Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Employment State of Iowa


Employment State of Iowa document sample

More Info
									                               STATE OF IOWA

IN THE MATTER OF:                              )
STATE OF IOWA,                                 )
     Public Employer/Petitioner,               )
and                                            )          CASE NO. 5666
     Certified Employee                        )
     Organization.                             )

                                DECLARATORY RULING

       On February 27, 1996, the State of Iowa (State) filed what it

denominated as a petition for expedited resolution of a negotiability

dispute with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).                      The

petition set out the final offers for arbitration advanced by the

State and the State Police Officers Council (SPOC), and sought a

declaration    that     a    portion   of    SPOC’s   final   offer,   which   SPOC

characterized as constituting a separate ‘‘holiday’’ or ‘‘supplemental

pay’’ impasse item, was instead properly included within the impasse

item ‘‘wages.’’

       The    State’s       petition   was    filed    concurrently     with   the

commencement of binding arbitration procedures between the parties

pursuant to Iowa Code section 20.22.                                    n ac ,
                                                   Pursuant to notice, o M r h 4

1997, we heard the parties’ oral arguments in support of their

respective positions on the petition.              Our resolution of the issue

raised was necessary to insure the arbitrator’s compliance with the

Iowa Code section 20.22(11) requirement that he resolve the parties’

dispute on an impasse-item-by-impasse-item basis1 .             In addition, the

    In West Des Moines Education Association v. PERB , 266 N.W.2d 118 (Iowa
15-day limitation upon the arbitrator’s deliberations imposed by that

section had already commenced, thus rendering time of the essence.

Accordingly, we issued a preliminary ruling on March 4, 1997, without

supporting discussion or authority, so as to provide the arbitrator

with prompt guidance as to the number of impasse items in fact

involved in the parties’ dispute.             In that preliminary ruling, we

determined that the language at issue was properly included within

the   impasse   item   of   ‘‘wages’’   and    should   be   considered   by the

arbitrator as such, and not as a separate impasse item.

      Thereafter, following the completion of all impasse procedures,

on March 13, 1997, SPOC filed a request for a final agency ruling in

this matter.

      As we noted in our preliminary ruling, the parties’ disagreement

centered upon the proper categorization of that portion of SPOC’s

final offer for arbitration which sought the addition of specified

language dealing with monetary compensation for working on holidays

to Article IX, section 5 of the existing collective agreement.               The

addition of new (italicized) language advanced by SPOC would produce

the following contractual provision:

            Section 5 - Holidays

                 A. The Employer agrees to provide eleven
            (11) paid holidays per year.     There shall be
            nine (9) scheduled holidays as set forth below
            and two (2) unscheduled holidays. Unscheduled
            holidays shall be accrued on a pay period basis
            and added to the employee’s accrued vacation
            account and shall be taken in accordance with
            the   procedures   set   forth  in   Section  8
            (Vacations) in this Article.

1978), the Iowa Supreme Court determined that the term ‘‘impasse item’’ in
section 20.22(11) refers to each subject category listed in the section 20.9
list of mandatory subjects of bargaining, and arbitrators are thus required to
make their ‘‘impasse item’’ selections on a subject category basis.

         Scheduled Holidays:

         New Year’s Day, January 1
         Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, Birthday,
              the third Monday in January
         Memorial Day, the last Monday in May
         Independence Day, July 4
         Labor Day, the first Monday in September
         Veterans Day, November 11
         Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November
         Friday after Thanksgiving
         Christmas Day, December 25

              B. If a holiday enumerated above falls on
         Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be granted,
         and if a holiday falls on Sunday, the following
         Monday shall be granted.

    C.   When an employee is required by the Employer to
         work on a holiday listed above, the employee
         shall be paid in cash at the rate of one and
         one-half (1 ½) times the employee’s current
         hourly wage for all hours worked in addition to
         equivalent compensatory time off at a later
         date.     Employees shall also receive any
         appropriate premium pay provided for in the
         contract. If a holiday provided above falls on
         an employee’s regularly scheduled day off, or
         during their scheduled work period, equivalent
         compensatory time off shall be granted at a
         later date. When such compensatory time off is
         to be granted, it shall be taken at the request
         of the employee with the approval of the
         immediate supervisor. Such approval shall not be
         unreasonably withheld. Such time shall lapse if
         not used within the subsequent twelve (12) month

    D.   To be eligible for holiday pay, employees must
         be in pay status their last scheduled work day
         immediately before and their first scheduled
         work day immediately following each holiday.
    E.   Employees shall not be eligible for holiday pay
         during any period of leave of absence without

    F.   There shall be no pyramiding of holiday pay and

    Neither   party   disputes   whether   the   proposed   additions   are

mandatorily negotiable and thus a proper subject of arbitration.


Instead, the issue presented is whether the portions of the proposed

additions    dealing    with    monetary      compensation      are    part   of    the

‘‘wages’’ impasse item, or whether they constitute a separate and

distinct    impasse    item    within   the   meaning    of     Iowa   Code   section


       The Iowa Supreme Court has indicated that the determination of

whether a disputed proposal falls within a section 20.9 subject

involves more than the mechanical exercise of merely looking for the

topical word listed in the statute, more than seeing whether the

proposal ‘‘deals with’’ a listed topic, and more than an examination

of whether a listed topic is ‘‘substantively implicated’’ by the

proposal.    State of Iowa v. PERB, 508 N.W.2d 668, 675 (Iowa 1993).

The court has stated that it is necessary to look to what the

proposal, if incorporated into a collective bargaining contract,

would bind an employer to do.       Id., at 673.

       The State argues that the disputed language here falls within

the section 20.9 subject category ‘‘wages,’’ while SPOC argues that

it falls within either the subject category of ‘‘holidays’’ or the

category of ‘‘supplemental pay.’’

       The proposal at issue in the present case does not fall within

the section 20.9 category of ‘‘supplemental pay’’ because it does not

deal with the type of services envisioned by the Iowa Supreme Court

when   it   defined    ‘‘supplemental    pay’’    as    ‘‘pay    based   upon      extra

services and directly related to the time, skill and nature of those

services’’ in Fort Dodge Community School District v. PERB, 319

N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 1982).           Rather, the proposal relates to duties

normally performed by these employees in the course of their primary


employment.        See Iowa City Association of Professional Firefighters,

IAFF Local 610, 95 PERB 5254.

        The proposal also does not fall within the section 20.9 category

of ‘‘holidays.’’       The Board has previously determined that proposals

specifying     certain     days     as   non-working     holidays     and    proposals

specifying whether employees will or will not be paid for such days

are mandatory subjects of bargaining under the section 20.9 category

‘‘holidays.’’ Sergeant Bluff-Luton Community School District, 76 PERB

715 & 734; Merged Area IV Community College Educ. Assn., 76 PERB 663

& 664.     SPOC cites one of these cases, Area IV School District, in

support of its argument that ‘‘holiday pay’’ proposals are mandatory

under ‘‘holidays.’’

        The language at issue here, however, does not deal with the

designation of days to be observed as holidays or whether employees

are to be paid or not for such non-work days, but, rather, with the

issue of how much employees are to be paid when they are required to

work on designated holidays.              This proposal thus falls squarely

within the section 20.9 category of ‘‘wages.’’

        The Iowa Supreme Court and PERB have defined ‘‘wages’’ within

the meaning of section 20.9 variously as:                ‘‘pay given for labor,’’

City of Fort Dodge v. PERB, 275 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1975); ‘‘a

specific price or sum paid by an employer in return for services

rendered by an employee,’’ Charles City Education Association v.

PERB,    291   N.W.2d     663,    668    (Iowa   1980);    and   ‘‘the      amount   of

remuneration received for the employee’s labor,’’ Western Hills AEA

12, 84 PERB 2659.

        Although    the   instant    proposal    makes    reference    to    the term


‘‘holidays,’’    what   it   would   require    the   employer   to   do   is pay

employees   at   a   specified   premium     rate for work required to be

performed   on   days   that   would    otherwise be non-work days.           The

proposal is akin to ‘‘premium pay’’ proposals we have previously

found mandatory under the section 20.9 category of ‘‘wages.’’                 See

Marion Independent Community School District, 78 PERB 1173.

     Based upon the foregoing, we hereby issue the following:


     The proposal at issue in this case falls within the section 20.9

subject category of ‘‘wages.’’

     DATED at Des Moines, Iowa, this 27th day of March, 1997.

                               PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

                               /s/ Richard R. Ramsey, Chairman

                               /s/ M. Sue Warner, Board Member

                               /s/Elizabeth L. Seiser, Board Member



To top