Loading...
78-2714 CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 78-2714 I RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CITY OF RICHFIELD LAW- SUIT CONTESTING PELR.A COMPULSORY BINDING I ARBITRATION PROVISIONS. � WHERE S, the City of Richfield has initiated a lawsuit contesting the ompulsory binding arbitration provisions of PELRA (City of Richfi ld vs. Local No. 1215, International Association of Fire Fighters a d State of Minnesota, Intervenor), and WHERE S, this lawsuit is currently under appeal to the Minnesota Supre e Court, and WHERE S, the PELRA binding arbitration provisions delegate fundamental dec sions regarding the kind, extent and cost of govern- mental services private, politically unaccountable individuals, and WHERE S, cities in Minnesota have generally had poor experience with these bind ng arbitration provisions in that decisions have been unfair, inflati�nary and detrimental to the collective bargaining process, and WHERE' S, other viable, more fair and just alternatives do exist to the PELRA bi ding arbitration provisions. � NOW, HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, Min esota, as follows: l. That th s city supports the City of Richfield in this law- suit anl directs that a copy of this resolution of support be file� with the League of Minnesota Cities. 2. That tY} sum of $100 is hereby authorized to be paid to the League f Minnesota Cities to assist in financing the cost of app� ling this lawsuit to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Passed anc� adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, thi� 15th day of August, 1978. H. E. RICHARDSO , JERRE A. MILLER, I ity Clerk Mayor JOSEPH C. VESEL , . iCity Attorney Aug st 10, 1978 � M Mr. illiam Craig � N Cit Manager d' 101 So. 1st Street � � Hop .' ns , Minnesota 55 34 3 � � Dea Bill: �+ � � I am writing to provide information and seek the support �� � of y ur city in our lawsuit contesting the compulsory � � bind ng arbitration provisions of the Minnesota Public = Empl yees Labor Relations Act. � � This�action was initiated by the Richfield City Council •� as a result of an arbitration panel award issued � Marc 31, 1977 for a 1976 ].abor contract with Local 1215, � Inte national Association of Fire Fighters. In addition � to t e question of whether binding arbitration is con- � � stit tional, the lawsuit involves Issue IX of this arbi- � � trat'on award concerning contract duration. � The ttorney General intervened at the district court � leve on the side of the bargaining unit to defend the � � cons itutionality of the statute. In addition, the � Amer can Federation of State, County and Municipal O Empl yees AFL-CIO joined the proceedings as amici curiae � at t is lower court level in support of the bargaining � unit:,position. On January 19, 1978, Judge Allen Oleisky � in H nnepin County District Court issued an Order and � Memo andum denying the city's motion to declare the com- � �" puls ry binding arbitration provisions of PERLA uncon- � L stit tional and refusing to vacate the arbitration award pert ining to Issue IX. � � �� 0 The ichfield City Council decided to appeal the lower O cour decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. While � � a Su eme Court hearing date has not yet been set, the � cour has indicated a preference to hear this matter earl in the fall term and we can anticipate a date in � late eptember or early October. In J' e, 1977, the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Dire ors voted to support this Richfield action. The Boar found it to have very great potential impact on citie throughout the state. Moreover, the Richfield telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer I . Page Two j August 10, 1978 position was consistent with adopted League policies on impass resolution withi, ublic employee unions. The League has joined the proceedings�as amici curiae at the Supreme Court level and will assist in � ordinating efforts of individual local governments who wish to sup� rt the lawsuit. • The City of Rich ield and the League of Minnesota Cities have both filed their Sup� me Court briefs. On the other side, the Attorney General, and AF� E have filed their briefs. The IAFF has not yet filed its brief ut is expected to do so shortly. In addition, the Minnesota Educa on Association has intervened at the Suprems Court level and will �'le a brief on behalf of it's membership in support of the arbitrati n provisions. This lawsuit isl he first attempt to determine the constitutionality of the compulsor binding arbitration provisions of PELRA since first enacted ir� 1971. However, similar efforts have occurred in other states wit varying degrees of success. The most recent litigation occur ed in Texas where a lower court decision found the Texas arbitratioj law unconstitutional. Early in July the Hartford, Connecticut Supei ior Court found that state's compulsory arbitration law unconstituti„ nal. A copy of an NLC news article on this Connecticut decision is att� hed. You will note in the article on the Connecticut decision that 75 Connecticut muni ipalities helped to support the action initiated in • that state. We elieve that in addition to LMC support it would be very helpful for the court and our state legislatures to know that a large number o cities in the state are concerned with the binding arbitration prov sions in the state statutes. Therefore, I am asking that you bring t is matter to the attention of your city council and recommend that y ur city support our action through adoption of the attached resolut on. We are requestin that interested cities help defray the cost of the Supreme Court ap'eal with a$100 contribution (should contributions exceed costs, we will return the balance on a pro rata basis). How- ever, please not that the contribution is not a prerequisite for the resolution o support. It is most important that cities indicate their positions ith respect to this litigation by adopting a resolution similar to the s mple which is attached. Please send a co y of your city's resolution to: Mr. St n Peskar, General Counsel League� Minnesota Cities 300 Ha,over Building � 480 Ce ar Street St. Pa l, Minnesota 55101 Checks should be ade out to the League of Minnesota Cities and designated for t�is binding arbitration lawsuit. . Page Three August 10, 1978 Inasmuch as thel upreme Court could hear this case as early as next month, we would ppreciate a response as soon as possible. Any inquiries on detl ils of the case should be directed to Stan Peskar, 612/222-2861 or' ur attorney Dennis 0'Brien 612/333-0543 with the • firm of LeFevere Lefler, Pearson, O'Brien & Drawz. I would be happy to answer ny other questions or provide any other additional information you esire. Sincerely yours� Wayne S. Burggra' City Manager WSB/jkl Enclosures I � � �-:�sn. ..:... .. . . . .. . .. ' � � � r, e' . � - f � � . � . � . � - r � f , , • � � w-r a. ' • � e / , t �' . :.} ' '. ' ... � � H � � L National ,i �* �t , .�,:; � '" � � � , � , � .., { � -, , �: League . �. ti , ' � s , �xr; ,: { _ ,Y _ k � . - � , :'! �„ H . 1 � . .. of , � � - � at� I�.,�n T� ��rr ..t�+e��.r.' ,.r t . - �«�s,..y . !- �v.� ,�, � .. , f � � Citl@S ^.. � t q 4 � S r �;, _`' � { h �, '� � i. t�a : t a �' s J i .� •} r � �, t. � � ,y � . ' '� � r � r f ` � � .. .. r'%,� � : '. '.,<'; fr- ' a ,.: _ . . rA .1`, ,T.i�: .1 x . 't!, .. :I' . . ... . . > � O � � ' y `i }'., d y ,• c r • � r y � t �w J r . . «. I . . � '. , "�€ k' ° '0 'Y � F d�tl' ^ � n I : s , _ _ y , �.. . � . 0 F � a . x �(� r�� s � iC% s.� ., ..� . .. ' . ... .� .;. �.. M ' �,. .. ' _ _ -- .__. .. . _._. . _. _ . .— . . • , . 4 . .. . �. . � . �—•-- _- _. _. .:+=� e .—.. . �.: .. , .•,:+- �.-•�:-�'-- r . . __ .. . . � : : � �.. . :' _: ... Volume 1, Number 24 Washington, D. C. July 10,1978 _ _— - _ .. ' Co�ecticut court �ulli�ies towns and one taxpayer. Since February, 1976, when the original suit eompulsory arbitr�tio� la�v W as filed, 75 additional municipalities contributed to the costs of this land- mark case. The Hartford, Conn., Superior Connecticut constitutions by Statewide, municipal officials ap- Court last week declared the state law delegating the power to determine plauded this decision as a return of mandating compulsory binding ar- conditions of employment for responsibility to local control. 'This bitration between a municipality and a municipal employees to an arbitration decision returns the municipal union unconstitutional. The suit panel that is not politically ac- collective bargaining process to its ' challenging the constitutionality of the countable to the state legislature, the rightful place—the negotiating table," law was initiated by the Connecticut municipal government, or taxpayers said Mayor Arthur B. Powers of ConEerence oE Municipalities (CCM) and voters of Connecticut. Berlin, the CCM's president. "The more than two years ago. The law also fails through elected and appointed representatives The law required a union and a procedural faults to declare a of the municipal taxpayers and the � municipality, if they were unable to legislative policy or to establish suE- union representatives now again have agre` on a collective bargaining ficient standards to guide the ar- the final responsibility for deter- contract, to submit the issues to an bitration panel in its�decision-making, mining, through free collective arbitration panel, which would then the court said, and the law fails to bargaining, the salaries, fringe benefits impose a contract on the two parties. provide 'a meaningful process of and working conditions of the In declaring this mandated collective judicial review. municipal employees providing ser- bargaining unconstitutional, the The case was brought to court by vices to our citizens." Superior Court pointed out that the CCM in the names of eight plaintiff —Sharo►i Walters law violates both the United States and '