Greeley Police Union v. City Council of Greeley
| Decision Date | 23 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 26992,26992 |
| Citation | 191 Colo. 419,553 P.2d 790 |
| Parties | , 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2382, 79 Lab.Cas. P 53,873 The GREELEY POLICE UNION, and Donald O'Leary, President of the Greeley Police Union, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY COUNCIL OF GREELEY, Colorado, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
George T. Ashen, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
William E. Shade, City Atty., Holland & Hart, Warren L. Tomlinson, James E. Hartley, Denver, for defendants-appellees.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Joseph N. deRaismes, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Louis L. Kelley, John Kezer, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for Division of Labor, Dept. of Labor and Employment, State of Colorado, amicus curiae.
Leland M. Coulter, Richard Kaufman, Aurora, for City of Aurora, Colorado, a Municipal Corp., amicus curiae.
Susan K. Griffiths, Wheat Ridge, for Colorado Municipal League, amicus curiae.
The principal issue in this appeal is the validity of a Greeley (the city) city charter amendment providing collective bargaining and compulsory, binding arbitration of all unresolved municipal-police union labor disputes arising from collective bargaining.
This action was originally commenced by plaintiffs-appellants Greeley Police Union (the union). The union sought to compel the city to submit to an election an initiative measure amending the Greeley City Charter. The city argued that the proposed amendment was unconstitutional; the district court agreed and dismissed the complaint. The union appealed to this court. Subsequently we decided Aurora v. Dilley, 186 Colo. 222, 526 P.2d 657 (1974), which held that the constitutionality of a proposed initiated city charter amendment, similar to the subject amendment, providing for collective bargaining and compulsory arbitration for city firemen could not be resolved prior to the election. Accordingly, the parties to this action stipulated, and this court so ordered, that the case be remanded to the district court for further proceedings pending an election on the proposed charter amendment.
The Greeley electorate thereafter approved the amendment, which provides, Inter alia, for the city to bargain in good faith with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours, grievance procedures, working conditions and all other terms and conditions of employment with a union selected by a majority of Greeley police officers. All matters incapable of being resolved by negotiation are to be submitted to an arbitrator whose ruling is binding on both the city and the union.
The city filed a motion seeking a redetermination of the amendment's validity. The court again ruled that the charter provisions for binding arbitration constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power. Furthermore, these provisions were deemed so central to the amendment that they could not be severed. Accordingly, the entire amendment was declared invalid. Again, the union appealed. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The city asserts that the charter amendment involves a matter of statewide concern which is not properly subject to municipal regulation. We do not accept that argument as valid. Both state and local interests are involved. See Huff v. Mayor of Colorado Springs, 182 Colo. 108, 512 P.2d 632 (1973). The city may legislate on such matters in the absence of conflicting statutory provisions. See Vela v. People, 174 Colo. 465, 484 P.2d 1204 (1971), and Woolverton v. Denver, 146 Colo. 247, 361 P.2d 982 (1961).
The city also argues that the charter authorizes what state law forbids and therefore a conflict exists, citing Ray v. Denver, 109 Colo. 74, 121 P.2d 886 (1942). Again, this argument has no merit. There is no state legislation concerning the rights of public employees to engage in collective bargaining. The Colorado Labor Peace Act, with an exception not applicable herein, excludes the state or any political subdivision thereof. Section 8--3--104(12), C.R.S.1973.
The trial court ruled that the amendment provisions concerning compulsory binding arbitration constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power. This is an issue of first impression in Colorado. We are persuaded that this view is correct. The charter amendment provides that in the event that the parties are unable to reach an agreement all unresolved issues must be submitted to arbitration in the following manner:
Following notification, the American Arbitration Association submits a list of five names to the parties. Each party may cross off two names from the list and then number the remaining names in order of preference. The Arbitration Association then selects a single person who is granted the authority to resolve all disputed issues. The arbitrator's decision is binding upon the parties.
A determination of the validity of legislatively provided binding arbitration was left expressly unanswered in Fellows v. LaTronica, 151 Colo. 300, 377 P.2d 547 (1962). The collective bargaining agreement in Littleton Education Association v. Arapahoe County School District, Colo., 553 P.2d 793 () did not contain binding arbitration features. The board of education was not required to surrender any of its ultimate decision-making authority. In that opinion we limited the holding of Fellows, supra, to its facts: a public employer cannot be forced to arbitrate disputes arising from a collective bargaining agreement.
A contrary holding, in our view, would seriously conflict with basic tenets of representative government. Fundamental among these tenets is the precept that officials engaged in governmental decision-making (E.g., setting budgets, salaries, and other terms and conditions of public employment) must be accountable to the citizens they represent. Binding arbitration removes these decisions from the aegis of elected representatives, placing them in the hands of an outside person who has no accountability to the public. Dearborn Fire Fighters Union v. City of Dearborn, 394 Mich. 229, 231 N.W.2d 226 (1975), opinion by Mr. Justice Levin.
The prohibition against delegating legislative power to politically unaccountable persons is mandated by Colo.Const., Art., XXI, Sec. 4, which states, in part:
'Every person having authority to exercise or exercising any public or governmental duty, power or function, shall be an elective officer, or one appointed, drawn or designated in accordance with law by an elective officer or officers, or by some board, commission, person or persons legally appointed by an elective officer or officers, each of which said elective officers shall be subject to the recall provision of this constitution; . . .
'Nothing herein contained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Detroit v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n
... ... With respect to this factor, the panel reviewed evidence (Union Exhibits 8-22; City Exhibit 5) comparing Detroit police officers' salaries ... 568] Although the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in Greeley Police Union v. City Council of Greeley 96 involved a city charter ... ...
-
Maryland Classified Emp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Anderson
... ... , and those persons composing the County Council of Harford County (the Council). A demurrer by ... 2594, 41 L.Ed.2d 207 (1974) and City of Baltimore v. Concord, 257 Md. 132, 262 A.2d ... Page 510 ... Local Union No. 825) to have dues deducted from their wages ... 607 (1977); Greeley Police Union v. City Council of Greeley, 553 P.2d ... ...
-
City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489
... ... , County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Oregon Council 75, and the Oregon Ed. Ass'n ... James ... of a statute requiring municipal firemen and police officers to be brought within the statewide, ... safeguard any "interest" of municipal employees, the union still has not sustained its burden under the record in this ... ordinances and constitutional provisions, see Greeley ... ...
-
City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations Bd.
... ... the Rocky River Firefighters (IAFF), Local 695 ("the union") as the exclusive representative of fire fighters in the ... Baumgardner, Cleveland, for appellee AFSCME Ohio Council 8 ... Conway, Barclay, Deyo & Kurant ... to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in ... the observation of the Colorado Supreme Court in Greeley Police Union v. City Council of Greeley (1976), 191 Colo ... ...
-
Public Meeting Statutes and Public Sector Collective Bargaining
...bargaining agreements." Since the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Greeley Police Union v. City Council of Greeley, ___ Colo. ___, 553 P.2d 790, (1976), decided the same day as the LEA decision, held that interest arbitration was an unconstitutional delegation of authority, even with a ......
-
Collective Bargaining for Local Public Employees in Colorado
...and County of Denver, § C5.80; Charter, City of Englewood, 2150 §§ 137:1 to 138:3; Charter, City of Greeley, §§ 11-3(a) to 11-3(m). 38. 191 Colo. 419, 553 P.2d 790 (1976). 39. While not particularly highlighted by that opinion, this portion of the decision may be of the most long-lasting si......
-
Public Employee Strikes in Colorado: the Supreme Court Adopts a New Rule
...Id. at fn. 9. Fry's analysis is persuasive evidence that binding arbitration was never a part of the Industrial Relations Act. 23. 553 P.2d 790 (Colo. 1976). The holding in Greeley Police Union was reaffirmed in City of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local No. 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo. 1983)......
-
Union Organizing in a Government Setting
...legislature compels counties to bargain with unions, counties have no duty to do so."); Greeley Police Union v. City Council of Greeley, 553 P.2d 790, 791 (Colo. 1976) (upholding the city's duty to bargain with the police union pursuant to an amendment to the city's charter). 7. Lontine v. ......