Spokane County v. State

• Decision Date: 23 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 64796-8,64796-8
• Citation: 136 Wn.2d 663,966 P.2d 314
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SPOKANE COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, Daniel Maggs, as Presiding Judge of Spokane County District Court and the District Court Judges of Spokane County, Respondents, v. The STATE of Washington, The Public Employment Relations Commission, an agency of the executive branch of the State of Washington; and Marvin Schurke, a state officer in his capacity as Executive Director of PERC, Janet L. Gaunt, a state officer in her capacity as Chairperson of PERC; Dustin C. Mccready, a state officer in his capacity as a member of PERC, and Sam Kinville, a state officer in his capacity as a member of PERC, Appellants.

Page 663

136 Wn.2d 663

966 P.2d 314

SPOKANE COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, Daniel Maggs, as

Presiding Judge of Spokane County District Court

and the District Court Judges of Spokane

County, Respondents, v. The STATE of Washington, The Public Employment Relations

Commission, an agency of the executive branch of the State

of Washington; and Marvin Schurke, a state officer in his

capacity as Executive Director of PERC, Janet L. Gaunt, a

state officer in her capacity as Chairperson of PERC;

Dustin C. Mccready, a state officer in his capacity as a

member of PERC, and Sam Kinville, a state officer in his

capacity as a member of PERC, Appellants.

No. 64796-8.

Supreme Court of Washington,

En Banc.

Argued Feb. 25, 1998.

Decided Oct. 22, 1998.

As Amended on Denial of Reconsideration Dec. 23, 1998.

Stafford, Frey & Cooper, Anne M. Bremner, Stephen P. Larson, Tera H. Schreiber, Seattle, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington State District and Municipal

Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, Spencer Daniels, Asst., Olympia, Powell & Morris, William Powell, Spokane, for Appellant.

Frank Conklin, William Hyslop,

Terry Sublette, Spokane, Candy Heaverlo, Ellensburg, Jim Sweetser, Spokane County Prosecutor, Martin Muench, Kathryn Lee, Deputies, James Emacio, Spokane, for Respondent.

JOHNSON, Justice.

This is the companion case to Spokane County ex rel. County Comm'rs v. State, 136 Wash.2d 644, 966 P.2d 305 (1998) (Deputy Prosecutors). Like Deputy Prosecutors, this case involves application of the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, RCW 41.56(Act). As to the first two issues in this case, we hold the Spokane County District Court judges (District Court Judges) are not required, as a matter of law, to exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial relief and that the Washington State Council of County and City Employees (Union) is not entitled to intervention of right or permissive intervention. See Spokane County ex rel. County Comm'rs v. State, 136 Wash.2d 644, 966 P.2d 305.

The issue we address in this case is whether the Legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine in amending the Act to apply to district courts. The Superior Court held the Act violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) appealed that decision. We reverse.

FACTS

On December 14, 1995, the Union filed a complaint with In essence, the District Court Judges facially challenged the Act on separation of powers grounds. The case was transferred from this court to the Spokane County Superior Court. There, the Union filed a motion to intervene. The trial court denied the Union's motion to intervene and the District Court Judges moved for summary judgment. That motion was granted. PERC now appeals from the Superior Court's order of summary judgment.

PERC alleging the Spokane[966 P.2d 316] County Commissioners and the District Court Judges committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of the Act. PERC began to process the complaints according to its usual procedures. Before a decision from PERC on any of the complaints, Spokane County and the District Court Judges filed a petition against state officers with this court, seeking (1) a declaratory ruling that RCW 41.56, as applied to the courts of this state, is unconstitutional, and (2) a writ of prohibition directed to PERC to prevent it from exercising jurisdiction over this matter.

ANALYSIS

The central issue in this case requires us to decide whether the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and, thus, whether PERC, an executive branch agency, can validly exercise jurisdiction to initially resolve disputes concerning the collective bargaining process between the Union and the District Court Judges. The Act provides "a uniform basis for implementing the right of public employees to join labor organizations of their own choosing and to be represented by such organizations in matters concerning their employment relations with public employers." RCW 41.56.010. The focus of our analysis, however, is application of the Act to the district and superior courts. Specifically, RCW 41.56.020 provides, in part, that the Act "shall apply to ... any political subdivision of the state of Washington, including district courts and superior courts...." RCW 41.56.030 further clarifies the Legislature's intent to subject the district courts and superior courts to the Act. It defines "public employer," in part, as:

[T]he public employer of district court or superior court employees for wage-related matters is the respective county legislative authority, or person or body acting on behalf of the legislative authority, and the public employer for nonwage-related matters is the judge or judge's designee of the respective district court or superior court.[ ¹

The District Court Judges' essential argument is that because they are a separate branch of government, court employees cannot be designated as public employees. They further contend that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine by making them "public employers" as that term is defined in the Act. The District Court Judges misinterpret the separation of powers doctrine.

The division of our state government into three separate but coequal branches has been "presumed throughout our state's history to give rise to a vital separation of powers doctrine." Carrick v. Locke, 125 Wash.2d 129, 135, 882 P.2d 173 (1994) (citing In re Salary of Juvenile Dir., 87 Wash.2d 232, 238-40, 552 P.2d 163 (1976)). Our state constitution contains separate provisions establishing the Legislative Department (Article II), the Executive (Article III), and the Judiciary (Article IV) and, as such, provides for this separation of functions.

In Carrick, we reiterated the fundamental principles of the separation of powers doctrine and detailed the analysis for determining when the doctrine might be violated. While we stated the primary purpose behind the doctrine is "to ensure that the fundamental functions of each branch remain inviolate," we also stated the doctrine does not require the three branches to be "hermetically sealed off from one another." Carrick, 125 Wash.2d at 135, 882 P.2d 173 (emphasis added). In setting out the analysis to be applied in cases where a separation of powers violation is alleged we relied on Zylstra v. Piva, 85 Wash.2d 743, 539 P.2d 823 (1975), the seminal case analyzing the judicial branch and its control over its employees. We stated, "[t]he question to be asked is not whether two branches of government engage in coinciding activities, but rather whether the activity of one branch threatens the independence or integrity or invades the prerogatives of another." Carrick, 125 Wash.2d at 135, 882 P.2d 173 (citing Zylstra, 85 Wash.2d at 750, 539 P.2d 823) (emphasis added).

The importance of judicial independence and the need for the judiciary, as well as the other two branches, to maintain effective control over their respective affairs cannot be overstated. As we recognized in Zylstra, the judiciary has, on appropriate occasions, declined to intrude upon the integral functions of the legislative and executive branches. Zylstra, 85 Wash.2d at 754, 539 P.2d 823 (Utter, J., concurring). Likewise, we have required that the other branches of government keep distant from the inherent functions of the judicial branch. See City of Tacoma v. O'Brien, 85 Wash.2d 266, 534 P.2d 114 (1975).

The District Court Judges argue they are members of the judicial branch of state government under article IV, section 1 of the Washington Constitution ² and, as such, PERC "cannot be delegated constitutional authority over members of the judiciary" because it is an executive branch agency. Br. of Resp'ts at 21.

The District Court Judges do not argue, nor could they argue, that the provision of the Act providing PERC jurisdiction over wage related issues as being within the ambit of the county legislative authority violates separation of powers. Nor can the District Court Judges argue these employees are not "public employees" and Union members for purposes of negotiating with the Spokane County over wage related issues. The District Court Judges do not contest the validity of the collective bargaining agreement entered into between Spokane County and the employees with respect to wage related items, nor can they credibly maintain that the statutory requirement that they bargain and enter into a collective bargaining agreement, by itself, is a violation of the separation of powers. ³

The District Court Judges, however, rely on Washington State Bar Ass'n v. State, 125 Wash.2d 901, 890 P.2d 1047 (1995), where we struck down that portion of the Act declaring the Bar Association to be a public employer of its employees because it violated the separation of powers doctrine. The District Court Judges assert "[i]f the Legislature cannot constitutionally require the labor relations of the Bar Association to be subjected to the jurisdiction of PERC, a fortiori the Legislature cannot constitutionally order the labor decisions of the members of the judiciary to be subjected to PERC." Br. of Resp'ts at 28. This is a misreading of our holding.

In State Bar Ass'n, the legislation in question "directly and unavoidably" conflicted with a court rule which this court adopted and which governed Bar Association powers and responsibilities. State Bar Ass'n, 125 Wash.2d at 906, 890 P.2d 1047. In such a case, our extensive common law history dictates that the court rule will prevail if it cannot be harmonized with the statute. State Bar Ass'n, 125 Wash.2d at 909, 890 P.2d 1047 (citing In re Application of Levy, 23 Wash.2d 607, 161 P.2d 651 (1945); In re Chi-Dooh Li, 79 Wash.2d 561, 488 P.2d 259 (1971)). The District Court Judges have not directed us to, nor can we find any, court rule which conflicts with the questioned provisions of the Act.

The issue brought to light in this case is more analogous...