Public Sector Labor Relations in Arizona

A Presentation For The City Of Goodyear

Presentation By

Fred Miner

Shareholder

&

The Lay of the Land: Union Representation and Membership

Summary of U.S. Statistical

Data In 2010, the union membership rate nationally was 11.9%,

down from 12.3% in 2009, and 20.1% in 1983.

The number of workers belonging to unions declined by 612,000 in 2010 to 14.7 million. In 1983 there were 17.7 million union workers.

Union membership in the private sector dropped by another 339,000 members in 2010.

In the private sector, 6.9% of workers were union members.

36.2% of public employees, and 42.3% of local government employees nationally, were members of labor unions.

In 2010, more public sector employees (7.6 million) belonged to a union than private sector employees (7.4 million) despite there being 5 times more wage and salary workers in the private sector.

Union Membership U.S.

Total Work Force vs. Private Sector

18.017.5

17.0 17.016.4

16.0 16.0 15.8 15.8 15.8

12.5 12.512.0 12.1 12.4 12.3

11.9

14.514

13.5 13.2

12.2 1211.5 11.6

1110.5

7.9 7.87.4 7.5 7.6

7.2 6.9

12.913.313.513.5

13.913.914.114.5

14.9

8.28.6

9.09.09.49.59.8

10.210.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Summary of Arizona

Statistical Data

Arizona’s total union membership rate fell from 6.5% in 2009 to about 6.4% in 2010.

In the private sector, there was a slight decline in the number of union workers in Arizona. 3.6% of workers were union members in 2010.

In the public sector, there were an estimated 86,060 union members in Arizona in 2010, a decline from 105,752 in 2009.

An estimated 19.7% of public sector employees in Arizona were union members in 2010, down from about 23% in 2009.

Union Membership Arizona

Total Work Force vs. Public Sector

9.5

8.2

6.26.9 7.3 7.8 7.7

7.27.7 7.9

6.3 6.1

7.68.8 8.8

6.5 6.4

17.8

20.8

14.5

17.1

18.6

21.620.5

18.1 18.1

20.5

17.8 18.1

24.6

20.9

18.2

23

19.7

5.25.65.96.46.76.5

7.05.9

8.0

15.4

16.917.518.0

19.21918.618.2

21.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Development of Public Sector

Labor Law

A Brief History of Public

Sector Labor Relations

McAuliffe v. City of

New Bedford

(Mass. 1892)

– Government could

condition employment

on forfeiture of right to

organize

Early Views Of Public Sector

Collective Bargaining

“All Government employees should realize

that the process of collective bargaining, as

usually understood, cannot be transplanted

into the public service. It has its distinct

and insurmountable limitations when

applied to public personnel management. “

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1937)

It is "impossible to bargain collectively with

the government." George Meany (first

President of the AFL-CIO)

Taft Hartley Act (1947)

– Establishes bargaining

rights in the private

sector.

– Does not apply to the

public sector.

– AFSCME v. City of

Muskegon (Mich.

1963) (upholding law

prohibiting organizing)

A Brief History of Public

Sector Labor Relations

Wisconsin becomes the first

state to pass a public employee

collective bargaining law in 1959

New York passes the Taylor Law

(1967)

California passes the Meyers-

Milias-Brown Act (1968)

A Brief History of Public

Sector Labor Relations

Kennedy’s

Executive Order

10988 (1962)

– Federal workers have

the right to form and

join unions and to

bargain collectively

– Scope of bargaining

restricted by

management rights

clause

A Brief History of Public

Sector Labor Relations

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978

– Grants federal employees the right to form, join or assist a labor organization, or refrain

– Created FLRA (similar to NLRB)

– Established the Office of Labor Management

– Provided for mandatory grievance procedure with binding arbitration

– Grants right to engage in picketing, grade retention, authorized union time and dues checkoff

A Brief History of Public

Sector Labor Relations

At the beginning of 2009

– 26 states recognize collective

bargaining rights for all state

and local workers, 12 states

limit bargaining for some

workers

– 12 states have no collective

bargaining in the public sector

– In 2009 for the first time, public

sector union members

outnumber private sector

members

Recent Change In Public

Sector Labor Laws Change starts in

Wisconsin

New law limits public employee bargaining and requires employees to contribute to medical and pension costs

Wage increases limited to inflation

Unions must be recertified annually

Eliminates mandatory dues

Does not affect most public safety employees

Recent Change In Public

Sector Labor Laws In Ohio, Governor John Kasich

signs similar legislation into law March 31, 2011

In Indiana, in late April 2011 Governor Mitch Daniels signs legislation that, among other things, permits teachers to bargain only over salary and wage benefits.

In Michigan, on March 16, 2011, Governor Rick Snyder signs a law enabling gubernatorial-appointed emergency financial managers to alter or terminate public sector contracts to avert fiscal crises

Recent Change In Public

Sector Labor Laws In Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick

signed legislation limiting public unions’ ability to modify medical plans

The New Hampshire legislature approved legislation that would eliminate negotiated employment terms; New Hampshire’s Senate also passed a right to work law.

Alabama passed a law making it a crime to arrange for public employee payments to organizations that use the money for “political activity”

Oklahoma recently repealed a 2004 law requiring large cities to bargain collectively.

Alabama, Florida, Idaho and Tennessee also restricted bargaining rights for teachers

The Scope Of Change

The National Conference of States

Legislatures is tracking 888 bills in 50 states

proposing change in public sector bargaining

Including, among many others, at least:

23 states considering restrictions on public

sector bargaining

21 states changing public employee pensions

19 states considering Right to Work laws

17 states considering bans on use of dues for

union political activities

Change Comes To Arizona:

Proposition 113

Guarantees the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot in elections, designations or authorizations for employee representation

The NLRB has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to have Arizona’s law ruled preempted

The Board has authorized civil actions against AZ, SC, SD and UT to invalidate similar amendments

Application to public sector labor relations where the NLRA does not apply

Arizona SB 1363 and 1365

Senate Bill 1363 includes several new regulations

relating to picketing and protesting, including making it

illegal to falsely accuse an employer of misbehavior,

block access to a place of employment or for labor

unions to protest uninvited on private property.

SB 1365 prohibits an employer from deducting a

payment from an employee's paycheck for political

purposes unless the employee gives annual written or

electronic authorization.

A group of unions including the Arizona Education

Association, AFSCME and the SEIU, has sued to have

both of the laws declared unconstitutional.

Legal Basis for Arizona Labor Relations:

Meet and Confer And Similar Procedures

Arizona Public Labor Law

Taft Hartley Excludes Public Employees From

Coverage Of The NLRA

AZ has not adopted a “mini-NLRA”

Local Law With Local Requirements

Public Safety Employees

Arizona recognizes public

safety employees may join

and be represented by an

“employee association.”

A.R.S. 23-1411.

A governmental entity may

recognize an employee

association and receive and

consider proposals from it.

The statute does not “compel

or prohibit in any manner any

employee wage or benefit

negotiations.” Id.

AZ Public Labor Relations

Public sector collective bargaining is

prohibited in Arizona

– Ariz. Att’y Gen’l Op. 74-11; Ariz. Att’l Gen’l Op. I06-004

– A public employer cannot enter a binding agreement

with an employee association because doing so would

constitute a delegation of authority and violate elected

officials’ responsibility to make decisions

– A public employer may not enter an agreement that

would supersede or conflict with the County Employee

Merit System

AZ Public Labor Relations

Public entities in Arizona may not recognize

an association or “union” as the exclusive

representative of any group of employees

– Doing so would infringe employees’ First Amendment

rights

– The Attorney General is supported by numerous

Arizona court decisions in this respect, including

among others, Communications Workers of Am. V.

Arizona Board of Regents, 17 Ariz. App. 398, 498 P.2d

472 (1972).

“Meet and Confer”

However, Meet and Confer is a permissible means of gathering information about employees’ working conditions

– A public employer has the right to enter purely informational “meet and confer” arrangements with associations, as long as the results are not binding and there are alternative means for employees to communicate with management.

– Meet and Confer is defined as “a process by which [a] public employer and the authorized employee representative meet and confer in good faith with respect to certain topics, which may include wages, hours and other terms of employment.” Ariz. Att’l Gen’l Op. I06-004.

“Meet and Confer”

The results of Meet and Confer may be

considered and adopted, if appropriate, by

decision makers

– “Although a memorandum of understanding may result

from the process, no binding agreement may be the

production of such negotiation; final decision-making

authority is necessarily reserved to the public

employer.” Ariz. Att’l Gen’l Op. I06-004.

“Meet & Confer”

NLRA Meet & Confer

Union is employees’

exclusive representative

Association must not be

exclusive, other voices

must be heard

Good faith bargaining is

required

Information gathering

process only

Results of bargaining is

a binding contract

Results are suggestions

for leadership

NLRB administers and

enforces

Political leaders are the

final decisionmakers

Arizona Entities With Some Form

of Meet and Confer Process

City of

Tempe

Town of

Gilbert

Pinal

County

City of

Phoenix

Mesa

Public

Schools

City of

Glendale

City of

Maricopa

NW Fire

Dist.

C Yavapai

F. Dist.

City of

Mayer

Chandler

Pub. Sch.

Higley

Sch. Dist.

City of

Surprise

City of

Mesa

Apache

Junc. SD

Deer

Valley SD

Fountain

Hills SD

Glendale

Un. SD

Phoenix

Union SD

Roosevelt

Sch. Dist.

Daisey

Mtn. FD

Tempe

Elem. SD

Tucson

Sch. Dist.

Town of

Buckeye

City of

Chandler

Pima

County

AZ Dept.

of

Corr’ns

AZ DPS

City of

Peoria

City of

Lake

Havasu

City of

Bisbee

Golden

Ranch F.

Dist.

AVRA

Valley

Fire Dist.

Buckeye

Valley

Fire Dist.

South

Tucson

City of

Tucson

Sedona

Fire Dist.

Avondale

Sch. Dist.

Dysart

Sch. Dist.

Gilbert

Sch. Dist.

Kyrene

Sch. Dist.

PV Sch.

Dist.

Scotts-

dale SD

Sunny-

side SD

Tempe

Sec. Sch.

City of

Avondale

Bullhead

City

Pinewood

Fire Dist.

City of

Goodyear

Questions?