Missouri Municipal Attorneys’ Association
Collective Bargaining Update
2014
Presented by:
Ivan L. Schraeder
The Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC
222 South Central Avenue, Suite 901
St. Louis, Missouri 63109
314.746.4823 (telephone)
314.746.4848 (facsimile)
APPLICABLE CASE & STATUTORY LAWS
Independence NEA v. Independence School District, 223 S.W.3d 131 (Mo banc 2007) – collective bargaining is a constitutional right for all public employees; contracts are enforceable when properly adopted by local governmental entities; separation of powers is not limited because local governmental entities still have a right to reject any and all proposals.
Eastern Missouri Coalition of Police, FOP Lodge 15 v. Chesterfield, 386 S.W.3d 755 (Mo banc 2012) – employees seeking bargaining unit rights to engage in collective bargaining which are not covered by the Meet & Confer Law (Sec. 105.500 RSMo et seq) have a right to select representatives of their own choosing; local governmental entities can adopt procedures to accommodate such selection process; in absence of a choosing process the courts may intervene to insure employees’ rights to select representatives are protected.
AFT Local 420 v. Ledbetter, 387 S.W.3d 360 (Mo banc 2012) – the standard for governing the right to bargain collectively is called “good faith” which is not defined in the case; the private sector experience in collective bargaining provides guidance as to what is “good faith”.
Section 105.500 RSMo et seq. – this is the “Meet and Confer” law that provides for some employees’ selection of bargaining representatives and determination of an appropriate bargaining unit, which can exclude some employees from the same unit as other employees.
Current cases pending in Missouri courts:
West Central MO Regional Lodge #50 of the Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Grandview, WD Court of Appeals Case No WD77250 appealed from Jackson County Case No. 1116-CV-34004 (MML filed amicus brief; Appellant’s Brief due 07.07.14) – challenge to local ordinance for unit determination and conduct of election, limits related thereto, and standards for subjects of bargaining under “good faith”.
MSTA v. Springfield NEA, Greene County Circuit Court Case No. 14547.57 (2013) – case challenging school district enactment of recognition processes and election process limiting one union on ballot. Trial set this week.
Beauchamp v. Monarch Fire Protection District, St. Louis County Case No. 13 SL CC03796 (July 2014) – summary judgment issued for employees and union requiring fire district to comply with negotiated contract provision concerning promotional selection.
“GOOD FAITH” CONSIDERATIONS
From historic private sector & other public sector jurisdictions
Elements under statutes – not addressed clearly in any MO Supreme Court case:
MO Constitution Art. I Sec. 29 – right to organize and bargain; Sec. 105.520 RSMo – relative to salaries and other conditions of employment
Private sector & other public sector jurisdictions set by statutory requirement - bargain over wages, hours, & other conditions of employment
- segregates categories of issues as to: mandatory, permissive, illegal types
GENERAL ANALYSIS of “Good Faith”:
Procedural: REASONABLENESS RULE OF THUMB – activities analysis:
“Totality of conduct”
Look at length of time of sessions, schedule and regularity of sessions, approach in meeting to discussion, exchange of proposals/responses/counter-proposals, handling of interim agreements, handling of final agreements when and if reached. Appearance of actions showing a demonstrated desire to reach agreement.
Substantive: Types of subjects of bargaining – subject matter analysis:
Mandatory subjects:
• Management Rights
• Wages
• Hours of work
• Leave subjects
• Insurance benefits
• Grievance procedure
• Arbitration, if any and how
• Disciplinary systems
• Employee rights to representation
Prohibited / Illegal Subjects:
• Retroactive pay and benefits (MO Const. Art. III Section 39(3) and Sec. 432.070 RSMo)
• Mandatory membership & fees payments requirement (Section 105.510 RSMo) and recent U. S. Supreme Court Case (June 2014)
• Matters determined to be illegal discriminatory activities
• Matters violating state and federal laws
Permissive Subjects:
Any subject that does not fit into a mandatory subject or a prohibited / illegal subject – open to interpretation.
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
1. Contract formalities – Sec. 432.070 RSMo
2. Policy vs. Impact of policy – know difference
3. Judicial enforcement only current mechanism for redress
4. Understand elements and impact of “just cause” standard for disciplinary actions
2
Employment Law – ILS/Lowenbaum
{00276752.1}