(2d)
232 P.
412,
2nd
37 Cal.
Trainmen,
hood Railroad
(1951),
Miami Water
876;
342 U. S.
Den.,
857
Cert.
So. 2nd
445, 26
Miami, 157 Fl.
v.
Works Local #654
Mayor
(1946); Mugford
Council
and
v.
194
Baltimore,
that the delegated. may legislative not be Such matter which is a taking permitted result to stand would if contracts legislative power municipality away con a its from in an unelected and vest such control trol its (a union). private organization In the and uncontrolled supra, Springfield was Clouse, it said: case of v. qualifications, tenure, com- whole matter “The any public working pensation service, and conditions for Except legislative powers. the exercise of involves people themselves settled have extent all by writing any constitu- them into the these matters repre- -they chosen determined their must ion, legislative body. It is sentatives who constitute legisla- principal law that the constitutional familiar any powers delegate and at- its ture cannot [Citing tempted delegation cases] If thereof is void. such cannot be powers delegated, they cannot be surely contracted bargained or away; certainly by any administrative officers executive who cannot have any legislative powers. executive Although ad- *6 ministrative officers vested may be with a certain amount of discretion and be authorized may to act or make regulations in accordance with certain fixed stand- ards, nevertheless the matter of making such standards involves the exercise of legislative powers. Thus quali- fications, tenure, compensation and working conditions of public officers are matters wholly lawmaking cannot be subject the of bargaining or contract. Such could bargaining only usurpation of be legislative powers by officers; executive and, course, no legislature could bind itself or its successor make to * * *” or continue any legislative act.
We are in accord with the views above set A forth. exercise of proper legislative function might well involve consultation and negotiation with spokesmen for public employees, but the ultimate responsibility rests legislative body and, under the record here presented, that responsibility cannot be contracted away. For a complete annotation on the question see 31 A.L.R. (2d) Second. Does the the Civil Service Com- fact
mission saw to as announce its opinion that “the fit question Vito LaTronica he resolved in his favor; i.e. two weeks’ or pay off,” time have any legal significance any rights upon the plaintiff? confer
This is question answered in Much negative. of what has already been said is pertinent to the ques tion. There is nothing whatever in the delegation powers to the Pueblo Civil Service Commission war ranting the assumption jurisdiction it to enter an by order of kind in any the dispute between and the Its “opinion” has no legal force or effect. judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss complaint. result. Hall concurs Justice
Mr. specially concurs. Pringle Justice
Mr. concurring: specially Pringle Justice
Mr. bargaining I am of the by presented agreement as consideration, under proper authorization. here, had no record organize may public employees in unions and That present designate representative may their views body employment and conditions of terms duty setting charged terms and con- such with the body hear them seems now to ditions if the chooses to accepted. Agreements generally between the reached be negotiating parties
may translated into effect agreements proper legislative providing do such action, statutory constitutional, charter or not conflict with provisions. *7 proper legislative
I am of further municipalities voluntarily authority permitting enter bargaining agreements with into respect collective limited employment not to terms and conditions of does delegation improper function. involve an municipality engages in collective The fact bargaining necessarily mean that it has sur- does authority respect making with rendered its decision public employment. what terms The decision final municipality employment will and conditions agree solely agree rests to, all, whether it will at still public employer legislative body. can, with its frequently place does, terms and in its own conditions bargaining requested than effect rather those agents. points, Ander- For a full discussion of see these Service, Public 1961 Wis. L. Labor Relations son, Rev. .601. bargaining muni- course, contracts with
Of by many cipalities, authorized, are surrounded when employment, they public deal limitations because public budgets public funds. legislative body can not surrender making which are policy powers to it delegated by constitution, or statute. The charter, of each validity contract, collective bargaining there- fore, its depends upon precise terms and the subject matter covered. 20,442.
No. County Board Commissioners of El Paso County,
v. G. Bonicelli, Eloise et al. (377 124) [2d] P.
Decided December *8 Mr. James E. Mr. Weldon M. Tarter, Tarter, error. No appearance for defendants in error.