City of Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387
| Decision Date | 24 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 7585-3-I,7585-3-I |
| Citation | 27 Wn.App. 669,620 P.2d 119 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The CITY OF SEATTLE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent, v. AUTO SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 387; Automotive Machinists Lodge Local 289; Boilermakers Union Local 104; Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Local 8; District Council of Carpenters; Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific; International Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators Local 15; International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Hope Lodge 79; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 46, Respondents, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 77, Appellant, Operating Engineers Local 302; Operating & Stationary Engineers Local 286; Seattle Police Dispatchers Guild; Painters District Council 5, Respondents, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers Association Local 17, Appellant, Public Service Employees Local 1239; Public Service Employees Local 674; Teamsters Local 882; Teamsters Local 763; United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry Local 32; Washington State Council of County and City Employees, Council 2; Washington State Nurses Association; Washington Public Employment Relations Commission, Respondents. |
Hafer, Cassidy & Price, Thomas K. Cassidy, Seattle, for appellants.
Douglas Jewett, City Atty., P. Stephen DiJulio, Julin, Fosso & Sage, Richard D. Eadie, Vance, Davies, Roberts, Reid & Anderson, Russell J. Reid, Pamela G. Bradburn, Seattle, Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Richard A. Heath, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondents.
Two of the 22 labor organizations who were parties in the trial court appeal the declaratory judgment entered by that court. The appeal involves the construction and constitutionality of Seattle's charter amendment No. 5, which requires the establishment of a city personnel system, and the 1978 City of Seattle Personnel Ordinance, which was enacted pursuant to charter amendment No. 5.
In 1967, the legislature passed the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act. Laws of 1967, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 108, p. 1884 (codified at RCW 41.56). The act, which applies to counties, municipal corporations and certain political subdivisions of the state, protects the right of public employees to organize and designate representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining. RCW 41.56.020; RCW 41.56.030(2); RCW 41.56.400. Public employers, in most instances, are required to engage in collective bargaining with the employees' exclusive bargaining representatives. RCW 41.56.100. A refusal to do so is an unfair labor practice. RCW 41.56.040. "Collective bargaining" includes the duty of the public employer and the exclusive bargaining representative to meet, confer and negotiate in good faith, and to execute a written agreement concerning "grievance procedures and collective negotiations on personnel matters, including wages, hours and working conditions, which may be peculiar to an appropriate bargaining unit of such public employer, ..." RCW 41.56.030(4).
On November 8, 1977, the electorate of the City of Seattle passed charter amendment No. 5, which amended Seattle City Charter article 16 under which the City had operated a civil service system. Section 1 of the amendment states that a city personnel system shall be established "by ordinance," with the system to be administered by a personnel director. Section 1 further provides:
The ordinance shall establish uniform procedures for recruitment, selection, development, and maintenance of an effective and responsible work force, including but not limited to, job advertising, training, job classification, examinations, appointments, transfers within the system, career development, salary administration, labor negotiations, safety, employee benefits, grievance procedures, discipline, discharge, layoff and recall, regulation of political activity, and other personnel matters.
Other sections of the amendment require that the personnel system be administered to assure nondiscrimination and to comply with merit principles set forth in the amendment. A Civil Service Commission is established to hear appeals involving the administration of the personnel system, and a civil service appeals process is established. Section 7 of the amendment provides in part that no member of the civil service may be suspended or dismissed except for justifiable cause. Section 9 provides:
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS: The right of city employees to bargain collectively, through representatives of their own choosing, shall not be abrogated by the city, but no collectively bargained contract shall become effective without ratification by the City Council. The city council shall not ratify any contract which is inconsistent with this charter.
Section 10 requires that the ordinance required by section 1 be enacted by November 8, 1978, and that the prior provisions of article 16 remain in effect until the ordinance required by section 1 takes effect.
On November 6, 1978, the Seattle City Council enacted ordinance No. 107790, the 1978 City of Seattle Personnel Ordinance. The mayor signed the ordinance on November 15, 1978. The ordinance, which is comprehensive and bears an effective date of January 1, 1979, provides for the creation of a personnel department to be headed by a director of personnel. Included within the director's duties is the establishment of many of the uniform procedures on personnel matters called for by section 1 of the charter amendment.
On the date of the ordinance's passage, the City brought a declaratory action to determine whether the City's Civil Service Commission is similar in scope, structure and authority to the State Personnel Board established under RCW 41.06, in which case the City, under the proviso of RCW 41.56.100, would not be required to collectively bargain with respect to any matter delegated to the commission. Named as defendants were all labor organizations qualified and acting as exclusive bargaining representatives for city employees. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that the charter amendment and ordinance be declared invalid because of a claimed conflict with the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, RCW 41.56. The defendants also raised the issues of the timeliness of the ordinance's passage and the legality of delegating legislative powers to the director of personnel.
The trial court determined that the City's Civil Service Commission is not similar in scope, structure and authority to the State Personnel Board. No appeal has been taken from this determination. The trial court further determined that the charter amendment and the ordinance are not in conflict with governing state law because the charter amendment does not remove or affect the City's duty to collectively bargain pursuant to the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act. The court upheld the City's delegation of authority to the director of personnel and concluded that the personnel ordinance was enacted in a timely and lawful manner.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 77 and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Association Local 17 appeal. The following three issues are dispositive of this appeal:
1. Do charter amendment No. 5 and the 1978 City of Seattle Personnel Ordinance irreconcilably conflict with the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act so as to render them unconstitutional and void pursuant to Const. art. 11, § 10 (amendment 40)?
2. Does the 1978 City of Seattle Personnel Ordinance unconstitutionally delegate to the personnel director legislative authority over matters that section 1 of charter amendment No. 5 directs be established by ordinance?
3. Is the 1978 City of Seattle Personnel Ordinance invalid because it was not passed within the time limit set for its passage by charter amendment No. 5?
The first issue raised is whether charter amendment No. 5 and the 1978 personnel ordinance irreconcilably conflict with the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act so as to render them unconstitutional and void pursuant to Const. art. 11, § 10 (amendment 40). The defendants contend that the trial court erred in declaring charter amendment No. 5 constitutional since its requirement of uniform procedures on personnel matters irreconcilably conflicts with the requirement of RCW 41.56 that the City collectively bargain on personnel matters. The conflict is irreconcilable, they argue, due to the requirement of charter amendment section 9 that the city council not ratify any contract inconsistent with the charter. The 1978 personnel ordinance is argued to be derivatively invalid.
The City argues in response that the mention in section 1 of certain working conditions and personnel matters does not mean that the charter displaces the right to negotiate those items. Rather, it argues, section 9 explicitly recognizes the right of collective bargaining, as does section 6, which provides that no person may appeal to the civil service commission if the subject of the appeal was the subject of binding arbitration under a labor contract. Section 1's requirement of uniform procedures on labor negotiations is also pointed to as being inconsistent with any possible intent of the amendment to establish uniform practices for all personnel.
The parties agree that the provisions of RCW 41.56 apply to the City. They also agree that where there is a conflict between a general law enacted by the legislature and a freehold charter provision, the general law is superior to and supersedes the charter provision. Const. art. 11, § 10 (amendment 40); State ex rel. Guthrie v. Richland, 80 Wash.2d 382, 494 P.2d 990 (1972); Seattle v. Wright, 72 Wash.2d 556, 433 P.2d 906 (1967); State ex rel. Lynch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Seattle v. Williams
...1 EUGENE MCQUILLIN, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS § 1.41, at 55 (3d ed. 1987). See City of Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387, 27 Wash.App. 669, 683-85, 620 P.2d 119 (1980) (discussing powers of charter cities), review denied, 95 Wash.2d 1010 (1981), overruled on other ground......
-
Heinsma v. City of Vancouver
...for home rule charters in order to allow cities to operate economically and efficiently. See City of Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387, 27 Wash.App. 669, 683-84, 620 P.2d 119 (1980), overruled on other grounds by City of Pasco v. Pub. Employment Relations Comm'n, 119 Wash.2d 504......
-
Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1 of King Cnty. v. Univ. of Wash. & U.W. Med.
...n. 4 (citing Terminal Enters., Inc. v. Jersey City, 54 N.J. 568, 258 A.2d 361 (1969)); see also City of Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387, 27 Wash.App. 669, 685, 620 P.2d 119 (1980), overruled on other grounds by City of Pasco v. Pub. Emp't Relations Comm'n, 119 Wash.2d 504, 511......
-
City of Pasco v. Public Employment Relations Com'n
...to RCW 41.56.905 and policy expressed in our recent cases. Finally, we note the City's reliance on Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387, 27 Wash.App. 669, 620 P.2d 119 (1980), review denied, 95 Wash.2d 1010 (1981). There, the Court of Appeals narrowly construed the language in RCW ......