ABA Labor & Employment Law Section State and Local Government Bargaining & Employment Law Committee Midwinter Meeting: February 7-9, 2013

Transcription

1 ABA Labor & Employment Law Section State and Local Government Bargaining & Employment Law Committee Midwinter Meeting: February 7-9, 2013 Subcommittee Report: States Without Bargaining Legislation Subcommittee Co-Chairs: Martin Kehoe, Illinois Labor Relations Board Danielle Carne, Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission Alabama On November 6, 2012, a majority of Alabama voters approved the Alabama Secret Ballot Amendment (known as Amendment 7 ). This amendment to Alabama s state constitution guarantees individuals the fundamental right to a secret ballot vote when voting for public office, on referenda, or for employee representation. Intuitively, this amendment may affect whether card check organizing can occur. Arizona Arizona Senate Bill 1485, introduced in 2012, would prohibit the state from recognizing any union as a bargaining agent for public employees and would prohibit the state from engaging in collective bargaining with any public sector employee union. Though this proposed law would be enforced by the state s attorney general, any taxpayer of a jurisdiction in which a violation of this new bar occurs would have standing to bring a special action against any agent or agency of the state to remedy a violation of the law. A separate bill, Arizona Senate Bill 1486, would also ban public employers from paying workers or third parties release time for union activities. Other bills would specifically affect dues deductions. Arizona Senate Bill 1484 would bar Arizona s public employers from deducting third party payments from an employee s paycheck unless the employee annually authorizes the employer to make such a deduction. Another bill, Arizona Senate Bill 1487, would entirely bar public employers from withholding or diverting any portion of an employee s wages to pay for labor organization dues. A newer bill, Arizona House Bill 2026, would require local governments to take a vote by the end of the year on whether to deduct union dues from employees paychecks. According to the bill, if a local government failed to do so, it would be barred from the practice. 1 Idaho On November 6, 2012, a majority of Idaho voters approved several ballot measures that were presented in response to three education reform laws signed into law in 2011 (known as the Students Come First laws or Luna Laws ) One of the measures, Proposition 1, was 1 1

2 intended to reject a law that was known as Idaho Senate Bill Broadly speaking, this rejected law limited how teachers unions could negotiate with local school boards and affected how schools made staff reductions and evaluated teachers. Among other things, this rejected law eliminated tenure. Proposition 2 was intended to reject what was known as Idaho Senate Bill 1110, which generally tied teachers pay to student performance. Proposition 3 was intended to reject what was known as Idaho Senate Bill In sum, this rejected law changed school district funding formulas and provided a variety of technology-related changes. Louisiana In 2012, Louisiana enacted a new law (previously known as Louisiana House Bill 89) which requires that collective bargaining contracts be viewable on public bodies websites at least five business days before they are ratified by those bodies. 2 A related bill (known as the Public Employee Bargaining Transparency Act ) had previously been introduced in the state s legislature in 2011 but did not become law. This prior version called for collective bargaining sessions between a public employer and a labor union to fall under the state s open meetings law. In addition to requiring that the details of collective bargaining agreements be posted on the Internet, the prior version also required that any document created or presented during collective bargaining sessions be made available to the public. 3 Ultimately, the final version of Louisiana s new law did not subject collective bargaining negotiations to the state s open meetings law. Michigan Though not traditionally viewed as a state without bargaining legislation in general, the rights of Michigan s state and local government workers are dictated by Michigan s Public Employment Relations Act a number of recent developments in Michigan are probably worth noting. On March 13, 2012, Governor Rick Snyder signed a law which prevents graduate research assistants from organizing at public universities in the state. Then, on March 16, 2012, Governor Snyder signed a separate law banning Michigan s public schools from automatically deducting union dues from public school employees paychecks. Later, on November 6, 2012, a majority of Michigan voters rejected a proposed amendment to the state constitution (known as the Protect Our Jobs Amendment ) which would have given public and private employees the constitutional right to collectively bargain. At the same time, a majority of Michigan s voters also chose to overturn Michigan s emergency manager law. In part, the law, which went into effect on March 16, 2011 and was known as Public Act 4, provided for appointed emergency managers with the power to modify or reject a collective bargaining agreement in cases of a financial emergency. Subsequently, on December 11, 2012, Michigan enacted right-to-work laws ostensibly affecting public and private sector employees. On December 27, 2012, Governor Snyder signed a new emergency manager bill into law

3 Missouri Article I, Section 29 of Missouri s state constitution states that employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. On May 1, 2012, the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals, in Degraffenreid v. State Board of Mediation, 379 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012), found that Article I, Section 29 does not require that every person who may be directly affected by it be allowed to physically vote. Though the constitutional provision speaks of the workers right to vote for representatives, it does not, by its terms, preclude terms (such as eligibility criteria) that might exclude an individual from voting. As stated by the decision, while it is a goal to ensure that as many employees as possible with a legitimate interest in the outcome of the election would be able to cast ballot, timing and other procedural concerns will necessarily result in the exclusion of some interested employees. It was also found that the election procedures employed by Missouri s Board of Mediation (the state agency responsible for determining appropriate bargaining units of public employees) did not violate any constitutional rights or statutory provisions and found that any failure of proper rule-making had no effect on the conduct of the election. Later, on November 20, 2012, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued a consolidated opinion addressing the subsequent appeals of two cases involving the cities of Chesterfield, Missouri and University City, Missouri as public employers. Eastern Missouri Coalition of Police, Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 15 v. City of Chesterfield, 2012 WL In that opinion, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the right to organize and bargaining collectively, as recognized in Article I, Section 29, inherently imposes a duty on each city to bargaining collectively with the exclusive representative with a goal of reaching an agreement. It was also noted that University City and Chesterfield were not excused from carrying out this duty because the public employees represented by the union (the Eastern Missouri Coalition of Police, Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 15) are not covered by the procedures codified in Missouri s public sector labor law. However, it was held that the cities were not required to establish a procedural framework for collective bargaining. The cities were then ordered to recognize the union as the collective bargaining unit for the cities police officers and sergeants and to begin to meet and confer with the union for collective bargaining. In another opinion issued on November 20, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court separately resolved the American Federation of Teachers appeal of a trial court s summary judgment. American Federation of Teachers v. Ledbetter, 2012 WL To be clear, unlike many states, Missouri does not have a statutorily-imposed duty to collectively bargain in good faith. Nevertheless, in that case, it was found that, because Article I, Section 29 provides that all employees, public and private, have a right to organize and to bargain collectively, it necessarily requires the public employer to meet and confer with the union, in good faith, with the present intention to reach an agreement. 3

4 Nevada Collective bargaining laws in Nevada cover local government employees, but not state employees. (Collective bargaining for state employees was passed in 2009 by the Nevada Legislature, but vetoed by then Governor Jim Gibbons.) Currently, public sector labor negotiations in Nevada are held behind closed doors. The information that becomes public is the final contract elected officials ultimately consider in open meetings. Last year, we reported on the Open Government Initiative Petition, which called for removing bargaining from the State s open meeting law exceptions, making all negotiations open to the public. This proposed change was first introduced in 2010, when Nevada Governor Gibbons indicated that signed petitions would be submitted, guaranteeing that the issue either would be acted on by the legislature in 2011 or placed on the ballot in Subsequently the decision was made not to submit the signatures, and Gibbons indicated that the change would instead be introduced as a bill in the 2011 legislative session. Gibbons was replaced, however, in late 2010, by Governor Brian Sandoval, and the change was never introduced in It also did not make it onto the November 2012 ballot. This sunshine law appears still to be a live issue, however, because Governor Sandoval has indicated that he would support its passage in In the summer of 2012, the city council of North Las Vegas unanimously passed a resolution temporarily suspending certain terms of the City s collective bargaining agreements with its police and firefighters. The City relied on Section (4) of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which provides that a local government employer is entitled to take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities in situations of emergency such as riot, military action, natural disaster or civil disorder. The suspended terms include only those that have the effect of increasing the City s labor costs in FY 2012/2013, including cost of living adjustments, merit pay, holiday sell-back pay, and uniform pay. Also in Clark County, a legal battle is ongoing between the County and courthouse marshals (formerly known as bailiffs). The County has recognized the marshals union but has refused demands to bargain for two years. The County contends that the marshals are not County employees, but rather are employees of the courts. The union argues that the separation of powers between the executive, judiciary, and legislative branches of government dictates that the courts cannot hire their own police or peace officers. In March of 2012, the Union filed a complaint with the State of Nevada Employee-Management Relations Board; and in July of 2012 it filed a federal lawsuit under the FLSA to argue that the marshals are entitled to overtime and payment for taking classes to obtain law enforcement certification. Similarly situated marshals engage in collective bargaining with Washoe County, Nevada. Republican lawmakers in Nevada made statements throughout 2012 indicating that they will continue to run bills in an effort to curtail public employee collective bargaining rights. 4

5 Possible targets are automatic dues checkoff and binding arbitration. Because Democrats control both houses of the State s legislature, however, any legislation would have to have bipartisan support to be successful. North Carolina North Carolina law specifically prohibits public employers from entering into collective bargaining agreements. While it has been recognized that public employees have a constitutional right to join and form unions, they have no constitutional right to require their employer to recognize their union or require collective bargaining. Smoth v. Arkansas state Highway E ees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463, 99 S.Ct. 1826, 60 L. Ed. 2d 360 (1979). A 2010 executive order created a meet and confer process between the State and North Carolina s largest state employee organization. Republicans now control both chambers of the legislature and the governorship in North Carolina for the first time in over a century. A bill recently introduced will let North Carolina voters decide whether the North Carolina constitution should be amended to make clear that collective bargaining between local or state governments and unions is illegal. The same bill would also amend the constitution to reflect the state s right-to-work status. The law in North Carolina currently allows for payroll dues deduction for large employee organizations (with over 2,000 members) in the State. A statute enacted in 2011, over the Governor s Beverly Perdue s veto, prohibits dues check-off for education employees. This change effectively eliminated automatic dues deductions for the North Carolina Association of Educators, the most influential public employee group in the State. Under the new law, which immediately went into effect, the teachers must affirmatively authorize the deduction. Opponents sought an injunction, challenging the law as unconstitutional and as unfairly retaliating against teachers for their political activism. In January of 2012, a state court issued a temporary restraining order blocking enactment of the new law. In December of 2012, the same court permanently enjoined the law. It is not clear whether this decision will survive on appeal. In January of 2013, the Charlotte City Council voted to allow city employees to have their union dues voluntarily deducted directly from their paychecks. The United Electrical Workers Local 150 has been trying to recruit city workers, particularly those in the sanitation department. The city already allows employees to make automatic payroll deductions for some charities such as United Way. Oklahoma Until the end of 2011, Oklahoma law granted collective bargaining rights to general employees of cities with at least 35,0000 residents, school employees, police, and firefighters. In April of 2011, Governor Mary Fallin signed into law HB 1593, which repealed Oklahoma s 5

6 Municipal Employees Collective Bargaining Act ( MECA ). The change in the law, which left it up to each municipal employer to determine how to proceed, took effect on November 1, In total, Oklahoma s 12 largest cities were affected by the change in the law. The locals in 6 of those cities Lawton, Bartlesville, Edmond, Moore, Broken Arrow, and Stillwater are no longer in existence. Originally it was suggested that the four cities that already had collective bargaining through city ordinance before MECA was passed in 2004 Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Normal, and Muskogee would not be significantly affected by the change in the law. That has not been the case. Although reports indicate good relations between Oklahoma City and its employees, more difficult negotiations are being attributed to the change in the law. Also, the City of Muskogee decided to not renew its collective bargaining agreement with its employees. After a series of political events resulted in the change of four City council seats in Muskogee, the City passed an ordinance recognizing the right of its employees to organize and bargain collectively. State and county employees in Oklahoma do not have collective bargaining rights. Nevertheless, an association of employees of the State of Oklahoma engages in lobbying activity. In 2011, the Paycheck Protection Act was introduced, which eliminated the option of dues check-off for state employees. The bill did not make it out of committee in 2011, but it has been re-filed in this session. South Dakota South Dakota has comprehensive collective bargaining laws that cover substantially all of the State s non-managerial employees. Strikes by public sector employees are prohibited. In early 2012, HB 1261 was introduced, which set out to prohibit the state or local municipalities from engaging in collective bargaining with employees. In February of 2012, the Bill was tabled after hearing under a unanimous vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Tennessee For decades Tennessee has extended collective bargaining rights to its public school teachers. In 2011, the Professional Educators Collaborative Conferencing Act (HB 130; SB 113) was signed into law, repealing a 1978 statute mandating collective bargaining for public school teachers in Tennessee. The process of collaborative counseling is defined in the legislation as one in which the parties meet at reasonable times to confer, consult and discuss and to exchange information, opinions and proposals on matters relating to the terms and conditions of processional employee service, using the principles and techniques of interest-based collaborative problem-solving. 6

7 Under the Collaborative Conferencing Act, a petition for collaborative conferencing must be supported by a 15 percent showing of interest among teachers. In an election, a majority vote is required to adopt the collaborative counseling system. Once collaborative counseling is approved, rather than meeting with an exclusive representative, the school district meets with a group of 7 to 11 employee representatives who have garnered a minimum level of support from their voting peers. Once assembled, the collaborative counseling committee remains in place for a period of 3 years. The law also appears to authorize the director of schools to bypass the employees representatives and deal directly with individual employees. The statute mandates collaborative conferencing with respect to salaries, grievance procedures, insurance, fringe benefits (other than retirement benefits), working conditions, leave, and payroll deductions. It expressly prohibits collaborative conferencing with respect to differential pay plans, incentive compensation, expenditure of grants or awards, evaluations, staffing decisions, personnel decisions concerning assignment of professional employees, and payroll deductions for political activities. Parties are required under the new law to jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding of any agreement reached. Once approved by the local board, the memorandum is binding. The law also expressly provides that parties are not required to reach an agreement. If no agreement is reached, the school board may unilaterally implement terms and conditions of employment by board policy. The Tennessee law eliminates mediation and arbitration, and it prohibits strikes, as did the collective bargaining act that preceded it. Tennessee does not have a labor relations board to administer the Collaborative Counseling Act. The law requires filing any complaints of unlawful acts with the local board within three months of the occurrence. If a reasonable resolution is not reached, the parties may file the complaint with the courts. The new law was put into place on June 1, The law required that the Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents would develop a training program, which had to be completed by 7 months after the law became effective. The local school systems were not required to adopt the training program until 12 months after the law became effective. The collaboration process was not allowed to begin until after school board members had engaged in the training. Thus, collaborative counseling could not begin on a local level until sometime after the summer of There are 135 local school systems in Tennessee. Of those, approximately 90 engaged in collective bargaining under the old law. Approximately 25 now participate in collaborative conferencing. To date, no known collaborative counseling MOU has been executed. The Collaborative Conferencing Act prohibits conferencing with regard to the deduction of dues that would be used for political activities. A new bill recently was introduced that would 7

8 prohibit employer deduction of any dues that are to be used for political activity. Also, a bill has been introduced that would end the practice of allowing the elected president of the Tennessee Education Association to take leave from his or her local school position to serve out that twoyear term. Texas Collective bargaining is illegal for public school employees in Texas. Many large, urban districts have a consultation policy that allows a school board to meet and confer with educators about educational policy and employment conditions. Employee input is considered advisory, there is no binding legal contract, and the school boards make any final decisions. In Austin, school district employees vote every four years on which group will represent them in consultations with the District regarding raises and other conditions of employment. For the past 14 years, the 3000-member Education Austin has been the only group that has filled this role. In 2012, however, the District board began to consider other options. The first option was to leave the policy as it was. The second option would increase the number of members a group would need to be the District s consulting agent, increasing the likelihood that multiple groups would be involved. This second option included a good faith clause under which the parties would be barred from publicly discussing any issue until impasse. A third inclusive model would include at the table any group whose membership is at least 5 percent of Austin employees. The fourth option would end the 40-year practice of consulting with worker groups and would instead allow for meetings between administrators and any group represent at least 2 percent of district employees. The District ultimately passed a policy that creates a council of groups representing employees. Under the policy, only the lead representative will have a spot at the negotiation table with District administrators. This lead representative arrangement is one Education Austin fought for, arguing it was simpler than having multiple groups at the table. Virginia Virginia bans public employers from engaging in collective bargaining with their employees. An SEIU local in the Washington DC area is currently working to form a union of adjunct professors teaching across the metropolitan Washington DC region. This regional union would include adjunct professors working at institutions in Virginia. Wisconsin The new collective bargaining laws were passed in March 2011 and became effective in June of 2011 (once the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, that the law was constitutional, after it had been blocked by a Dane County judge upholding a challenge asserting that the law 8

9 was enacted without giving sufficient notice normally 24 hours is required under the state s open-meetings law). Governor Walker survived a recall election in June, 2012, with a 7-point victory. The Wisconsin Senate was briefly in Democratic hands after recall elections in June of 2012, but Republicans won back control in the November, 2012 election. Several lawsuits challenging Act 10 are currently pending: 1. WEAC, et al v. Walker, et al: -Filed June, 2011, US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (11-cv-428- wmc); -Lawsuit challenges three, specific provisions of Act 10, which apply to general employees (and not public safety employees0: 1. Equal Protection challenge to the limitation of the right to collectively bargain, except on total base wages. 2. Equal Protection challenge to the requirement that unions representing general employees must submit to recertification every year and must gain support of an absolute majority. 3. Equal protection and First Amendment challenge to the prohibition on employer withholding of union dues from the payroll checks of general employees. -District Court, Judge William Conley, issues Opinion and Order on March 30, 2012: -Finding plaintiffs failed to meet their burden with regard to challenge 1: [E]xempting public safety employees from severe restrictions on collective bargaining rights may rationally be related to a legitimate government interest of avoiding work stoppages by certain public employees performing core governmental services. -Finding no rational basis for the limitations challenged under 2 and 3: So long as the State of Wisconsin continues to afford ordinary certification and dues deductions to mandatory public safety unions with sweeping bargaining rights, there is no rational basis to deny those rights to voluntary general unions with severely restricted bargaining rights. -District Court Remedy: -Court enters an injunction require a return to automatic dues deductions for all members of public unions no later than May 31, ( This should give sufficient time for the defendants to seek a stay of this injunction from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and for government entities to adopt a workable procedure to return to automatic deductions should the Seventh Circuit 9

10 deny a stay, while balancing the plaintiffs and their now-voluntary members rights to a return to payroll deductions. ) -Court enjoins the annual, mandatory recertification requirements. -District Court Motion for Stay: -Filed by Defendants at the same time as 7 th Circuit Notice of Appeal. -On April 27, 2012, Court denies motion except for unions decertified pursuant to Act 10 prior to March 30, Defendants Motion for Clarification from District Court: -Regarding the scope of the government s obligations with regard to dues pending appeal to the 7 th Circuit. -7 th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision issued January 18, 2013, reversing District Court and upholding the constitutionality of Act 10 (Nos , & ). -Re Equal Protection claim: Court finds it was rational to fear a retaliatory strike from police and firefighters that could endanger public safety, so a two-tier system protects a legitimate state interest. -Re First Amendment claim: Court holds that the State of Wisconsin has no obligation to help unions fund political or other spending. The Bill of Rights enshrines negative liberties It directs what government may not do to its citizens, rather than what it must do for them. -Dissent would find that the prohibition on payroll deductions for some public employees and not others is a First Amendment violation. -Plaintiffs have 90 days from the date of entry of Judgment (January 18) to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court. 2. MTI, et al. v. Walker, et al. -Filed February, 2012, Dane County Circuit Court -Challenges: 1. Act 10 enacted in violation of Wis. Const. Art. IV, sec. 11, which limits the scope of special sessions of the legislature. 2. Various aspects of the law violates plaintiffs rights of free speech and association and equal protection: Sec (requiring a referendum for wage increases above the cost of living for represented municipal employees); (same, for school district employees); (1)(f) (limiting fair share dues agreements to public safety and transit unions); (3g) (prohibiting payroll deduction of dues for general employee unions); (4)(mb) (prohibiting municipal employers from collectively bargaining with general employee unions on anything but wages); and (4)(d)3 (imposing certain certification and recertification requirements on general employee unions). 3. Section , prohibiting the City of Milwaukee from making the employee s share of pension fund contributions violates the City of Milwaukee s home rule 10

11 authority granted by Art. XI, sec. 3(1) of the WI Const., is an impairment of contracts in violation of Wis. Const. Art. I, sec. 12, and deprives plaintiffs of property without due process contrary to Wis. Const. Art I, sec. 1. -Circuit Court Decision and Order issued, Judge Juan Colaas, on September 14, 2012: 1. Act was within the scope of the special session proclamation 2. Court finds infringement of plaintiffs rights of free speech and association: It is undisputed that there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining. Similarly, there is no constitutional right to a government-subsidized housing program. Yet the courts have held that once the government elected to offer subsidized housing it could not condition eligibility for it upon surrender or restriction of a constitutional right unless that surrender or restriction was necessary to prevent a substantial evil that would threaten the operation of the program. In the same way, when the government elects to permit collective bargaining in may not make the surrender or restriction of a constitutional right a condition of that privilege. Court also finds equal protection violation, applying strict scrutiny and finding that the disparate treatment of general employees and public safety unconstitutional. 3. Court finds, with regard to City of Milwaukee, that violates the contract clause and is unconstitutional and null and void; Court rejects the due process claim, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to show that the legislation was wholly arbitrary or irrational. -October 22, 2012, Circuit Court denies motion for stay pending appeal. -December 31, 2012, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, requests supplemental information regarding the alleged statewide effect of the Circuit Court decision prior to ruling on Motion to Stay Circuit Court Order: [T]here is confusion among municipal employers and others about the proper interpretation of the circuit court s order and about who is currently bound by it. Questions currently pending from Court of Appeals, which must be answered in February of 2013: 1. Taking into account the potential difference between declaring portions of a law unconstitutional and granting particular injunctive relief, did the circuit court indicate, either orally or in writing, that it was enjoining WERC in any respect? If yes, identify with specificity the court s language. 2. Sometimes the arguments of parties before a circuit court assist us in understanding the meaning of a ruling. Regardless of the answer to (1), could the inclusion of injunctive relief be deemed implicit in the circuit court s order based upon any arguments or discussions before the circuit court about the remedy being sought? If yes, then direct this court s attention to anything in the record or submitted materials that bears upon this question. 11

12 3. Is it possible, based on the record, to conclude that the circuit court s ruling in this case would be binding on non-party unions or non-party municipal employers under the doctrine of issue preclusion? 4. Assume for purposes of this question that only the parties here are bound by the order on appeal. If a stay is not issued, what effect, if any, would the participation of WERC employees in this lawsuit have on the challenged order s impact on future potential or actual contract negotiations between municipal employers and unions who are not parties to this action? 5. Is it possible, based on the record, to conclude that the circuit court s ruling in this case would be binding on non-party unions or non-party municipal employers under a theory other than issue preclusion? 6. Assume for purposes of this question that the order on appeal has statewide effect in the sense that it would bind all circuit courts in actions involving unions and employers. Under this scenario: (a) If a stay is ordered, and the circuit court s order is eventually upheld on appeal, is there any legal reason why unions statewide could not bargain to obtain benefits and wages though retroactive application of the law, absent the unconstitutional provisions, for time periods during which the unconstitutional provisions were in force? (b) If a state is not ordered, and if municipalities and unions statewide enter into agreements that provide benefits and wages to employees that exceed those permitted under portions of MERA that the circuit court has declared unconstitutional, and the circuit court s order is eventually reversed on appeal, is there any legal reason why municipalities could not hold employees liable for such benefits and wages and then recoup them? 3. Laborers Local 236 v. Walker Filed in US District Court -Fully briefed and awaiting decision. -Claims are substantively similar to the MTI case. 4. WLEA v. Walker Filed in State of Wisconsin Circuit Court -The newest litigation. -Asserts both First Amendment and Equal Protection claims. Related Developments: -Recertification Elections: The vast majority of school district locals filed petitions for recertification and were successful in being recertified; the vast majority of city and county locals did not filed petitions for recertification; and out of the 19 state employee bargaining units, 6 of the smallest filed petitions for recertification and were all successful. 12

13 -Design and selection of health care coverage plans Act 32 prohibits public employers from bargaining collectively with regard to the design and selection of health care coverage plans for public safety employees and the impact of the design and selection of the health care coverage plans on the wages, hours and conditions of employment of the public safety employees. Ongoing litigation is Wisconsin Circuit Courts (Manitowoc County, Milwaukee County, Brown County) regarding the scope of design and selection of health plan in public safety negotiations. -Events in the field - Use of statutory grievance procedures? Meet and confer? Joint labormanagement committees? Involvement of former labor organizations? Wyoming Firefighters are the only public sector employees who have collective bargaining rights by state statute. In early 2012, HB 58 was introduced in the Wyoming legislature, which would have made collective bargaining illegal in the State. The bill was voted down in the Assembly, with 42 no votes and 18 yes votes. 13