Medford Firefighters Ass'n, Local No. 1431, IAFF v. City of Medford

• Decision Date: 11 June 1979
• Docket Number: No. 78-2099-E-3,78-2099-E-3
• Citation: 40 Or.App. 519,595 P.2d 1268
• Parties: , 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2633 MEDFORD FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL # 1431, IAFF, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF MEDFORD, a municipal corporation, the Common Council of the City of Medford, William Tycer, Hugh Jennings, Gary Newton, Monte Stamper, Virginia Vogel, Roland Fowlkes, Fred Phelps and Lou Hannum, City Council Members, John R. Thomson, City Manager of the City of Medford, and Al Densmore, Mayor of the City of Medford, Respondents. ; CA 12327.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 1268

595 P.2d 1268

40 Or.App. 519, 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2633

MEDFORD FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL # 1431, IAFF, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF MEDFORD, a municipal corporation, the Common Council of the City of Medford, William Tycer, Hugh Jennings, Gary Newton, Monte Stamper, Virginia Vogel, Roland Fowlkes, Fred Phelps and Lou Hannum, City Council Members John R. Thomson, City Manager of the City of Medford, and Al Densmore, Mayor of the City of Medford, Respondents.

No. 78-2099-E-3; CA 12327.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted April 23, 1979.

Decided June 11, 1979.

Gary K. Jensen, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.

Eugene F. Hart, Jr., City Atty., Medford, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.

Al J. Laue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause amicus curiae on behalf of Employment Relations Bd. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., and Patti L. Hunter, Certified Law Student, Salem.

Before SCHWAB, C. J., and TANZER and RICHARDSON, JJ.

TANZER, Judge.

The issue in this mandamus proceeding is the constitutionality of the compulsory arbitration provisions of the public employe collective bargaining statutes, ORS 243.650 to 243.762.

Petitioner and respondent, the City of Medford, engaged in negotiations and mediation during 1977 and 1978, but did not succeed in reaching a new employment agreement. The Employment Relations Board (ERB) appointed an arbitrator who held a hearing in June, 1978. Pursuant to ORS 243.742, 243.746 and 243.752, the arbitrator prepared an agreement and submitted it to the parties for their signatures. The City refused to sign the agreement, and the Firefighters brought this mandamus proceeding seeking a writ commanding the City to sign the agreement. The City demurred to the alternative writ of mandamus on the grounds that ORS 243.752, ¹ which provides that the arbitration decision is binding on the parties, is unconstitutional because it violates the home rule provisions of the Oregon Constitution ² and because it delegates legislative authority without adequate standards or safeguards. ³ The trial court sustained the demurrer on home rule grounds. We presume the constitutionality of the statute and look to each of the City's arguments to the contrary.

Home Rule

We first consider the City's contention that ORS 243.752 violates the constitutional protections of its home rule powers. The leading case on this subject is LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or. 137, 576 P.2d 1204, aff'd on rehrg., 284 Or. 173, 586 P.2d 765 (1978). ⁴ There, the Supreme Court held in essence that the home rule powers grant preeminence to local governments in matters of political organization, and that the legislature remained preeminent in matters of substantive law. Accordingly, it sustained the constitutionality of a statute requiring municipal firemen and police officers to be brought within the state Public Employes Retirement System unless the municipal employer provided them with equal or better retirement benefits. The Court held that

"* * * a general law addressed primarily to substantive social, economic, or other regulatory objectives of the state prevails over contrary policies preferred by some local governments if it is clearly intended to do so, unless the law is shown to be irreconcilable with the local community's freedom to choose its own political form. * * *"

281 Or. at 156, 576 P.2d at 1215. Under this principle, ORS 243.752 does not violate the constitutional home rule provisions.

The statute in question is part of a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating the collective bargaining rights and duties of public employers and employes, ORS 243.650 to 243.782. Of particular significance here is ORS 243.736, which prohibits strikes by firemen, policemen and certain guards. ORS 243.742 provides for compulsory arbitration where strikes are prohibited. ORS 243.746 establishes procedures for selection of an arbitrator and for the arbitration itself. ORS 243.752 provides that the arbitrator's decision, "if supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record, based upon the factors set forth in subsection (4) of ORS 243.746 ( ⁵ ) shall be final and binding upon the parties" and may be judicially enforced. ORS 243.762 allows public employers and the public employe representative to agree on a substantially equivalent compulsory arbitration procedure instead of the one prescribed by statute.

The compulsory arbitration provisions at issue here have the same constitutional status as the statutes sustained in LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB. The objective of the statutes is the promotion of harmonious relations between labor and management in the public sector by imposition of a collective bargaining system resembling that which regulates much of the private sector in some respects, but not in others. One of the differences, binding arbitration, is essentially a quid pro quo for the prohibition of strikes by firemen. Together, these statutes protect the public from interruption of essential health and safety services while recognizing the employes' right to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. The protection of these services and rights by requiring arbitration in lieu of strikes is a substantive state policy which the legislature clearly intended to prevail over conflicting local preferences. Cf. ORS 243.652. Like the statutes sustained in LaGrande/Astoria, the binding arbitration statutes may impose additional financial burdens on local governments, but they do not interfere with the City's freedom to choose its own political form or its mode of governmental organization. Therefore, the challenged statutes do not violate the constitutional home rule provisions.

Legislative Delegation

The City's second contention is that the compulsory arbitration statutes create an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the arbitrator. ⁶ Much of the City's argument is addressed to the wisdom rather than the constitutional permissibility of the delegation of authority to an arbitrator to formulate a binding public employment agreement. ⁷ The wisdom of the statutory policy is a matter for the legislature, not the courts. The City's contention regarding interference with local prerogatives is answered by the foregoing discussion of constitutional home rule.

The City further contends that the compulsory and binding arbitration statutes are unconstitutional because they do not provide adequate safeguards to prevent an arbitrary exercise of delegated authority and because they delegate legislative power to a private person.

General standards for the constitutionality of a delegation of legislative authority are found in Horner's Market v. Tri-County Trans., 256 Or. 124, 132-33, 471 P.2d 798 (1970), (other parts of which were overruled in Multnomah County v. Mittleman, 275 Or. 545, 557, 552 P.2d 242 (1976)), and Warren v. Marion County et al., 222 Or. 307, 313-15, 353 P.2d 257 (1960). In Horner's Market, the Court stated:

"* * * (T)he test for the validity of the delegation in this case, as in all other cases, should be whether the practical necessities of the efficient administration of legislative policy requiring the delegation of discretion outweigh the danger of discriminate action." 256 Or. at 132-33, 471 P.2d at 802.

In Warren, the Court stressed that the fundamental inquiry in delegation cases is "whether the procedure established for the exercise of the power furnishes adequate Safeguards to those who are affected by the administrative action." (Original emphasis.) 222 Or. at 314, 353 P.2d at 261.

In this case, the arbitrator's function is an essential component of the statutory scheme outlined above. ⁸ Discriminatory action is unlikely because the arbitrator may have no personal interest in the outcome and because his decision must be based on the factors set out by the legislature in ORS 243.746(4). ⁹ An additional safeguard is found in ORS 243.752, set out in note 1, which provides for judicial review based on those factors. In short, the statutes provide detailed standards to guide an independent arbitrator's decision and judicial review is available as a safeguard against arbitrariness. The danger of discriminatory action does not outweigh the necessity for binding arbitration in the efficient administration of the legislative policy.

As to the City's contention that the arbitrator is neither elected nor otherwise politically responsible, we observe that an arbitrator appointed by ERB to carry out specified statutory functions acts in a public capacity. He is not to have a personal interest in the subject of the arbitration; therefore, this case is not analogous to cases in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional statutes which delegated price-setting powers to interested private parties. See General Electric Co. v. Wahle, 207 Or. 302, 296 P.2d 635 (1956); LaForge v. Ellis, 175 Or. 545, 154 P.2d 844 (1945); Van Winkle v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 151 Or. 455, 49 P.2d 1140 (1935). The arbitrator's decision is governed by the statutory criteria in ORS 243.746(4), set out above. The delegation of authority to the arbitrator does not create any substantial danger that his decision will be based on private interest.

In sum, ORS 243.752 does not violate the constitutional home rule provisions and is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The trial court erred in sustaining the City's demurrer to the alternative writ of...