IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 18–0505
Filed May 17, 2019
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Appellant,
vs.
IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYENT RELATIONS BOARD,
Appellee,
and
STATE OF IOWA and BOARD OF REGENTS,
Intervenors-Appellees.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Douglas F.
Staskal, Judge.
A union appeals a district court order dismissing its petition for
judicial review of a declaratory order of the Iowa Public Employment
Relations Board. AFFIRMED.
Charles Gribble and Christopher Stewart of Parrish Kruidenier
Dunn Boles Gribble Gentry Brown & Bergmann, L.L.P., Des Moines, for
appellant.
Diana S. Machir, Des Moines, for appellee Iowa Public Employment
Relations Board.
2
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Molly M. Weber, Assistant
Attorney General, for intervenors-appellees State of Iowa and Iowa Board
of Regents.
Christy A.A. Hickman, Des Moines, for amicus curiae Iowa State
Education Association.
3
MANSFIELD, Justice.
I. Introduction.
This case requires us to interpret recent amendments to the Public
Employment Relations Act limiting the mandatory subjects of collective
bargaining and the matters an arbitrator may consider if the dispute
enters binding arbitration. Under the 2017 amendments, when a
bargaining unit does not have at least thirty percent public safety
employees, bargaining is limited to “base wages and other matters
mutually agreed upon.” 2017 Iowa Acts ch. 2, § 6 (codified at Iowa Code
§ 20.9(1) (2018)). If such bargaining reaches impasse and the impasse
persists, the dispute goes to binding arbitration, but the arbitrator may
not consider “[p]ast collective bargaining agreements between the parties.”
Id. § 13 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.22(8)(b)(1)).
Seeking to clarify the meaning of these provisions, a union sought a
declaratory order from the Iowa Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB) and then judicial review of the declaratory order. Both PERB and
the district court ruled that “base wages” meant the “minimum (bottom)
pay for a job classification, category or title, exclusive of additional pay
such as bonuses, premium pay, merit pay, performance pay or longevity
pay.” In addition, both ruled that “past collective bargaining agreements”
meant agreements that predate the current expiring agreement. The union
appealed.
On appeal, we now hold that PERB and the district court correctly
interpreted the 2017 amendments. In the abstract, terms like “base
wages” and “past collective bargaining agreements” are ambiguous, but
the context allows us to determine their meaning here. We conclude that
“base wages” means the floor level of pay for each job before upward
adjustments such as for job shift or longevity. The term “past collective
4
bargaining agreements,” in the context of a law that limits the arbitrator’s
potential award to a certain percentage increase in base wages, Iowa Code
§ 20.22(10)(b)(1) (2018), allows the arbitrator to consider the existing
collective bargaining agreement but not ones that came before. See id.
§ 20.22(8)(b)(1). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
II. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE) is
the parent of two local unions based in Iowa: UE Local 893/Iowa United
Professionals and UE Local 896 (COGS). Both locals are certified by PERB
to represent bargaining units of State of Iowa public employees. Local 896
represents a unit of graduate and professional students employed by the
University of Iowa. Local 893 represents the science and social services
units of state employees.
The Iowa legislature enacted House File 291 in February 2017 to
amend the Public Employment Relations Act. See 2017 Iowa Acts ch. 2
(codified in part at Iowa Code ch. 20 (2018)). Previous law required public
employers and certified bargaining representatives
to negotiate in good faith with respect to wages, hours,
vacations, insurance, holidays, leaves of absence, shift
differentials, overtime compensation, supplemental pay,
seniority, transfer procedures, job classifications, health and
safety matters, evaluation procedures, procedures for staff
reduction, in-service training and other matters mutually
agreed upon.
Iowa Code § 20.9 (2017). The 2017 amendments altered this duty for
bargaining units that had less than thirty percent public safety employees
to “base wages and other matters mutually agreed upon.” 2017 Iowa Acts
ch. 2, § 6 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.9 (2018)) (emphasis added). Thus,
for many public employees in Iowa, the only mandatory subject of
5
collective bargaining became “base wages.” The amendments did not
define base wages.
In addition, if a collective bargaining negotiation stalled and binding
arbitration was required, previous law required the arbitrator to consider
“[p]ast collective bargaining contracts between the parties including the
bargaining that led up to such contracts.” Iowa Code § 20.22(7)(a) (2017).
In 2017, this was changed for bargaining units containing less than thirty
percent public safety employees. Henceforth, the arbitrator would be
prohibited from considering “[p]ast collective bargaining agreements
between the parties or bargaining that led to such agreements.” 2017 Iowa
Acts ch. 2, § 13 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.22(8)(b)(1) (2018)). At the same
time, the 2017 amendments required the arbitrator to “consider and
specifically address in the arbitrator’s determination . . . [c]omparison of
base wages, hours, and conditions of employment of the involved public
employees with those of other public employees doing comparable work .
. . .” Id. (codified at Iowa Code § 20.22(8)(a)(1)). Additionally, the following
qualification was added for bargaining units containing less than thirty
percent public safety employees:
[T]he arbitrator’s award shall not exceed the lesser of the
following percentages in any one-year period in the duration
of the bargaining agreement:
(a) Three percent.
(b) A percentage equal to the increase in the consumer
price index for all urban consumers for the midwest region, if
any, as determined by the United States department of labor,
bureau of labor statistics, or a successor index. Such
percentage shall be the change in the consumer price index
for the twelve-month period beginning eighteen months prior
to the month in which the impasse item regarding base wages
was submitted to the arbitrator and ending six months prior
to the month in which the impasse item regarding base wages
was submitted to the arbitrator.
6
Id. § 12 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.22(10)(b)(1)(a)–(b)).
On April 21, approximately two months after House File 291 became
law, UE petitioned for a declaratory order from PERB. UE sought a
declaration on whether four proposals constituted mandatory, permissive,
or prohibited subjects of bargaining. UE also asked a fifth question
concerning the authority of an arbitrator to consider wage levels under the
existing, expiring collective bargaining agreement.
Proposal I
“Employee Organization is proposing an annual base
wage of 1. $50,000.00 for each employee,
A. per year beginning July 1, 2018 through June 30,
2019,
B. distributed in bi-monthly payments on the 1st and
15th of each month,
C. for working 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week,
D. with nine (9) holidays,
E. three (3) weeks’ paid vacation,
F. ten (10) days paid sick leave,
G. time and a half for hours worked over 40 hours in a
single week.”
PERB is asked to state whether item 1 is of Proposal I
mandatory, permissive or prohibited subject of bargaining
and to provide a ruling as to whether item 1A is a mandatory,
permissive or prohibited subject of bargaining. The same
request for a ruling as to 1B and to each part thereafter with
rationale for the proposed decision.[1]
Proposal II
The employee organization has proposed an annual
base wage for each employee in the bargaining unit as follows:
Employee A: $32,000.00
Employee B: $34,000.00
Employee C: $36,802.41
1The paragraph numbers of the petition have been removed.
7
Employee D: $40,121.00
Employee E: $43,650.00
Employee F: $45,444.00
Employee G: $48,602.00
Employee H: $54.604.50
Employee I: $61,889.42
Employee J: $69,551.41
PERB is asked to state whether Proposal II is a
mandatory, permissive or prohibited subject of bargaining.
Proposal III
The employee organization represents employees in four
different pay grades with pay grades one requiring the least
amount of time on the job and pay grade four the most. Each
increased step reflects one more year of service (there are no
seniority rights) and annual base wage is as follows:
Pay Grade 1:[2]
Year 1 - $30,000
Year 2 - $32,000
Year 3 - $35,000
Year 4 - $40,000
Year 5 - $46,000
Pay Grade 2:
Year 1 - $35,000
Year 2 - $38,000
Year 3 - $41,000
Year 4 - $45,000
Year 5 - $50,000
Pay Grade 3:
Year 1 - $40,000
Year 2 - $44,000
Year 3 - $48,000
Year 4 - $52,000
Year 5 - $56,000
Pay Grade 4:
Year 1 - $45,000
Year 2 - $49,000
Year 3 - $54,000
Year 4 - $60,000
Year 5 - $66,000
PERB is asked to state whether Proposal III is a
mandatory, permissive or prohibited subject of bargaining.
2UE later clarified that each “pay grade” refers to a separate job classification.
8
Proposal IV
The employee organization represents a group of
employees working on a 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. work
schedule established by the employer, for which it proposes
an annual base wage of $55,000.00 with a one-hour lunch
break and two fifteen minute breaks.
PERB is asked to state whether Proposal IV is a
mandatory, permissive or prohibited subject of bargaining.
Proposal V
The employee organization, representing employees in
non-safety bargaining unit and the public employer, have
negotiated on the subject of “base wages” and have been
unable to reach an agreement. The employee organization
therefore has requested arbitration. The contract ending June
30, 2018 provides for an annual base wage for all employees
of $45,000.00. The employer[’]s final offer at arbitration is an
annual base wage of $35,000.00 for all the employees in the
bargaining unit. The employee organization’s final offer for
arbitration is an annual base wage of $55,000.00 for all
employees in the bargaining unit. The public employer states
that the arbitrator cannot consider the employee
organizations award since it is greater than the increase in the
consumer price index and in any event is greater than 3%.
The employee organization states that the arbitrator can
neither consider or even be informed of base wages paid to
employees under the expiring contract in that the law as
amended provides:
“The arbitrator shall not consider the following
factors:
(1) Past collective bargaining agreements
between the parties or bargaining that
led to such agreements.”
Thus, the employee organization states that neither side
can rely on a collective agreement whose terms have expired.
Thus, just as the employer is free to ignore the prior
agreement and offer a wage substantially less than the
employees were receiving, the employee organization is free to
propose a substantially greater base wage. To hold otherwise
would require the arbitrator to look at the wages paid in the
past collective bargaining agreement which the arbitrator
specifically is precluded from doing. To hold otherwise would
mean that the terms of a contract that had expired in June of
2018 absent voluntary agreement limit the wages that an
arbitrator could award and an employee could receive in
perpetuity. In other words, the ending base wage rate in the
9
June 30, 2018 contract would be the starting point for the
consideration of every wage rate thereafter be it twenty-five or
fifty years in the future.
The question posed is may the arbitrator look to the
past collective bargaining agreement, the one expiring June
30, 2018 and consider the wage paid in past collective
bargaining as consideration for an award on base wages.
On June 29, PERB issued a declaratory order. It determined that
subparagraphs C, D, E, F, and G of Proposal I involved permissive subjects
of bargaining, i.e., hours, holidays, vacations, leaves of absence, and
overtime pay rates. PERB added, however, that the employer has a good
faith duty to disclose its position on “quantity-of-work-related permissive
topics” so that the employee organization can “knowledgeably and
rationally bargain employee base wages.” PERB declined to answer
Proposal II without information on whether each employee occupied a
different job classification. As to Proposal III, PERB indicated that only
the floor level of compensation (Year 1) was a mandatory subject of
bargaining; longevity pay would be a permissive subject of bargaining.
Concerning Proposal IV, PERB stated that any “shift differential”
(assuming the proposal was for higher pay for those working 11 p.m. to 7
a.m. within the same job classification) would also be a permissive subject
of bargaining. Lastly, regarding Proposal V, PERB stated that to
harmonize and give effect to all of the amendments to Iowa Code section
20.22, “past collective bargaining agreements” must mean agreements
other than the current expiring agreement.
On September 19, UE filed a petition in the Polk County District
Court seeking judicial review of PERB’s declaratory order (except as to
Proposal II). The State of Iowa and the Iowa Board of Regents moved to
intervene, and their motions were granted. On March 15, 2018, the
district court entered an order affirming the PERB’s decision and denying
10
and dismissing UE’s petition for judicial review. UE appealed, and we
retained the appeal.
III. Standard of Review.
Preliminarily, we must determine whether we should give deference
to PERB’s interpretations of Iowa Code chapter 20. Under chapter 17A,
deference to an agency’s legal interpretations is warranted when such
authority is “clearly . . . vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the
agency.” Waterloo Educ. Ass’n v. Iowa Pub. Emp’t Relations Bd., 740
N.W.2d 418, 419 (Iowa 2007) (quoting Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(c), (l)
(2005)), abrogated in part by statute, 2010 Iowa Acts ch. 1165, § 6 (codified
at Iowa Code § 20.6(1) (2011)). When a provision of law vests interpretive
discretion in an agency, the court may reverse only if the agency’s
interpretation was “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” Id. at 419–
20 (quoting Birchansky Real Estate, L.C. v. Iowa Dep’t of Pub. Health, 737
N.W.2d 134, 138 (Iowa 2007)); see also Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(l).
In AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. Iowa Public Employment Relations
Board, we discussed the effect of legislative amendments in 2010 to section
20.6 that replaced statutory language authorizing PERB only to
“[a]dminister” the provisions of chapter 20 with language expressly
authorizing it to “[i]nterpret, apply, and administer” the provisions of the
chapter. 846 N.W.2d 873, 878 (Iowa 2014) (quoting 2010 Iowa Acts ch.
1165, § 6 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.6(1) (2011))). We found, “Because
the legislature has now expressly vested PERB with discretion to interpret
and apply chapter 20, we will review PERB’s interpretation and application
of section 20.9 to determine if it is “irrational, illogical, or wholly
unjustifiable.” Id. (quoting Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(l)–(m) (2013)). We
noted, “The question of whether interpretive discretion has clearly been
vested in an agency is easily resolved when the agency’s enabling statute
11
explicitly addresses the issue.” Id. (quoting Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights
Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8, 11 (Iowa 2010)).
However, the 2017 amendments to section 20.6 removed the 2010
language; now, as before, PERB only “[a]dminister[s] the provisions of
[Iowa Code chapter 20].” See 2017 Iowa Acts ch. 2, § 2 (codified at Iowa
Code § 20.6(1) (2018)). The enabling statute no longer expressly vests
interpretive discretion in PERB. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(c), (l) (2018);
id. § 20.6(1); Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 420. We assume this
change was deliberate, and accordingly our review is for correction of
errors at law. Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 420. Indeed, all parties
to this appeal concede that is the appropriate standard.
IV. Analysis.
A. Mandatory vs. Permissive Subjects of Bargaining. Chapter
20, like labor law generally, recognizes two classes of collective bargaining
proposals—mandatory and permissive. See Iowa Code § 20.9; Waterloo
Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 421. “Mandatory subjects are those matters
upon which the public employer is required to engage in bargaining.”
Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 421. “Permissive subjects are those
that the legislature did not specifically list in section 20.9, but are matters
upon which both the public employer and the employee organization
simply agree to bargain.” Id. Topics can also be excluded from bargaining
and reserved to management. See Iowa Code §§ 20.7, .9(3); see also
Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 431.
In Waterloo Education Association, we explained that the list of
mandatory bargaining subjects in section 20.9 is exclusive. 740 N.W.2d
at 425. “[I]f a proposal does not fall within one of the laundry list of terms
contained in section 20.9, it is not a subject of mandatory bargaining.” Id.
12
“In other words, this court has held that the legislature’s laundry list in
section 20.9 is exclusive and not merely descriptive or suggestive.” Id.
“The classification of a bargaining proposal as either mandatory or
permissive ‘is a critical issue’ ” because statutory impasse procedures that
lead to binding arbitration are available only when parties are unable to
agree on a mandatory subject of bargaining. AFSCME Iowa Council 61,
846 N.W.2d at 879 (quoting Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 421).
When a bargaining subject is merely permissive, the employer reserves
“the right to decide the issue unilaterally by declining to participate in
bargaining,” and chapter 20 impasse procedures are not available. Id.
(quoting Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 422).
To determine whether a proposal involves a mandatory subject of
collective bargaining, we begin with “a determination of whether a proposal
fits within the scope of a specific term or terms listed by the legislature in
section 20.9.” Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 429. “Once that
threshold test has been met, the next inquiry is whether the proposal is
preempted or inconsistent with any provision of law.” Id. “Only in unusual
cases where the predominant topic of a proposal cannot be determined
should a balancing-type analysis be employed to resolve the negotiability
issue.” Id. Under this framework, PERB seeks to identify a proposal’s
“predominant purpose.” AFSCME Iowa Council 61, 846 N.W.2d at 880
(quoting Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 427, 429). As we explained
in AFSCME Iowa Council 61,
In a typical case in which PERB is able to identify the
predominant subject of a proposal, it next asks if that subject
is “definitionally within the scope” of a topic listed in Iowa
Code section 20.9. If the answer to that question is “yes,” the
proposal is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining—
subject only to the limitation that proposals are not subject to
collective bargaining if they are “preempted or inconsistent
with any provision of law.”
13
Id. (quoting Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 425, 429).
B. Definition of “Base Wages.” UE’s Proposals I, III, and IV center
on the same question: what does the term “base wages” as used in the
2017 amendments mean? Again, House File 291 amended chapter 20 so
that for bargaining units with less than thirty percent public safety
employees, base wages became the only mandatory subject of bargaining.
2017 Iowa Acts ch. 2, § 6 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.9(1)). Both PERB
and the district court found that base wages were “the minimum (bottom)
pay for a job classification, category or title, exclusive of additional pay
such as bonuses, premium pay, merit pay, performance pay or longevity
pay.” UE argues this definition makes the term “virtually meaningless”
because only a new hire would receive that level of pay.3 Both UE and
amicus curiae—the Iowa State Education Association—counter that base
wages should be defined to include longevity pay and shift differentials
and exclude only bonuses and overtime.
Our first task in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the
relevant language is ambiguous. See Iowa Ins. Inst. v. Core Grp. of Iowa
Ass’n for Justice, 867 N.W.2d 58, 71–72 (Iowa 2015). “If the statutory
language is plain and the meaning clear, we do not search for legislative
intent beyond the express terms of the statute.” State v. Pub. Emp’t
Relations Bd., 744 N.W.2d 357, 360–61 (Iowa 2008) (quoting Horsman v.
Wahl, 551 N.W.2d 619, 620–21 (Iowa 1996)). Here, as an initial matter,
we think reasonable minds could differ as to the meaning of base wages
as used in the 2017 amendments. See Iowa Ins. Inst., 867 N.W.2d at 73
3In Iowa, we often use the term “steps” to refer to compensation tiers within a
given public employee job classification. An employee will receive additional steps to
reflect time on the job, additional qualifications, etc. UE complains that under PERB’s
definition of base wages, only “step one” within each job classification is a mandatory
subject of bargaining.
14
(“A statute is ambiguous if reasonable minds could differ or be uncertain
as to the meaning of the statute.” (quoting Mall Real Estate, LLC v. City of
Hamburg, 818 N.W.2d 190, 198 (2012))). It is plausible that “base” could
mean either (1) without any of the possible upward adjustments for
workers in that job classification (PERB’s position) or (2) without after-the-
fact adjustments for additional work or quality of work (UE’s position). For
example, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “base pay,”
“base salary,” or “base wage” as “the minimum pay for a given rank or
grade of a member of the armed forces.” Base pay or base salary or base
wage, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (unabr. ed. 2002). Yet
the Cambridge Dictionary online equates the term “base wage” to “basic
wage” and defines it as “the amount of money that someone earns, usually
in an hour or in a week, not including any extra payments.”4 The online
investor resource Investopedia defines “base pay” more restrictively as “the
initial rate of compensation an employee receives in exchange for services.
It excludes extra lump sum compensation such as bonuses or overtime
pay, as well as benefits and raises.”5 Black’s Law Dictionary references
“base pay” as an example in defining the word “base”: “Of, relating to, or
involving a starting point; minimum .” Base, Black’s Law
Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
Accordingly, since the term is ambiguous, we now turn to our
established methods of statutory interpretation. See Iowa Ins. Inst., 867
N.W.2d at 73.
4Basic Wage, Cambridge Dictionary, http://dictionary.cambridge.org
/dictionary/english/basic-wage [http://perma.cc/K44W-X2ZG].
5Investopedia, http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/base-pay.asp [http://per
ma.cc/6AE8-EYQP].
15
One guidepost is in the 2017 amendments themselves. See 2017
Iowa Acts ch. 2. Section 6 provides, “Mandatory subjects of negotiation
specified in this subsection shall be interpreted narrowly and restrictively.”
Id. § 6 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.9(1)). When the legislature issues this
kind of directive on statutory interpretation, it binds us. See In re C.F.-H.,
889 N.W.2d 201, 203 (Iowa 2016) (noting that we are “required [by Iowa
Code section 232.1] to construe provisions in Iowa Code chapter 232
liberally”); DeStefano v. Apts. Downtown, Inc., 879 N.W.2d 155, 179 (Iowa
2016) (noting that thanks to Iowa Code section 562A.2(1), the Iowa
Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act is to be “liberally construed
and applied” to promote its purposes); Sanford v. Fillenwarth, 863 N.W.2d
286, 290 (Iowa 2015) (noting that under Iowa Code section 123.1, the Iowa
Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is to be “liberally construed” to protect the
“welfare, health, peace, morals, and safety of the people of the state”).
Another interpretive tool is the legislative history. See Iowa Code
§ 4.6(3); Abbas v. Iowa Ins. Div., 893 N.W.2d 879, 890, 891 (Iowa 2017).
The original version of the legislation, House Study Bill 84, resembled the
final version in providing that units without a certain minimum percentage
of public safety employees could bargain only on “base wages and other
matters mutually agreed upon.” H. Study B. 84, 87th G.A., Reg. Sess.
(Iowa 2017). It also expressly excluded from bargaining
insurance, leaves of absence for political activities,
supplemental pay, transfer procedures, evaluation
procedures, procedures for staff reduction, release time,
subcontracting public services, grievance procedures for
resolving any questions arising under the agreement, and
seniority and any wage increase, employment benefit, or other
employment advantage based on seniority.
Id. (emphasis added). Hence, under the bill as first introduced, public
employers would have been prohibited from bargaining with public
16
employees over seniority and wage increases based on seniority; these
were not merely permissive subjects of bargaining. Id. Thus, at that point,
base wages could not have included seniority-based wages, because it was
forbidden to negotiate over seniority-based wages. Id.
On February 16, an amendment passed the House unanimously.
See Amendment H–1101 to Amendment H–1096 to H.F. 291, 87th G.A.,
Reg. Sess. (Iowa 2017). The amendment did not affect the existing
language limiting mandatory bargaining to base wages. See id. However,
it trimmed a number of items including seniority and seniority-based
wages from the list of excluded subjects of bargaining. See id. As a result,
in the final version of the legislation, only the following items could not be
the bargained over if the unit contained less than thirty percent public
safety employees: “insurance, leaves of absence for political activities,
supplemental pay, transfer procedures, evaluation procedures,
procedures for staff reduction, and subcontracting public services.” 2017
Iowa Acts ch. 2, § 6 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.9(3)). From this legislative
history, including the fact that base wages remained unchanged
throughout, it is logical to conclude that the term never included seniority-
based wages and that this item had simply been shifted from a prohibited
to a permissive subject of bargaining.
Another aid to interpretation are “[t]he circumstances under which
the statute was enacted.” See Iowa Code § 4.6(2); State v. Davis, 922
N.W.2d 326, 333 (Iowa 2019). Iowa’s amendments to its public employee
collective bargaining law followed, and share some similarities with, 2011
amendments to Wisconsin’s public employment collective bargaining law.
See 2011 Wis. Act 10, § 314 (codified at Wis. Stat. Ann. § 111.91(3)(a)
(West, Westlaw current through 2017 Act 370)). The Wisconsin law also
uses the term “base wages,” as follows:
17
(3) The employer is prohibited from bargaining with a
collective bargaining unit containing a general employee with
respect to any of the following:
(a) Any factor or condition of employment except wages, which
includes only total base wages and excludes any other
compensation, which includes, but is not limited to, overtime,
premium pay, merit pay, performance pay, supplemental
compensation, pay schedules, and automatic pay
progressions.
Wis. Stat. Ann. § 111.91(3)(a). Notably, under the Wisconsin statute, “pay
schedules” and “automatic pay progressions” are not part of base wages.
Id.
There is a presumption that “[an] entire statute is intended to be
effective.” Iowa Code § 4.4(2); Iowa Ins. Inst., 867 N.W.2d at 75. Under
prior law, for all covered public employees, “wages”—not just “base
wages”—were a mandatory subject of bargaining. See Iowa Code § 20.9
(2017). But so were “shift differentials, overtime compensation, [and]
supplemental pay.” Id. The 2017 amendments removed the latter three
topics from the mandatory bargaining list for bargaining units containing
less than thirty percent public safety employees. 2017 Iowa Acts. ch. 2,
§ 6 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.9 (2018)). They added supplemental pay to
the list of excluded subjects. Id. In addition, they narrowed “wages” to
read “base wages.” Id.
If we accepted UE and ISEA’s interpretation of base wages, it would
be difficult to see what these textual changes accomplished. It seems clear
that mandatory bargaining no longer covers overtime compensation and
shift differentials, because the 2017 amendments removed those items
from the mandatory bargaining list. Id. Yet, it would be logical to conclude
that base wages means something other than “wages exclusive of overtime
compensation and shift differentials,” because there would then be no
need to add the word “base” once overtime compensation and shift
18
differentials had been removed. Compare Iowa Code § 20.9(1) (2017), with
id. § 20.9(1) (2018).
For all these reasons, we think PERB correctly focused on the added
word—“base.” As PERB explained in a prior PERB ruling that it cited and
relied upon in its declaratory order,
Webster’s definitions of “base” include “the bottom of
something considered as its support: FOUNDATION,” “the
fundamental part of something: GROUNDWORK, BASIS” and
“the starting point or line for an action or undertaking.”
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1994). See
also https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/base. In
the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the
definitions of “base” include “the lowest or bottom part: the
base of a cliff, the base of a lamp” and “situated at or near the
base or bottom: a base camp for the mountain climbers.”
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=base. Similarly,
the Dictionary.com definition includes “the bottom support of
anything; that on which a thing stands or rests: a metal base
for the table,” and “the bottom layer or coating, as of makeup
or paint.” www.dictionary.com/browse/base?s=t.
The common and ordinary meaning of “base” thus
reflects the idea that it is the bottom of something. When used
in conjunction with “wages” as a term of art, it is logically
interpreted as meaning the bottom, lowest or minimum wage
for an employee or employees in a given job classification.
In re Columbus Cmty. Sch. Dist., 17 PERB 100820, 2017 WL 2212060, at
*3 (May 17, 2017).
UE and ISEA argue that interpreting base wages to mean the
minimum pay level for a given job classification renders public-employee
collective bargaining rights meaningless. We are not persuaded. The
public employer must still bargain with the employee organization over the
minimum salary or wage that each job pays. Iowa Code § 20.9(1)(2018).
For example, the 2015–2017 COGS collective bargaining agreement,
negotiated by UE before the 2017 amendments took effect, established
19
minimum salaries for all bargaining unit employees for each contract
year.6 That negotiation would still be required. See Iowa Code § 20.9(1).
In addition, this argument disregards the fact that longevity pay,
shift differentials, and overtime compensation are still permissive subjects
of bargaining. See Iowa Code § 20.9(1), (3). This leaves it up to the state
or local governmental unit whether to negotiate on these matters. See
Waterloo Educ. Ass’n, 740 N.W.2d at 421. Public employees, like all
citizens in our state, have the ability to affect those decisions. A branch
of state government, a municipality, or a school board that wishes to
negotiate on permissive subjects of bargaining with the employee
organization is free to do so.
UE also argues that it is meaningless to negotiate base wages
without knowing how much one will have to work—for example, without
knowing what paid holidays and vacation bargaining unit employees will
receive. But PERB acknowledged and accounted for this concern in the
declaratory order. Thus, it stated in the declaratory order that as a part
of its duty to bargain in good faith, the public employer must disclose its
position on quantity-of-work items if it does not intend to bargain over
them. Specifically,
the employer has the good faith duty to indicate whether it
will exercise its discretion over these quantity-of-work-related
permissive topics in the manner contemplated by the
employee organization’s proposal or not. If not, the employer’s
obligation to bargain in good faith requires that it inform the
organization whether those conditions of employment will
exist at all for the term of the agreement being negotiated, and
if so, the quantity or extent of those the employer will provide
in its discretion. Only when it knows “the content of an honest
day’s work” will the employee organization be in a position to
knowledgeably and rationally bargain employee base wages.
62015–2017 Contract, UE Local 896 – COGS: Campaign to Organize Graduate
Students (Mar. 15, 2015), https://cogs.org/current-contract [https://perma.cc/H8HS-
7L6E].
20
UE also argues that PERB’s interpretation leads to a situation where
it cannot “represent all public employees [in the bargaining unit] fairly.”
Iowa Code § 20.17(1). But a breach of this duty occurs only when the
employee organization engages in action or inaction that is “arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Id. If only the floor level of compensation
within each job classification is a mandatory subject of bargaining, and
the public employer declines to negotiate experience pay above that floor,
then the organization cannot be acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in
bad faith for failing to do what the collective bargaining law does not allow
it to do. By the same token, even when the law does permit negotiation
over longevity pay, the organization has considerable leeway to negotiate
differences in pay among employees in the bargaining unit without
running afoul of the duty of fair representation, even though some
employees in the bargaining unit might think those differences are too
wide or too narrow. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65,
74–78, 111 S. Ct. 1127, 1134–36 (1991); Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345
U.S. 330, 338–39, 73 S. Ct. 681, 686 (1953).
C. Definition of “Past Collective Bargaining Agreements.”
UE also argues that PERB erred in answering Proposal V regarding
the meaning of the term “past collective bargaining agreements.” PERB
and the district court found that this phrase was a reference to agreements
that predated the current expiring collective bargaining agreement. UE
insists the mandate not to consider past collective bargaining agreements
in the 2017 amendments also prohibits the arbitrator from considering the
previously negotiated and now expiring collective bargaining agreement.
As an initial matter, we find that this term, like base wages, is
ambiguous. See People v. Adair, 550 N.W.2d 505, 509 (Mich. 1996)
(finding that the term “past sexual conduct” as used in the Michigan rape
21
shield law was ambiguous because there were two possible frames of
reference by which “past” could be measured).
Yet as PERB noted, under UE’s proposed interpretation of past
collective bargaining agreements, the statute would be at war with itself.
Since the 2017 amendments went into effect, section 20.22 has prohibited
the arbitrator’s consideration of past collective bargaining agreements for
bargaining units containing less than thirty percent public safety
employees, but it simultaneously limits the arbitrator’s award in such
cases to a percentage annual increase in base wages. Compare Iowa Code
§ 20.22(8)(b)(1), with id. § 20.22(10)(b). There is no way the arbitrator can
carry out the latter directive while following UE’s view of the former
directive. Additionally, the 2017 amendments to section 20.22 require the
arbitrator to compare the “base wages, hours, and conditions of
employment of the involved public employees with those of other public
employees doing comparable work.” Id. § 20.22(8)(a)(1). There is no way
the arbitrator can make this comparison without examining wage levels
under the existing collective bargaining agreement.
We try to harmonize statutes so they can be obeyed and do not
contradict themselves. See Iowa Code § 4.4(4) (“A result feasible of
execution is intended.”); see also id. §§ 4.7, .8, .11; In re Estate of Sampson,
838 N.W.2d 663, 671 (Iowa 2013) (“[W]e should read a statute as a whole
and attempt to harmonize all its provisions.”). Accordingly, we agree with
PERB and the district court that “past collective bargaining agreements”
do not include the current expiring agreement.
V. Conclusion.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court judgment
upholding PERB’s declaratory order and denying UE’s petition for judicial
review.
22
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur except Appel and Wiggins, JJ., who concur in
part and dissent in part.
23
#18–0505, United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of Am. v. IPERB
APPEL, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I. Introduction.
In 2017, the legislature changed the mandatory subjects of
bargaining for public unions with less than thirty percent public safety
employees. 2017 Iowa Acts ch. 2, § 6 (codified at Iowa Code § 20.9(1)
(2018)). Henceforth, a public employer was required to bargain over only
“base wages” with unions composed of less than thirty percent public
safety employees. Id. By contrast, the legislation did not change a public
employer’s obligation to bargain over “wages, . . . shift differentials,
overtime compensation, supplemental pay, seniority,” and other matters
with unions composed of at least thirty percent public safety employees.
Id.
The first task before us in this case is to determine what the
legislature intended by limiting the mandatory subject of bargaining for
some unions to base wages. The term “base wages” is not defined in the
Iowa Code. The appellant argues that any interpretation of the term must
allow a union to negotiate wages for each individual. Appellees disagree,
contending that the term only requires bargaining over the compensation
paid to new employees at the beginning step of job classifications
unilaterally determined by the employer.
The second task is to determine whether a rate of pay or time
dimension falls within the scope of the term “base wage.” In other words,
does the right to bargain over base wages include the number of hours
worked for a given dollar amount, or wage rate? Or does base wages only
mean a dollar amount without any temporal dimension?
24
II. Limiting Term “Base Wage” to Entry Level Positions.
A. The Term “Base Wage” Is Ambiguous. “A statute is ambiguous
if reasonable minds could differ or be uncertain as to the meaning of the
statute.” Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue, 789 N.W.2d 417,
424 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Carolan v. Hill, 553 N.W.2d 882, 887 (Iowa
1996)). “Ambiguity may arise from specific language used in a statute or
when the provision at issue is considered in the context of the entire
statute or related statutes.” Id. at 425 (quoting Midwest Auto. III, LLC v.
Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 646 N.W.2d 417, 425 (Iowa 2002)).
A reasonable person could interpret base wages as the wage that an
individual actually earns based on his seniority or step but exclusive of
bonuses, overtime, benefits, and the like. For instance, one court required
back pay of the base wage that an individual would have earned but for
the inability to work due to sexual harassment. Nichols v. Frank, 771 F.
Supp. 1075, 1079 (D. Or. 1991). Another court held that a company
engaged in an unfair labor practice when it deviated from its policy of
awarding annual, across-the-board wage increases to all employees
because of their attempts to unionize. NLRB v. Aluminum Casting & Eng’g
Co., 230 F.3d 286, 293 (7th Cir. 2000). In a subsequent opinion, the court
held that the increase must be incorporated into the “base wage of each
worker.” United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of Am. v. NLRB, 580 F.3d
560, 562, 566 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Code of Federal Regulations includes a reference to base wage
that appears to imply its applicability to the wage each individual earns.
According to the hazardous waste section of OSHA regulations, “Earnings
include more than just your base wage; it includes overtime, shift
differentials, incentives, and other compensation you would have earned
if you had not been removed.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1025 app’x B (2018).
25
In addition, the common usage of the term “base wage” would
support an interpretation of base wage as applying to the wage that an
individual actually earns. If asked about her base wage, I think, a common
Iowan (or any American) would bring to mind the wage she is paid
exclusive of bonuses and overtime, not the wage she would be paid if she
was starting anew in her position. A textbook on wages and salaries seems
to support that position. Lloyd L. Byars & Leslie W. Rue, Human Resource
Management 277 (7th ed. 2004). The textbook states, “Usually
compensation is composed of the base wage or salary, any incentives or
bonuses, and any benefits. The base wage or salary is the hourly, weekly,
or monthly pay employees receive for their work.” Id. at 266. This
definition applies base wages to each individual. See id.
At the same time, however, a reasonable person could consider base
wages in the manner interpreted by PERB. A reasonable person, I think,
could consider the legislature’s use of the term “base wages” implies a term
with a different meaning than the preexisting term “wages.” And since the
qualifier “base” could be considered a restricting qualifier, a reasonable
person might reach the interpretation advanced by appellees.
There is caselaw supporting this approach to the term “base wages.”
A disputed contract in Minnesota defined “salary” as including base wages,
selection premium, overtime, shift differentials, longevity payments, and
other types of compensation. City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Police
Relief Ass’n, 800 N.W.2d 165, 170 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). Similarly,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania, defines “average annual earnings” as “including
base wage pay or salary, overtime pay, vacation pay, longevity increment
pay, shift differential (if any), holiday pay, educational incremental pay,
and any other direct monetary compensation.” Bensalem, Pa., Code of
26
Ordinances § 24-71 (2018)7 (emphasis added). The contract and
municipal definitions imply that longevity payments are not automatically
included in base wages.
The caselaw is highly contextual, and for me at least, is not very
helpful. Nor do I find dictionary definitions helpful. The definitions
themselves are ambiguous and present multiple options without providing
appropriate context. Note, Looking It Up: Dictionaries and Statutory
Interpretation, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 1437, 1449 (1994) (“One of the most
significant flaws of dictionaries as interpretive tools is the imperfect
relationship of dictionaries to statutory context.”). As Judge Learned Hand
explained, “[I]t is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed
jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary.” Cabell v.
Markham, 148 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir. 1945).
B. Resolving the Ambiguity.
1. Iowa legislative history. There is a notable difference between the
2017 amendments to Iowa Code section 20.9 as first introduced and the
legislation that ultimately became law. In addition to limiting the
mandatory subject of bargaining to base wages for unions not composed
of at least thirty percent public safety employees, the original legislation
would have prevented bargaining on “seniority and any wage increase” as
well as an “employment advantage based on seniority.” H. Study B. 84,
87th G.A., Reg. Sess. (Iowa 2017). On the date the legislation passed the
legislature, the latter exclusions were removed by a unanimous
amendment. Amendment H-1101 to Amendment H-1096 to H.F. 291,
7https://library.municode.com/pa/bensalem/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld
=PTIADLE_CH24PE_ARTIIPEPL_DIV3EMPODE_S24-71DE [https://perma.cc/3TPL-
C6YU].
27
87th G.A., Reg. Sess. (Iowa 2017). The limitation to bargaining over base
wages remained unchanged. See id.
I find this legislative history only marginally helpful. If the original
legislation had become law, it would have been quite clear that step
increases, for example, were not subject to collective bargaining. But these
specific provisions were amended out of the statute. One might argue that
the legislature did not want the prohibition and so deleted it. On the other
hand, one could argue that the prohibition was redundant and did not
need to be included in the legislation in the first place. Standing alone, I
do not think either party can make a persuasive case out of this piece of
legislative history.
2. Comparison with Wisconsin statute. According to recently
enacted Wisconsin law, a Wisconsin public employer is prohibited from
negotiating, with certain unions, “pay schedules[] and automatic pay
progressions” but may negotiate “total base wages.” Wis. Stat. Ann.
§ 111.91(3)(a) (West, Westlaw current through 2017 Act 370). Thus,
Wisconsin law expressly distinguishes between base wages and other
matters bearing on the wages an individual is actually paid. Assuming the
Iowa legislature was aware of the Wisconsin precursor, one could argue
that by not including the specific prohibition of pay schedules and
automatic pay progressions as was included in the Wisconsin statute, the
Iowa legislature intended a different result. Or, again, perhaps the
legislature deemed the specific prohibition unnecessary. I think the failure
to follow the Wisconsin model is interesting, and knowing the proclivities
to follow beaten paths, points somewhat toward the union’s interpretation
of base wages.
3. Legislative direction to narrowly interpret the statute. Thus, based
solely on the terms of the statutory provision and the very limited
28
legislative history, I would likely lean slightly toward the union’s position.
But the Iowa legislature has directed that this statute should be narrowly
interpreted. Iowa Code section 20.9(1) (2018) provides, “Mandatory
subjects of negotiation . . . shall be interpreted narrowly and restrictively.”
This legislative directive materially changes the interpretive calculus.
The legislative direction in Iowa Code section 20.9 is the opposite of
that contained in other statutes. For instance, the Iowa Civil Rights Act
contains a provision stating that its terms should be “construed broadly”
to effectuate the purposes of the law. Iowa Code § 216.18(1). Just as we
follow the legislative direction to liberally interpret the Iowa Civil Rights
Act, e.g., Pippen v. State, 854 N.W.2d 1, 28 (Iowa 2014), we must give the
same bite to a legislative direction to narrowly construe the statute.
Plainly, when there are two plausible interpretations of an
ambiguous mandatory subject of negotiations, the narrow construction
should ordinarily prevail. But while legislative direction should be
considered by courts in interpreting statutes, it is not a trump card that
always prevails. See, e.g., United States v. Anderson, 626 F.2d 1358,
1369–70 (8th Cir. 1980) (refusing to follow statutory directive in RICO Act
to liberally construe terms when doing so would not necessarily effectuate
statutory purpose). For example, we cannot so narrowly construe a
legislative term to undercut the purpose of the statute, nor can we
narrowly construe statutes in a fashion that create conflicts with other
statutory provisions. See State v. Bedel, 193 N.W.2d 121, 124 (Iowa 1971)
(acknowledging statutory directive requiring liberal construction but
noting that it cannot extend statutory language to cover cases in which
statutory elements are lacking); see also In re Anderson, 824 F.2d 754, 759
(9th Cir. 1987) (acknowledging “California authorities which admonish
that ‘the homestead statutes are to be construed liberally on behalf of the
29
homesteader’ ” but stating that “liberal construction in favor of the debtor
does not give us license to rewrite the California legislature’s scheme for
homestead protection.” (quoting Ingebretsen v. McNamer, 187 Cal. Rptr.
529, 530 (Ct. App. 1982))); Deason v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 705 So. 2d 1374,
1375 (Fla. 1998) (explaining that strict construction of a statute should
not emasculate the statute and defeat legislative intent).
In sum, although in my view the better reading might well be against
the State, the legislative direction moves me in the other direction. The
only remaining question is whether the narrow interpretation would defeat
the underlying purposes of the statute or create a conflict with other
statutory provisions.
4. Conflict with legislative purpose or other statutory provisions.
There can be no dispute that restricting a union to only negotiating base
wages will diminish unions’ ability to achieve their goals and at least
potentially undermine unions’ ability to function. See Laborers Local 236,
AFL-CIO v. Walker, 749 F.3d 628, 638–39 (7th Cir. 2014). Indeed, the
changes in the 2017 amendments were plainly designed to, and have the
effect of, restricting collective bargaining rights. Certainly an
interpretation of the term “base wages” that is limited to the wages of a
new employee in a given job classification is consistent with the general
purpose of the 2017 amendments.
But we must also consider the broader picture. Although the
mandatory terms of collective bargaining are to be construed narrowly and
restrictively, we still, I take it, should construe the provisions of the statute
“to promote harmonious and cooperative relationships between
government and its employees by permitting public employees to organize
and bargain collectively.” Iowa Code § 20.1(1). This general declaration of
statutory purpose has not been repealed and is, like Iowa Code section
30
20.9, designed to guide courts in interpretation of the statute. If we
interpret the 2017 amendments to permit some unions to bargain for the
wage paid to a new entrant in a given job classification without regard to
other employees with more seniority, are those more senior public
employees denied representation?
Other provisions of chapter 20 similarly raise the question of
whether interpreting section 20.9(1) to only allow negotiations for the
wages paid to some employees but not others is consistent with the
statute. For instance, an employee organization is “an organization of any
kind in which public employees participate and which exists for the
primary purpose of representing employees in their employment relations.”
Id. § 20.3(4).
Similarly, an employee organization is “the exclusive representative
of all public employees in the bargaining unit and shall represent all public
employees fairly.” Id. § 20.17(1) (emphasis added). The term “all” is used
twice. Can a union represent all employees fairly if it can only negotiate
wages for some of them?
Further, “[p]ublic employees shall have the right to . . . . [n]egotiate
collectively through representatives of their own choosing.” Id. § 20.8(2).
Is a public employee’s right to negotiate collectively nullified by an
interpretation that allows negotiation only for the wages paid to others?
We cannot ignore these larger statutory considerations. Still, by
negotiating base rates, the union can establish what amounts to a floor
within a job classification. Negotiating a raise in the entry level salary
might bump up the employer’s compensation offered to more experienced
employees. But, yet, it might not. Such an increase would be in the sole
discretion of the employer. The more experienced employees have no right
31
to have a collective bargaining representative bargain for them directly
with the employer for a contractually based increase in wages.
I conclude that the interpretation that limits base wages to entry
level positions in each job classification cannot be squared with the larger
legislative purposes of the statute. Under the statute, the union is to
represent all employees, not just some. The construction of the statute
that eliminates the ability of the union to negotiate wages for all employees
cuts too deeply into the purposes of the collective bargaining framework.
I would conclude that for the purposes of the statute, all employees have
a base wage and that the term “base wage” may be narrowly construed to
include only the lowest pay necessarily available to that individual, absent
bonuses, incentives, or supplemental pay of any kind.
III. Wages as Including Rate.
The second issue in this case is whether the term “base wage” also
includes a concept of rate. In other words, under the statute as amended,
can a public employer refuse to negotiate on the amount of services that
must be rendered for a given economic reward?
In my opinion, by providing that base wages is a mandatory subject
of collective bargaining, the legislature intended to allow bargaining over
both the economic reward and the level or amount of services to be
rendered for that reward. This is consistent with our precedent and the
legislature’s use of the word “wages” in other contexts.
In Waterloo, we held that the term “wages” encompasses an
economic reward based upon services rendered. Waterloo Educ. Ass’n v.
Iowa Pub. Emp’t Relations Bd., 740 N.W.2d 418, 430 (Iowa 2007). Quoting
a state public employee relations board, we explained, “It is only possible
to rationally bargain for ‘an honest day’s pay’ if one can also negotiate the
boundaries and the contents of ‘an honest day’s work.’ ” Id. (quoting Or.
32
Pub. Emps. Union, Local 503 v. State, 10 PECBR 51 (July 1987)). We
further observed, “The employee’s economic interest in more pay for more
work is precisely the kind of employee interest that leading commentators
for decades have suggested should be subject to collective bargaining.” Id.
(collecting authorities). Finally, we noted that the proposal would not limit
management’s discretion to assign work, but relates solely to payment for
an amount of services rendered. Id.
In interpreting the term in Waterloo, we said that the legislature
intended a “relatively narrow construction,” but not the “narrowest
possible interpretation,” of the term. Id. at 429–30. Consequently, we
gave the term its “common and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 430.
In 2017, in addition to requiring that some unions are only able to
bargain over base wages, the legislature stated that the mandatory
subjects of bargaining applicable to all types of unions “shall be
interpreted narrowly and restrictively.” Iowa Code § 20.9(1). Since the
legislature’s directive may require a different interpretive approach than
we took in Waterloo, there arises a question as to whether our decision in
Waterloo remains good law.
I do not believe the legislature intended a different result on this
issue than that reached in Waterloo. Most importantly, the legislature
continued to use the word “wages.” That was the term considered in
Waterloo. Further, in other parts of the Iowa Code, the legislature
indicates that the term “wages” is a reflection of an economic reward for
services rendered. One example is the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law.
The term “wages,” for purposes of that law, means “compensation owed by
an employer for [l]abor or services rendered by an employee, whether
determined on a time, task, piece, commission, or other basis of
calculation.” Iowa Code § 91A.2(7)(a).
33
It is true that under the legislative changes, “hours” is no longer a
mandatory subject of bargaining for disfavored unions. But to me, the
term “hours” means the times employees are required to report to work
and remain there.
Finally, I do not agree with the majority that requiring an employer
to inform the union of expected services to be rendered as an element of
good faith bargaining resolves this issue. First, if the number of hours is
not part of contractually bargained for wages, the employer may simply
change them unilaterally. For example, a union might negotiate an
increase in pay for entry level teachers of two percent, but in response, the
employer might unilaterally increase the number of classes to be taught
by twenty-five percent or even fifty percent. The argument, as I
understand it, is that a person who receives a fifty percent increase in time
on the job for the same pay gets the same wages. I doubt that many
workers would agree with that proposition.
Second, if an employer does not inform the union of the amount of
work expected for a certain wage, the union has no timely remedy. An
unfair labor practice proceeding will not likely resolve the issue in time to
meet the bargaining deadlines required by Iowa Code § 20.17(3) and (9).
For the above reasons, I conclude that the term “wages” includes
within it the amount of work expected to be performed for the
compensation offered.
IV. Conclusion.
I would reverse and remand the district court judgment. I
respectfully dissent.
Wiggins, J., joins this concurrence in part and dissent in part.