City of Yakima v. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 469, Yakima Fire Fighters Ass'n

• Citation: 117 Wn.2d 655,818 P.2d 1076
• Decision Date: 07 November 1991
• Docket Number: D,Nos. 57004-3,57511-8,57418-9,LOCAL,57149-0,AFL-CI,L,s. 57004-3
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF YAKIMA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS,469, YAKIMA FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION; the Public Employment Relations Commission of the State of Washington, and Yakima Police Patrolmans Association, Respondents. CITY OF YAKIMA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS,efendant, and International Association of Fire Fighters,ocal 469, Yakima Fire Fighters Association, Respondent. CITY OF YAKIMA, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION of the State of Washington, Respondent. & 57950-4.

Page 655

117 Wn.2d 655

818 P.2d 1076

CITY OF YAKIMA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL

469, YAKIMA FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION; the Public

Employment Relations Commission of the State of Washington,

and Yakima Police Patrolmans Association, Respondents.

CITY OF YAKIMA, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, Defendant, and International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 469, Yakima Fire Fighters Association, Respondent.

CITY OF YAKIMA, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION of the State of

Washington, Respondent.

Nos. 57004-3, 57418-9, 57149-0, 57511-8 & 57950-4.

Supreme Court of Washington,

En Banc.

Nov. 7, 1991.

Menke & Jackson, Anthony F. Menke, Rocky L. Jackson, Yakima, for City of Yakima

Webster, Mrak & Blumberg, James H. Webster, Seattle, for respondent International Ass'n of Fire Fighters.

Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Richard A. Heath, Sr. Asst. Olympia, for respondent Public Employment Relations Comm'n.

Aitchison & Hoag, Christopher K. Vick, Seattle, for respondent Yakima Police Patrolmans Ass'n.

Frederick D. Gentry, Olympia, amicus curiae for City of Yakima on behalf of Washington State Ass'n of Fire Chiefs.

C. Danny Clem, Kitsap County Prosecutor, Karin L. Nyrop, Deputy, Port Orchard, amicus curiae for City of Yakima.

Ron Meyers, Port Orchard, amicus curiae on behalf of Washington State Council of Fire Fighters.

Richard L. Andrews, Bellevue City Atty., Lori Molander, Asst., David E. Kahn, Asst., Bellevue, amicus curiae.

ANDERSEN, Justice.

FACTS OF CASE

The principal question raised by these five consolidated appeals is whether the City of Yakima must collectively bargain with its police officers and fire fighters with respect to matters which the City has delegated to its Civil State statutes generally require that city employers collectively bargain with their employees with respect to personnel matters, including wages, hours and conditions of employment. ¹ Exceptions to this general rule are specifically set forth in the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act (the Act), RCW 41.56. ²

                Service Commission.   As the Civil Service Commission is presently constituted, we hold that it must
                

Each of the consolidated cases before us ³ involves interpretation of the proviso contained in that section of the Act which establishes the duty of public employers to participate in collective bargaining. The Act, in RCW 41.56.100, exempts employers from bargaining

any matter which ... has been delegated to any civil service commission or personnel board similar in scope, structure and authority to the [state personnel] board ...

The City claims that this proviso exempts from bargaining all matters delegated to any civil service commission as well as all matters delegated to a local personnel board which is similar in scope, structure and authority to the state personnel board. The City argues that a ruling contrary to its position would undermine and disable all civil service commissions throughout this state.

The police officers' and fire fighters' unions, on the other hand, contend the proviso exempts from collective bargaining only those matters delegated to a civil service commission which is similar in scope, structure and authority to the state personnel board or to a local personnel board The parties also disagree as to which forum--the superior court or the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC)--had jurisdiction to initially determinethe ultimate issue involved in this case. The unions petitioned PERC for a resolution of the problem. The City attempted to have the court decide the dispute. This dispute over forum resulted in the following complex procedural history.

                which meets the same requirement.   The unions contend that a ruling contrary to their position would render the collective bargaining act meaningless
                

On January 18, 1989, the Yakima Civil Service Commission for Police and Fire (hereafter Civil Service Commission) amended its civil service rules. The amendments included changes in the rules governing promotion, discipline and grievances, areas which generally would be considered mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. ⁴ At that time the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, Local 469 (Fire Fighters) had a collective bargaining agreement with the City of Yakima which was effective from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1989. A collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Yakima Police Patrolmans Association (Police Officers) was effective from January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1988.

On February 3, 1989, the Fire Fighters filed an unfair labor practice complaint with PERC alleging the City of Yakima had committed an unfair labor practice by failing to collectively bargain the changes in the civil service rules before unilaterally implementing those changes.

On April 19, 1989, the Police Officers filed a similar unfair labor practice complaint with PERC, alleging the City had failed to bargain the changes with the Police Officers' union.

On August 22, 1989, the City filed a declaratory judgment action against the Fire Fighters and PERC in Two days later, on August 24, 1989, the City filed a declaratory judgment action against the Police Officers and PERC asking for substantially the same relief with respect to the Police Officers and their unfair labor practice complaint.

                Yakima County Superior Court.   The City asked the court to declare that the City of Yakima had no duty to collectively bargain any matter "relating to hiring, promotions, transfers, reinstatements, demotions, suspensions and discharges" and any other matter delegated to the Civil Service Commission.  (City's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and for Stay of Administrative Proceedings, filed August 22, 1989;  Clerk's Papers, at 424, 1989 action).   The City also asked the court to declare that it had not committed an unfair labor practice
                

The superior court cases were consolidated and, on October 27, 1989, the court orally granted PERC's and the unions' motion to dismiss the actions. The trial court ruled that dismissal was required under the priority of action rule and because the City had failed to exhaust administrative remedies available to it through PERC.

The written order of dismissal was entered December 15, 1989, and the City's motion for reconsideration was denied February 14, 1990. The City then petitioned for direct review and we agreed to hear the appeal.

In the meantime, the Fire Fighters' 1988-89 collective bargaining agreement had expired. The Fire Fighters' union and the City began negotiations and on February 6, 1990, the City refused to bargain with respect to any matters that had been delegated to the Civil Service Commission.

On February 15, 1990, (the day after the trial court had denied the City's motion for reconsideration in the 1989 declaratory judgment actions) the City filed another declaratory judgment action against the Fire Fighters. Like the first action, the second declaratory judgment action asked the court to determine that the City had no duty to collectively bargain with the Fire Fighters with On February 21, 1990, the Fire Fighters amended their unfair labor practice complaint, filed with PERC, to include an allegation that the City continued to refuse to collectively bargain with respect to discipline, promotions and other working conditions during the new contract negotiations.

respect to leave time, discipline and discharge, promotions, job safety, grievance procedures, or "any other matters connected with the general subject of personnel administration, which have been delegated to the City of Yakima Civil Service Commission for Police and Fire Employees". (City's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, filed February 15, 1990; Clerk's Papers, at 363, 1990 action).

Although a hearing on the unions' unfair labor practice complaints was held on March 14, 1990, a decision was not issued by the PERC hearing examiner until June 12, 1990.

The Fire Fighters meanwhile had moved to dismiss the City's second declaratory judgment action on the grounds that the City had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and that under the priority of action rule, PERC should be permitted to complete its determination of the issue in controversy. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the City's two lawsuits against the Fire Fighters were different, in that the 1989 lawsuit involved a refusal to bargain with respect to an existing contract and the 1990 lawsuit involved a refusal to bargain the same subjects, for the same reason, but with respect to a prospective contract. The Fire Fighters filed a motion for discretionary review of that decision in this court. Because of the superior court ruling on that issue, PERC declined to rule on the Fire Fighters' amended unfair labor practice complaint.

The City moved for summary judgment in the superior court action and the court orally granted the City's motion on May 25, 1990. The court ruled that based on the language, the purpose and the history of the civil service and the collective bargaining statutes, the proviso contained in Approximately 2 weeks later, on June 12, 1990, PERC issued its written decision which found the City guilty of unfair labor practices. The PERC hearing examiner ruled that the proviso set forth in the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act did not apply to every civil service commission, but only to those which were similar in scope, structure and authority to the state personnel board. The hearing examiner's decision was appealed by the City and after the Commission affirmed the examiner's interpretation of the proviso, the City asked for judicial review. The Superior Court authorized direct review in the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals certifie...