Mo. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n v. Mo. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations

• Decision Date: 01 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. SC 98412,SC 98412
• Citation: 623 S.W.3d 585
• Parties: MISSOURI NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, et al., Respondents, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, et al., Appellants, Ferguson-Florissant School District, et al., Defendants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

623 S.W.3d 585

MISSOURI NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, et al., Respondents,

v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, et al., Appellants,Ferguson-Florissant School District, et al., Defendants.

No. SC 98412

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued June 1, 2021

MAYER, ALYSSA MICHELE, Assistant Attorney General, KANSAS CITY, MO, SAUER, DEAN JOHN, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JEFFERSON CITY, MO, for Appellants.

BARKER, SALLY E, HAGGARD, LORETTA KAY, GRANT, CHRISTOPHER NEVILLE, ST. LOUIS, MO, WALTA, JASON, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC, for Respondents MISSOURI NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, FERGUSON-FLORISSANT NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, HAZELWOOD ASSOCIATION OF SUPPORT PERSONNEL, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1.

MCLAUGHLlN, DANIEL MICHAEL, KIRKWOOD, MO, for Respondents LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 42, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 610.

CAMPBELL, GREG A, GILBERT, NATHAN KYLE, ST. LOUIS, MO, for Respondents INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 148.

ORMSBY, CINDY REEDS, CURTIS HEINZ GARRETT AND OKEEFE, CLAYTON, MO, for Defendants FERGUSON-FLORISSANT SCHOOL DISTRlCT, HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT.

O'KEEFE, KEVIN M, ST. LOUIS, MO, for Defendants CITY OF BELRIDGE.

VATTEROTT, FRANCIS JOSEPH, VATTEROTT, SARAH MARIE, MARYLAND HEIGHTS, MO, for Defendants AFFTON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.

HETLAGE, JAMES CARTER, ST. LOUIS, MO, for Defendants CITY OF CRESTWOOD, MISSOURI.

CAREY, AARNARIAN D, SAINT LOUIS, MO, for Defendants ST. LOUIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

LEVIN, LlNDA, OFFICE OF THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY, CLAYTON, MO, for Defendants ST. LOUIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR.

TOWEY, JAMES PAUL JR, MCCARTHY LEONARD AND KAEMMERER, TOWN AND COUNTRY, MO, for Amicus Curiae MISSOURI FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE.

EVANS, MICHAEL ANTHONY, ST. LOUIS, MO, for Amicus Curiae THE ECONOMIC POLlCY INSTITUTE.

FAUL, JAMES PATRICK, ST. LOUIS, MO, for Amici Curiae MISSOURI AFL-CIO, LABOR LAW AND SOCIOLOGY PROFESSORS.

Mary R. Russell, Judge

This appeal concerns the constitutional validity of House Bill No. 1413, enacted in 2018, which significantly altered many aspects of public labor relations in Missouri. The circuit court found the challenged provisions of HB 1413 violated multiple provisions of the Missouri Constitution and permanently enjoined its operation and enforcement.

Specifically, the circuit court found, in part, the exemption of public safety labor organizations in section 105.503.2(1)¹ creates a scheme that effectively disfavors non-public safety labor organizations and violates public employees’ right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , in violation of article I, section 29. The circuit court also found the exemption of public safety labor organizations violates article I, section 2 of the Missouri Constitution, which guarantees equal protection, because the exemption makes little sense given the purported justifications for the different treatment. This Court agrees the exemption violates article I, section 2.

The circuit court further found the exemption of public safety labor organizations permeates throughout HB 1413. As a result, it found the valid provisions of HB 1413 were so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon, this constitutionally invalid provision that it could not be presumed the legislature would have enacted those provisions without it. This Court agrees. Pursuant to section 1.140, RSMo 2016, this Court is required to declare HB 1413 void in its entirety, rather than severing the offending provision. The circuit court's grant of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, declaring HB 1413 void in its entirety and permanently enjoining the defendants from administering or enforcing any provision of HB 1413, is affirmed.

Background

Prior to the General Assembly's enactment of HB 1413, Missouri's public labor law, codified in section 105.500, RSMo 2016, et seq. , created a loose collective-bargaining framework for public employees. Including definitions, the entire law spanned five brief sections. Section 105.510, RSMo 2016, provided, with certain exceptions,² that "[e]mployees ... of any public body shall have the right to form and join labor organizations and to present proposals to any public body relative to salaries and other conditions of employment through the representative of their own choosing." An "exclusive bargaining representative" was designated or selected by a majority of employees in an appropriate unit as the representative of those employees. Section 105.500(2), RSMo 2016. If issues arose concerning the appropriateness of bargaining units or majority representative status, the state board of mediation resolved the disputes. Section 105.525, RSMo 2016. Public bodies were required to meet and confer with labor organizations:

Whenever such proposals are presented by the exclusive bargaining representative to a public body, the public body or its designated representative or representatives shall meet, confer and discuss such proposals relative to salaries and other conditions of employment of the employees of the public body with the labor organization which is the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in a unit appropriate. Upon the completion of discussions, the results shall be reduced to writing and be presented to the appropriate administrative, legislative or other governing body in the form of an ordinance, resolution, bill or other form required for adoption, modification or rejection.

Section 105.520, RSMo 2016. No right to strike was provided for public labor organizations. Section 105.530, RSMo 2016.

HB 1413 significantly altered many aspects of public labor relations in Missouri by repealing sections 105.500, 105.520, 105.525, 105.530,³ and 208.862 and enacting 21 new sections. Among its new provisions, HB 1413 requires labor organizations to adopt a constitution and bylaws and provide detailed reporting and annual filings. Section 105.533. HB 1413 also mandates officers and employees of labor organizations file certain disclosures. Section 105.535. Public employees must annually authorize withholding labor organization dues and fees from their earnings. Section 105.505.1. Annual authorizations are also required from public employees for the labor organization to use dues for political contributions or expenditures. Section 105.505.2. The bill further prevents supervisory employees from being included in the same bargaining unit as those they supervise and also disallows the same labor organization to represent both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. Section 105.570. In addition, HB 1413 transforms the manner in which a labor organization is selected and retained. A labor organization can gain recognition only through an election conducted before the state board of mediation, for a fee, by secret ballot with more than 50 percent of all public employees within the bargaining unit voting positively to certify the labor organization.⁴ Section 105.575.1, .5, .8, .15. Once certified, labor organizations must be recertified every three years. Section 105.575.12. Finally, HB 1413 imposes additional limitations on the formation and coverage of labor agreements between public bodies and labor organizations. Sections 105.580, 105.585.

The revised provisions of sections 105.500 to 105.598 "apply to all employees of a public body, all labor organizations, and all labor agreements between such a labor organization and a public body." Section 105.503.1. A "labor organization" is defined as

any organization, agency, or public employee representation committee or plan, in which public employees participate and that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with a public body or public bodies concerning collective bargaining, grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.

Section 105.500(5). A public body is defined as "the state of Missouri, or any officer, agency, department, bureau, division, board or commission of the state, or any other political subdivision or special district of or within the state" but excludes the department of corrections. Section 105.500(6).

HB 1413's provisions, however, do not apply to "[p]ublic safety labor organizations and all employees of a public body who are members of a public safety labor organization" or to the department of corrections and its employees. Section 105.503.2. The definition of a "public safety labor organization," found in section 105.500(8), is a labor organization that "wholly or primarily represent[s] persons trained or authorized by law or rule to render emergency medical assistance or treatment ... and persons who are vested with the power of arrest for criminal code violations."

The day before HB 1413 was to go into effect, seven labor unions—Missouri National Education Association; Ferguson-Florissant National Education Association; Hazelwood Association of Support Personnel; Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local Union No. 42; Miscellaneous Drivers, Helpers, Healthcare and Public Employees Union Local No. 610, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 148; and Service Employees International Union Local 1—(collectively, the "Labor Unions") sued the state agencies authorized to implement and enforce HB 1413, the employers of the bargaining units represented by the Labor Unions, and the prosecutor⁵ who would enforce HB 1413's criminal provisions (collectively, the "State"). The Labor Unions are not public safety labor organizations and would be subject to all provisions of HB 1413. The Labor Unions argued HB 1413 violated provisions of the state constitution, namely the right to collective bargaining in article I, section 29 ; the equal protection provision of article I, section 2 ; and the right to freedom of speech and association in article...