Did Iowa illegally limit collective bargaining? Supreme Court hears arguments

• Iowa Supreme Court heard arguments from some of the largest public employee unions and the state regarding a 2017 collective bargaining-limiting law
• Lawsuits by the public employee unions had been tossed out by lower courts, but the unions appealed to the Supreme Court
• Arguments center around whether some public safety employees are treated differently under this new law and whether public employees should be allowed to pay union dues as payroll deductions

Some of Iowa's largest public employee unions argued before the Iowa Supreme Court Wednesday that a 2017 law rewriting the state's collective bargaining laws unconstitutionally favors certain workers.

One challenge was brought by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Iowa Council 61 and several state employees and another by the Iowa State Education Association and Davenport Education Association.

Both lawsuits were tossed out by lower courts, but the unions appealed to the Supreme Court. Its ruling will decide the fate of one of the key achievements of Iowa Republicans who assumed control of the Legislature after the 2016 elections and enacted a conservative agenda, including limiting collective bargaining rights for most public employees.

Two primary questions were at issue in the oral arguments:

• Whether the law violates the state constitution's equal protection clause by treating some public safety employees differently than others.
• Whether it is unconstitutional to prevent public employees from using payroll deductions to pay union dues when they are allowed to use such deductions for other expenses.

The 2017 law signed by former Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican, limited most public employee unions from bargaining over any topics other than employees' base wages. Unions previously had been able to bargain for benefits such as health insurance, holidays, overtime and other work-related matters.

Bargaining units with at least 30 percent of their members classified as public safety employees, however, are still able to negotiate for a broader range of issues.

AFSCME argued that the law's designation of "public safety employees" is "seemingly random" and leaves out jobs such as university police officers and corrections and parole officers while including, for example, park rangers and Department of Transportation motor vehicle officers.

"The state patrol gets to bargain over everything, the police officers on our university campuses get to bargain over wages. They’re both law enforcement, they both provide public safety," AFSCME Council 61 president Danny Homan told reporters before the arguments.

The law's structure of allowing greater bargaining rights for units that are comprised of at least 30 percent public safety employees does not match the goals stated by legislators of allowing more flexibility to all workers in high-risk professions, the union argued.

But state lawyers accused AFSCME of parsing "through various job titles trying to find positions that possess some similarities … while wholly ignoring differences."

"That analysis leads plaintiffs down a road where in their view, for example, psychiatric aides are similar to state troopers. Why? Because they both face danger in their work. That might be true, but that is not how the constitutional analysis works," the state argued in its brief.

Many of the justices' questions concerned the fact that no public employees represented by AFSCME qualify for the greater bargaining rights afforded to units with more than 30 percent public safety employees. The union argued it was intentionally targeted and that its members' right to freedom of association is infringed by the law.

"How did it happen that at the end of the day we look at this and with 100 percent effectiveness all AFSCME employees are excluded?" Justice Brent Appel asked.

Matt McDermott, a lawyer arguing for the state, said AFSCME-represented units would qualify for such rights if more than 30 percent of their members were public safety employees under the law.

"There’s nothing about this statute facially that would exclude AFSCME members," he said.

Justice David Wiggins said it seems as if the state picked the 30 percent threshold to exclude AFSCME.

"Even a blind hog gets an acorn once in a while and AFSCME didn’t get any acorns," he said.

Justices also pressed McDermott on the rationale for treating public safety employees differently in the law.

McDermott said the Legislature could have decided that preserving bargaining rights for a "critical mass" of public safety workers is necessary to prevent strikes or labor unrest, which could endanger the public in cases of emergency.

He pointed to Wisconsin, which saw strikes and work stoppages after it limited collective bargaining in 2011.

Mark Hedberg, a lawyer for AFSCME, said that theory falls apart given that there are entire counties in Iowa and cities including Cedar Rapids, Ames and West Des Moines whose law enforcement bargaining units do not meet the 30 percent threshold.

"That means 100 percent of the people that are in charge of public safety would strike based on the theory," he said.

McDermott said proof of that justification is not necessary and that legislators could have had their own motivations in voting for the law, even if they didn't voice them during debate.

"We don’t have to look at what the Legislature actually said. We only have to look at what they conceivably had in mind," he said.

Alice O'Brian, a lawyer for the Iowa State Education Association, said it is discriminatory for the law to ban payroll deductions "for union dues and only union dues" when it allows them for employee and trade associations. The ISEA is both a union and an employee association, she said.

"Association rights and union dues are different. Association rights actually do involve a first amendment right. Dues checkoffs do not," McDermott said.

The court will issue its decision at a later date. Justice Daryl Hecht, who resigns from the bench Thursday to battle cancer, will not participate in any of the court's December cases, the Iowa Judicial Branch said.

SUPPORT LOCAL JOURNALISM:Subscribe to the Des Moines Register

Follow the Register on Facebook and Twitter for more news. Stephen Gruber-Miller can be contacted at sgrumbermil@dmreg.com or on Twitter @sgrubermiller.