Afscme Iowa Council 61 v. State

Decision Date17 May 2019
Docket NumberNo. 17-1841,17-1841
Citation928 N.W.2d 21
Parties AFSCME IOWA COUNCIL 61, Johnathan Good, Ryan De Vries, Terra Kinney, and Susan Baker, Appellants, v. STATE of Iowa and Iowa Public Employment Relations Board, Appellees.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Mark T. Hedberg and Sarah M. Baumgartner of Hedberg & Boulton, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.

Matthew C. McDermott, Michael R. Reck, Kelsey J. Knowles, and Espnola F. Cartmill of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.

WATERMAN, Justice.

This appeal, submitted with Iowa State Education Ass'n v. State , 928 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 2019), also filed today, presents constitutional challenges to the 2017 amendments to the Public Employment Relations Act, Iowa Code chapter 20. The amendments ended payroll deductions for union dues and narrowed the scope of mandatory collective bargaining topics for bargaining units comprised of less than thirty percent "public safety employees," defined to include most police officers and firefighters. The new classifications result in many public employees losing significant statutory bargaining rights compared to other public employees with arguably similar jobs. A public employee union and several of its members filed this action against the State of Iowa and the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs allege the amendments violate the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution and violate their right to freedom of association. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the action, and we retained the plaintiffs' appeal.

Our role is to decide whether constitutional lines were crossed, not to sit as a superlegislature rethinking policy choices of the elected branches. We conclude the 2017 amendments withstand the constitutional challenges. The plaintiffs concede there is no constitutional right to public-sector collective bargaining or payroll deductions. The parties agree the equal protection claims are reviewed under the rational basis test. The legislature could reasonably conclude that the goal of keeping labor peace with unions comprised of at least thirty percent public safety employees, and the greater risks faced by emergency first responders, justified the classification. We hold the legislative classifications are not so overinclusive or underinclusive as to be unconstitutional under our highly deferential standard of review. We further hold the amendments do not violate constitutional rights of freedom of association. Public employees remain free to belong to the same unions. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

We begin by reviewing the statute in place before the 2017 amendments to put the constitutional challenges in context.1 In 1974, after public employees engaged in multiple strikes, the Iowa legislature enacted the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), codified at Iowa Code chapter 20. See generally Waterloo Educ. Ass'n v. Iowa Pub. Emp't Relations Bd. , 740 N.W.2d 418 (Iowa 2007) (detailing the history of public sector collective bargaining). PERA sought to create an orderly system of collective bargaining for public employees by establishing rules and procedures and by prohibiting strikes.2 Iowa Code §§ 20.6, .9, .10 (2017). PERA permitted, but did not require, public employees to join a public employee organization (union).3 Id. § 20.8. Employees could vote to select a union to represent them. Id. An employee who joined a union had the option to pay dues through automatic payroll deductions. Id. § 20.9; id. §§ 70A.17A, .19.

Once employees selected a union, PERA required the union and public employer to bargain in good faith on these topics:

wages, hours, vacations, insurance, holidays, leaves of absence, shift differentials, overtime compensation, supplemental pay, seniority, transfer procedures, job classifications, health and safety matters, evaluation procedures, procedures for staff reduction, in-service training and other matters mutually agreed upon.

Id. § 20.9.

If a public employer and union were unable to reach an agreement on these mandatory topics, PERA established a procedure for resolving the impasse through mediation and binding arbitration. Id. §§ 20.20, .22. If an impasse reached arbitration, each party submitted a final offer to an arbitrator. Id. § 20.22(3). The arbitrator was required to consider the following factors:

a . Past collective bargaining contracts between the parties including the bargaining that led up to such contracts.
b . Comparison of wages, hours and conditions of employment of the involved public employees with those of other public employees doing comparable work, giving consideration to factors peculiar to the area and the classifications involved.
c . The interests and welfare of the public, the ability of the public employer to finance economic adjustments and the effect of such adjustments on the normal standard of services.
d . The power of the public employer to levy taxes and appropriate funds for the conduct of its operations.

Id. § 20.22(7). After considering the proposals and the relevant factors, the arbitrator "select[ed] ... the most reasonable offer, in the arbitrator’s judgment, of the final offers on each impasse item submitted by the parties." Id. § 20.22(9).

PERA imposed harsh penalties for engaging in strikes. Id. §§ 20.10(3)(h ), .12. PERA authorized courts to issue injunctions to restrain any actual or imminently threatened strike. Id. § 20.12(3). Anyone who failed to comply with an injunction faced contempt sanctions and punishment including up to six months in jail, fines, and automatic discharge from employment for an employee, or immediate decertification as a union. Id. § 20.12(3)(6). See generally Iowa Code ch. 665 (contempt). There have been no strikes by public employees in Iowa since PERA’s enactment in 1974. The University of Iowa Labor Center, "To Promote Harmonious and Cooperative Relationships": A Brief History of Public Sector Collective Bargaining in Iowa, 1966 to 2016 , 7 (2016), https://www.iowaaflcio.org/system/files/history_of_ia_public_sector_bargaining.pdf.

In February 2017, the Iowa legislature enacted House File 291, amending PERA. 2017 Iowa Acts ch. 2 (codified in part at Iowa Code ch. 20 (2018)). On February 17, the Governor signed House File 291 into law. The amendments altered the scope of mandatory collective bargaining and arbitration and eliminated payroll deductions for all union dues. See generally Iowa Code ch. 20.

Collective bargaining laws for public employees vary by state, with some states allowing collective bargaining rights for police and firefighters not shared by other public employees.4 House File 291 gave public employees different bargaining rights depending on whether they are part of a bargaining unit with at least thirty percent "public safety employees." Public safety employees are defined to include

a . A sheriff’s regular deputy.
b . A marshal or police officer of a city, township, or special-purpose district or authority who is a member of a paid police department.
c . A member, except a non-peace officer member, of the division of state patrol, narcotics enforcement, state fire marshal, or criminal investigation, including but not limited to a gaming enforcement officer, who has been duly appointed by the department of public safety in accordance with section 80.15.
d . A conservation officer or park ranger as authorized by section 456A.13.
e . A permanent or full-time fire fighter of a city, township, or special-purpose district or authority who is a member of a paid fire department.
f . A peace officer designated by the department of transportation under section 321.477 who is subject to mandated law enforcement training.

Iowa Code § 20.3(11). Not included in the statutory definition of public safety employees are university police, probation or parole officers, fraud bureau investigation officers, airport firefighters, corrections officers, and emergency medical service providers.

If a union represents a bargaining unit with at least thirty percent public safety employees, it may exercise broad bargaining rights on behalf of all of its members, including those who are not public safety employees. Id. § 20.9(1). The union continues to have the right to bargain and, in the event of an impasse, the right to mediate and arbitrate with public employers on the following mandatory topics:

wages, hours, vacations, insurance, holidays, leaves of absence, shift differentials, overtime compensation, supplemental pay, seniority, transfer procedures, job classifications, health and safety matters, evaluation procedures, procedures for staff reduction, in-service training, grievance procedures for resolving any questions arising under the agreement, and other matters mutually agreed upon.

Id.

In sharp contrast, for unions representing a bargaining unit with less than thirty percent public safety employees, House File 291 limited mandatory bargaining and, in the event of an impasse, mediation and arbitration, to the subject of "base wages and other matters mutually agreed upon." Id.5 The amendment specifies that these subjects "shall be interpreted narrowly and restrictively." Id. The amendments allow public employers to voluntarily bargain over formerly mandatory topics. Longevity pay, shift differentials, and overtime compensation are still permissive subjects of bargaining. See Iowa Code § 20.9(1), (3). This leaves it up to the state or local government or school board whether to negotiate on these matters. See Waterloo Educ. Ass'n , 740 N.W.2d at 421. Public employees, like all citizens in our state, have the ability to affect those decisions. A unit of state government, a municipality, or a school board that wishes to negotiate on these matters with the employee organization is free to do so. But the union may not bargain over "insurance, leaves of absence for political...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 2021
    ...The State appealed, and we retained the appeal.II. Standard of Review."We review constitutional claims de novo." AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State , 928 N.W.2d 21, 31 (Iowa 2019). In reviewing constitutional challenges to statutes, "we must remember that statutes are cloaked with a presumptio......
  • Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds ex rel. State
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 2022
    ...a heavy burden, because it must prove the unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " Id. at 46 (quoting AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State , 928 N.W.2d 21, 31 (Iowa 2019) ); see also Godfrey v. State , 752 N.W.2d 413 (Iowa 2008) ("We review claims based on a violation of our state const......
  • Lennette v. State
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 2022
    ...stops); Venckus v. City of Iowa City , 930 N.W.2d 792, 800–03 (Iowa 2019) (extending judicial process immunity); AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State , 928 N.W.2d 21, 41 (Iowa 2019) (curtailing public employees’ collective bargaining rights based on arbitrary and capricious line drawing); Baldwi......
  • Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 2022
    ...at 190–91. CAFOs are controversial, but it is not our role to second-guess the legislature's policy choices. See AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State , 928 N.W.2d 21, 26 (Iowa 2019) ("Our role is to decide whether constitutional lines were crossed, not to sit as a superlegislature rethinking pol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT