Uni-United Faculty v. Iowa Public Employment Relations Bd., UNI-UNITED

• Decision Date: 20 March 1996
• Docket Number: UNI-UNITED,No. 94-1669,94-1669
• Citation: 545 N.W.2d 274
• Parties: 153 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2089, 108 Ed. Law Rep. 374 FACULTY, Appellant, v. IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee, State of Iowa, Board of Regents, Intervenor-Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 274

545 N.W.2d 274

153 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2089, 108 Ed. Law Rep. 374

UNI-UNITED FACULTY, Appellant, v. IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee State of Iowa, Board of Regents, Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 94-1669.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 20, 1996.

Charles E. Gribble and Pamela J. Prager of Gribble & Prager, Des Moines, for appellant.

Jan V. Berry, Des Moines, for appellee.

Joseph E. Flynn, St. Paul, Minnesota, and Gordon Allen, Deputy Attorney General, for intervenor-appellee.

Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and LAVORATO, NEUMAN, SNELL, and TERNUS, JJ.

McGIVERIN, Chief Justice.

The agency action under judicial review is the public employment relations board's (PERB) decision in a prohibited practice proceeding initiated by UNI-United Faculty (Union) against the Iowa state board of regents (State) and the University of Northern Iowa (UNI).

Union alleged the State and UNI violated Iowa Code section 20.10(2)(a), (e), (f) (1989) when the State refused Union's request to collectively bargain over distribution of $275,000 earmarked by the Iowa legislature for teaching excellence awards in UNI's general appropriation legislation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991.

PERB's final decision concluded that Union failed to establish a prohibited practice by the State or UNI. The district court affirmed PERB's decision on judicial review and so do we.

I. Background facts and proceedings. Petitioner Union represents instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors employed by UNI. Union and the Iowa state board of regents, the agency

which governs UNI, have negotiated two-year collective bargaining agreements since 1977. Each collective bargaining agreement has contained the following formula to distribute negotiated total wage increases to bargaining unit members: 53.5% in "across-the-board" percentage increases to each faculty member's base salary; 16.5% in "flat dollar" increment increases to each faculty member's base salary; and 30% in "individual salary adjustment" increases awarded to certain faculty members selected by UNI. Only the latter category of salary adjustments is relevant in the present dispute.

In March 1989, Union and the State entered into a two-year collective bargaining agreement for the 1989-91 academic years. The agreement provided in part:

Individual Adjustment Increase

Effective with the 1990-91 appointment year, the full-time faculty members of the bargaining unit who were employed on April 30, 1990, as full-time members of the bargaining unit shall receive an average increase of seven hundred seventy-five dollars ($775) per full-time faculty member which money the Board [of Regents] may use, at its discretion, for individual salary adjustments (including merit increases, adjustment for market conditions, and promotions), the distribution of which shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. [Union] shall be provided, as soon as reasonably practicable, a list of the recipients and amounts of individual adjustment awards.

UNI's collective bargaining agreements with Union have historically, and at all times material here, stated that UNI may use the 30% individual salary adjustment money, at its discretion, for merit increases, ¹ adjustments for market conditions, and promotions. The bargaining agreements have also provided that UNI's discretionary distribution of individual salary adjustments is not subject to the contractual grievance procedure.

For the fiscal year 1990-91, the individual salary adjustments contained in the collective bargaining agreement totaled 2.1%, or $449,512 according to Union's records, of the 7% total salary increase for the fiscal year.

In May 1990, as the second year of the parties' 1989-91 collective bargaining agreement approached, the legislature enacted and the governor approved S.F. 2423, which became 1990 Iowa Acts chapter 1272, a bill providing appropriations to fund UNI's general operations. S.F. 2423 provided in pertinent part:

4. UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA

a. For salaries, support, maintenance, equipment, miscellaneous purposes, and for not more than the following full-time equivalent positions:

.................................................................. $ 53,563,012

............................................................... FTEs 1,385.83

As a condition, limitation, and qualification of moneys appropriated in this paragraph, from moneys available to the university of northern Iowa, $275,000 shall be expended for teaching excellence awards to teaching faculty members and teaching assistants.

Teaching excellence awards shall be granted to faculty members and teaching assistants for excellence in the quality of classroom instruction. An award shall be built into the faculty member's or teaching assistant's base salary. Moneys appropriated for teaching excellence awards shall not result in a negative impact upon a collective bargaining agreement between an employee organization and the university. Not later than December 1, 1990, the state board of regents shall report the names of recipients of teaching excellence awards, and the amounts of the awards granted, to the joint education appropriations subcommittee and to the legislative fiscal bureau.

1990 Iowa Acts ch. 1272, § 14(4)(a) (emphasis added).

Union agrees that "teaching excellence awards" referred to in S.F. 2423 are one component of the individual adjustment increase category within the parties' collective bargaining agreement. S.F. 2423 required only $275,000 of the total UNI appropriations of $53,563,012 to be distributed by UNI as "teaching excellence awards." Id. For fiscal year 1990-91, the collective bargaining agreement figure for individual salary adjustments, or $449,512, well exceeded $275,000.

In response to the general assembly's decision to earmark $275,000 of the total UNI appropriation for rewarding teaching excellence, Union's president sent a letter to the president of the Iowa state board of regents. In the letter, Union expressed its belief that the $275,000 earmarked appropriation was a mandatory subject of bargaining and requested negotiations with the State and UNI concerning distribution of the money. See Iowa Code § 20.16. In a reply letter, the State board of regents executive director refused Union's request to negotiate. The State did not believe the $275,000 was a subject of bargaining because (1) the money did not represent an additional appropriation and (2) the $275,000 was a portion of the individual salary adjustment increase already provided for pursuant to the parties' 1989-91 collective bargaining agreement. Although Union ultimately agreed with proposition (1), it steadfastly disputes the State's position that the $275,000 was included in the total salary increase of 7%, as negotiated by the State and Union, for the 1990-91 fiscal year.

In September 1990, as a result of the State's refusal to bargain, Union filed a prohibited practice complaint with PERB alleging that the State and UNI violated Iowa Code section 20.10(2)(a), (e), (f). See Iowa Code § 20.11(1). Union requested that PERB order the State to bargain over distribution of the $275,000. Because distribution of individual adjustment increases, of which teaching excellence awards are a component, is not subject to the parties' contractual grievance procedure, Union followed the proper procedure by filing an action with the board.

The case was tried before an administrative law judge (ALJ) designated by PERB. See id. § 20.11(2). In a proposed decision and order entered pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.15(2), the ALJ determined that the State violated Iowa Code section 20.10(2)(a), (e), (f) by refusing to bargain with Union and interpreting S.F. 2423 in a manner which allegedly had a negative impact on the 1989-91 collective bargaining agreement. The ALJ ordered the State, on behalf of UNI, to collectively bargain with Union over distribution of $275,000 for teaching excellence awards.

The State appealed the ALJ decision to PERB. See id. § 20.11(2). In a nineteen page final agency action, PERB concluded the State and UNI did not violate section 20.10(2) because they had no duty to bargain the questioned issue and, therefore, PERB dismissed Union's prohibited practice complaint.

Pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 17A, Union filed a petition for judicial review before the district court seeking to reverse the respondent PERB's decision. See id. §§ 20.11(5), 17A.19(1). The State intervened and argued in support of the board's decision. On judicial review, the district court affirmed the board's decision, finding Union failed to establish any basis requiring a grant of judicial review relief. See id. § 17A.19(8).

Union appealed. See id. § 17A.20.

II. Standard of review. Standards for reviewing the district court's ruling on a petition for judicial review of a final agency action are well-established:

When, under the [Iowa administrative procedure Act], this court reviews a district court decision on the validity of an agency action, we ask only whether the district court has correctly applied the law. The district court is itself acting "in an appellate capacity to correct errors of law on the part of the agency. In our review of such action by the district court, we merely apply the standards of section 17A.19(8) to the agency action to determine whether our conclusions are the same as those of the district court." When the conclusions are the same, we must affirm.

Because "law issues are determinable by the judiciary alone," we owe an agency only limited deference on matters of law, including statutory interpretation. But "[w]e are not free to interfere with [an agency's] findings [of fact] where there is conflict in the evidence or when reasonable minds might disagree about the inferences to be drawn from the evidence whether disputed or not." We must ask "not whether the evidence might support a different finding but...