Ortblad v. State, 44331

• Citation: 88 Wn.2d 380,561 P.2d 201
• Decision Date: 17 March 1977
• Docket Number: No. 44331,44331
• Parties: , 95 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2114, 81 Lab.Cas. P 55,050 John ORTBLAD et al., Respondents, v. The STATE of Washington and Wallace G. Miller, Individually and as Budget Director, or his successor in office, Appellants.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 380

88 Wn.2d 380

561 P.2d 201, 95 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2114,

81 Lab.Cas. P 55,050

John ORTBLAD et al., Respondents, v. The STATE of Washington and Wallace G. Miller, Individually and as Budget Director, or his successor in office, Appellants.

No. 44331.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

March 17, 1977.

Rehearing Denied May 5, 1977.

Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Hauth, Sr., Olympia, William G. Boland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Richard D. Eadie, Seattle, for respondents.

BRACHTENBACH, Associate Justice.

This case is an outgrowth of our decision in Ortblad v. State, 85 Wash.2d 109, 530 P.2d 635 (1975), (Ortblad 1). There we held that the State Budget Director was obligated to bargain with State civil service employees on the subject of wages. We remanded the matter to superior court for 'further proceedings in mandamus as may be necessary, timely, and appropriate.'

Plaintiffs in Ortblad 1 and herein are several State employees and a union representing approximately 1200 State employees. After unsuccessful efforts to negotiate following the remand, the plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus. The trial court ordered the parties to engage in collective bargaining on the issue of wages, at reasonable times and prior to the submission by the Budget Director to the legislature of any recommendations on employees' salaries.

The State and the Budget Director appeal from the refusal of the trial court to enter a more specific proposed order which would have limited the subject matter of negotiations, put negotiations within a specific time frame and created a mechanism for electing a single representative of all civil service employees for bargaining purposes.

We affirm the trial court but remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The appeal raises issued as to the subject matter of collective bargaining, whether any agreement reached is binding, the time in which bargaining is to be done and the unit or units with which the Budget Director must negotiate.

The parties have differing views of the meaning of the Ortblad 1 decision. In essence the plaintiffs contend that pursuant to that case, bargaining must include the traditional scope of labor negotiations, I.e., wages, including fringe benefits, hours and working conditions. Further they argue that the Budget Director must meet and bargain at all reasonable times. Finally they urge that when an agreement is reached it becomes binding upon the Budget Director and the Governor and must be submitted in that form to the legislature. The State asserts that bargaining is limited to the State employees salary survey, RCW 41.06.150, that the Budget Director is required to negotiate only after the salary survey is completed, and that negotiations are not binding. Finally the defendants urge that a single representative should negotiate for all civil service employees.

First as to the scope of bargaining. In Ortblad 1, we said 85 Wash.2d at page 116, 530 P.2d at page 640;

We therefore conclude that the appropriate 'public employer' for purposes of wage bargaining, is the Budget Director. We find his authority to negotiate in his power to review the plan forwarded by the Personnel Board; and we find his duty to negotiate in the grant of a right which is not otherwise effective.

The source of this power and duty was held to be RCW 41.06.150 which makes the salary survey 'subject to approval by the state budget director in accordance with the provisions of chapter 43.88 RCW'. That statutory source also sets the scope of the Budget Director's authority in bargaining.

Thus the only subject about which the Budget Director must negotiate and bargain is those matters included within the salary survey. State civil service employees are entitled to present their views, data and other matters which might bear upon the action ultimately taken by the Budget Director with regard to the salary survey. That is the total scope of bargaining authorized by the statute as interpreted in Ortblad 1.

The second issue is whether the negotiations and bargaining must lead to an agreement which is binding upon the Budget Director and the Governor. Plaintiffs contend that the parties must reach an agreement about all items of negotiation, that the Budget Director must accept those and recommend them to the Governor and that the Governor must include them within his or her budget and present it to the legislature. While reaching a written agreement is the usual accomplishment of traditional collective bargaining, we find nothing in the statutory scheme which authorizes the Budget Director to bind himself and the Governor to a fixed position regarding the salary survey. In fact it would be anomalous to allow the Budget Director to...