The Iowa Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in two collective bargaining cases that saw unions hastily ratifying contracts before dramatic changes to Iowa's collective bargaining laws took effect last year.
The first case argued was a dispute between University of Iowa health care workers and the Iowa Board of Regents. The Service Employees International Union Local 199 sued the regents arguing that its members had accepted and ratified a contract proposal in February 2017. Attorneys for the regents argue the contract was never ratified by the board.
"It was complete. It was for a two-year term. It had signature lines and it was a final offer. It was presented as take it or leave it," said Charles Gribble, an attorney for the union.
The union appealed a ruling from District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell, who found that the contract was not binding because the regents did not vote to ratify it after it was ratified by SEIU.
Farrell's ruling is contrary to a decision by a different Polk County judge, Michael Huppert, who found the state must comply with a last-minute contract approved by members of UE Local 893 — Iowa United Professionals.
Both contracts were hastily ratified by union members days before former Gov. Terry Branstad signed into law a piece of legislation that prevented most public-sector unions from negotiating for anything beyond base wages.
The Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments in both cases Tuesday. It will issue written rulings at a later date.
The justices asked several questions in Tuesday's arguments about what is required for a contract with a public employer to be considered ratified.
Gribble, who argued for the unions in both cases, said court precedent requires the employers to specifically withdraw their previous offers. Without such a withdrawal, he said those offers can be ratified by union members, as happened in both cases.
Andrew Tice, an attorney representing the state in the SEIU case, said negotiators for the regents "made it abundantly clear" in a January 2017 phone call that they did not believe a tentative bargaining agreement had been reached.
Iowa Solicitor General Jeff Thompson, who argued for the state in the UE case, said the contract can't be considered ratified unless the public has had a chance to hear what's been agreed on — a step typically taken when the employer formally votes on a contract in a public meeting.
"There has to be an opportunity for the public to know what it is," Thompson said. "That would be meaningless if there wasn’t a ratification step."
Thompson said the UE case should have been decided by the state Public Employment Relations Board, not the district court.
Though university legal representatives have argued in court that the contract with the SEIU is not binding, the university earlier this year opted to give employees a 2 percent pay increase anyway.
https://www.press-citizen.com/story...-international-union-ue-local-893/1994067002/
The first case argued was a dispute between University of Iowa health care workers and the Iowa Board of Regents. The Service Employees International Union Local 199 sued the regents arguing that its members had accepted and ratified a contract proposal in February 2017. Attorneys for the regents argue the contract was never ratified by the board.
"It was complete. It was for a two-year term. It had signature lines and it was a final offer. It was presented as take it or leave it," said Charles Gribble, an attorney for the union.
The union appealed a ruling from District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell, who found that the contract was not binding because the regents did not vote to ratify it after it was ratified by SEIU.
Farrell's ruling is contrary to a decision by a different Polk County judge, Michael Huppert, who found the state must comply with a last-minute contract approved by members of UE Local 893 — Iowa United Professionals.
Both contracts were hastily ratified by union members days before former Gov. Terry Branstad signed into law a piece of legislation that prevented most public-sector unions from negotiating for anything beyond base wages.
The Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments in both cases Tuesday. It will issue written rulings at a later date.
The justices asked several questions in Tuesday's arguments about what is required for a contract with a public employer to be considered ratified.
Gribble, who argued for the unions in both cases, said court precedent requires the employers to specifically withdraw their previous offers. Without such a withdrawal, he said those offers can be ratified by union members, as happened in both cases.
Andrew Tice, an attorney representing the state in the SEIU case, said negotiators for the regents "made it abundantly clear" in a January 2017 phone call that they did not believe a tentative bargaining agreement had been reached.
Iowa Solicitor General Jeff Thompson, who argued for the state in the UE case, said the contract can't be considered ratified unless the public has had a chance to hear what's been agreed on — a step typically taken when the employer formally votes on a contract in a public meeting.
"There has to be an opportunity for the public to know what it is," Thompson said. "That would be meaningless if there wasn’t a ratification step."
Thompson said the UE case should have been decided by the state Public Employment Relations Board, not the district court.
Though university legal representatives have argued in court that the contract with the SEIU is not binding, the university earlier this year opted to give employees a 2 percent pay increase anyway.
https://www.press-citizen.com/story...-international-union-ue-local-893/1994067002/
