City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters Local No. 521
| Decision Date | 28 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | 33,8,AFL-CI,No. 81-514,No. 4,A,No. 2,2,4,81-514 |
| Citation | 39 St.Rep. 1844,651 P.2d 627,200 Mont. 421 |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3324 CITY OF BILLINGS, Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BILLINGS FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL NO. 521, and the Board of Personnel Appeals, Defendants and Appellants, and Butte Teamsters Union Local, and United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Consisting of Local Unions, and 1981 (UFCWIU),micus Curiae, and Montana State Council of Professional Firefighters, Amicus Curiae. |
Boschert & Boschert, Rosemary Boschert, argued, Billings, James Gardner, argued, Bd. Personnel Appeals, Helena, for defendants and appellants.
K. D. Peterson, argued, Billings, for plaintiff and respondent.
Donald C. Robinson, Poore, Roth & Robinson, Butte, D. Patrick McKittrick, Great Falls, Barry J. Hjort, Helena, David V. Gliko, Great Falls, Mae Nan Ellingson, Missoula, for amicus curiae.
The Thirteenth Judicial District Court of Montana issued a judgment on August 11, 1981, affirming in part and reversing in part a March 26, 1979, order of the Board of Personnel Appeals (BPA) establishing the membership of the Billings Fire Department's bargaining unit. The BPA and the Billings Firefighters, Local # 521 appeal the judgment of the District Court. We reverse the District Court in part and reinstate the March 26, 1979, order of the BPA.
The Montana Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act was enacted in 1973. Pursuant to national labor policy, as set forth in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. section 151 et seq. (1976), the Montana Act specifically excludes supervisory and management employees from the definition of "public employee." Only public employees are allowed to bargain collectively, section 39-31-201, MCA. Thus, supervisory and management employees were effectively denied membership in collective bargaining units.
From 1968 until the commencement of this action in 1977, the City of Billings continuously recognized Billings Firefighters Local # 521 as the collective bargaining unit for all Billings firefighters except the Fire Chief and the Assistant Fire Chief. During labor negotiations in 1977, the City of Billings attempted to exclude the line battalion chiefs, specialty officers and fire captains from the bargaining unit. The City contended that those employees were either supervisory or management, as defined in the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act, and thus ineligible for membership in a collective bargaining unit.
In response, the Union contended that the Act's grandfather clause, section 39-31-109, MCA, by recognizing all established collective bargaining agreements, also recognized all existing bargaining units. That section provides:
Union argues that the "existing agreement" recognizes Local # 521 as the bargaining unit and that therefore, the unit's composition is not controlled by section 39-31-201, MCA.
At the request of the City and the Union, the BPA conducted an administrative hearing December 15 and 16, 1977, to clarify the membership of the bargaining unit. On February 28, 1978, the hearings officer issued a recommended order concluding that "the appropriate bargaining unit in the Billings Fire Department is that unit which has been recognized by the City of Billings since 1968, i.e., all employees of the Billings Fire Department except the Chief and the Assistant Chief." She reached this conclusion by interpreting the grandfather clause to recognize existing bargaining units as well as existing bargaining agreements, as advocated by the Union.
The City appealed the recommended order to the Board of Personnel Appeals. On July 28, 1978, the BPA issued an order remanding the case to the hearings officer with instructions to apply the facts to the following two-prong test:
(1) Is the position in question that of a supervisor or management official?
(2) If it is, does the inclusion of that position in the bargaining unit create an actual substantial conflict which results in the compromising of the interests of any party to its detriment?
This test is the result of a considered effort by the BPA to reconcile the grandfather clause, which it interprets as recognizing both bargaining units and agreements already in existence, with section 39-31-201, MCA, forbidding non-public employees from belonging to collective bargaining units. The BPA found that where the two sections come into conflict, the conflict must be settled in view of the policy of the Act. Section 39-31-101, MCA, states the policy:
The test adopted by the BPA allows for grandfathering and also prevents conflicts intended to be avoided by the exclusion of supervisors and management officials from the unit. If the presence of a supervisory or a management position within the unit becomes the source of "strife and unrest," the position will be removed from the unit. If there is no strife or unrest, evidenced by actual substantial conflict, the grandfathered unit will be allowed to remain "as is."
The hearings officer issued a thirty-page decision on January 19, 1979, again concluding that the bargaining unit should remain as it has been since 1968.
To determine whether or not the positions were those of supervisors or management officials, the hearings officer applied a multi-question test to each contested position. She considered the duties attendant to each position as well as the definitions of supervisor and management official found in section 39-31-103, MCA. She concluded that the line battalion chiefs, the communications officer and the fire marshal in the Billings Fire Department are supervisory employees. She further concluded that the captains, maintenance officer and training officer are not supervisory employees. None of the positions were found to be that of a management official.
Next, the hearings officer applied the second part of the test to those positions found to be supervisory. She determined that the presence of the positions in the unit created no actual substantial conflicts resulting in the compromising of the interests of any party to its detriment. Therefore, she allowed the supervisory positions to remain in the unit.
In reaching that conclusion, the hearings officer considered the following:
(1) Local # 521 has never gone on strike.
(2) Testimony of the fire chief that in his twenty-six years on the Department, very few formal grievances had been filed.
(3) Testimony of an engineer that only one grievance had gone to arbitration since 1968.
(4) Testimony of the fire marshal that his membership in the unit had never caused problems at staff meetings with the fire chief.
(5) Testimony of the fire chief, battalion chiefs and captains that the current structure of the unit had never interfered with the efficient operation of the Department.
(6) Testimony of a captain that his membership in the unit had never interfered with the exercise of his authority.
(7) Testimony of the union's chief negotiator for the 1977 contract that the make-up of the unit had caused no disharmony and that there were no special interest groups within the unit.
(8) Testimony of engineers and firemen that no internal conflict or disharmony existed due to the bargaining unit structure.
(9) A petition signed by 80% of the specialty officers and 83% of the lieutenants, engineers and firefighters stating: "We the undersigned members of I.A.F.F. Local 521 are in opposition to any change in our bargaining unit."
On March 26, 1979, the Board of Personnel Appeals adopted the recommended order of the hearings officer as its final order. The City of Billings appealed to the District Court. Following a hearing, the District Court issued an order July 28, 1981, concluding the following:
In so holding, the District Court found requiring an actual conflict to occur before removing a supervisory or management position from the unit to be illogical as their presence in the unit is inherently conflicting. In addition, it found all officers except fire captains to be supervisory personnel and excluded them from the unit.
In their appeal of the order and judgment of the District Court, the BPA and the Union present several issues for our consideration:
(1) Whether the state legislature authorized the BPA as the agency to establish the appropriate bargaining units for public employees?
(2) Whether the BPA's interpretation of section 39-31-109, MCA, the grandfather clause, was a rational statutory construction, or whether it was illogical, arbitrary and capricious?
(3) Whether the BPA's two-prong test reconciling the inconsistencies between two sections within the Montana...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Region II Child and Family Services
...not clearly erroneous if the record contains substantial credible evidence supporting the findings. City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters (1982), 200 Mont. 421, 430-31, 651 P.2d 627, 632. In no case may the district court substitute its own findings of fact for those of the agency. Sect......
-
Missoula County High School Dist. v. Board of Personnel Appeals of State of Mont.
...facts involved and the court's expertise in interpreting and applying the law. (Citations omitted.) City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters (1982), 200 Mont. 421, 430, 651 P.2d 627, 632. The BPA held that the School District had violated subsections (1) and (3) of Sec. 39-31-401, MCA. Und......
-
Montana Tavern Ass'n v. State By and Through Dept. of Revenue
...agency's interpretation, a court may overturn the interpretation as an abuse of discretion. City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters Local No. 521 (1982), 200 Mont. 421, 431, 651 P.2d 627, 632. We find, as did the District Court, that Sec. 23-5-612(2) is susceptible to two meanings. "A use......
-
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Montana Dept. of Public Service Regulation
...the appealing party has the burden to show PSC abused its discretion. Thus we stated in City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters Local No. 521 (Mont.1982), 651 P.2d 627, 632, 39 St.Rep. 1844, 1849: Pursuant to that statute, [Sec. 2-4-704, MCA] findings of fact by an agency have been subjec......