IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-1045

Filed June 15, 2016

AFSCME IOWA COUNCIL 61,

Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 

RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Dustria A. Relph, 

Judge.

AFSCME appeals the dismissal of its prohibited practice complaint. 

AFFIRMED. 

Mark T. Hedberg and Sarah M. Wolfe of Hedberg & Boulton, P.C., Des 

Moines, for appellant.

Diana S. Machir of Iowa Public Employee Relations Board, Des Moines, 

for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2

BOWER, Judge.

AFSCME Iowa Council 61 (ASFCME)1appeals the Iowa Public Employee 

Relation Board’s (PERB) dismissal of its prohibited practice complaint claiming 

PERB’s decision was based upon an irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable 

interpretation of law. We disagree and affirm PERB’s dismissal. 

I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

We adopt the district court’ summation of the factual background:

AFSCME filed a prohibited practices complaint against the 

State of Iowa, Department of Corrections (hereinafter State) in 

February, 2012, alleging that the Department of Corrections

(hereinafter DOC) violated certain provisions of Iowa Code Chapter 

20 when they denied AFSCME members the right to wear union 

pins depicting a photo of Governor Branstad with the universal red 

“no” symbol across it, and the phrases “1991 or 2011” written 

across the top and “NOTHING HAS CHANGED” written across the 

bottom of the pin. There is nothing on the pin that makes it clear to 

the public that the pin is an ASFCME union pin.

In a March, 2014 ruling, an administrative law judge of PERB 

found that the DOC’s prohibition of the pins was a prohibited 

practice in violation of Iowa Code Section 20.10(2)(a) (2011). The 

State appealed.

In its October, 2014 decision, the Public Employee Relations 

Board concluded that “special circumstances” existed in this 

situation which warranted the DOC’s ban of the pins. Based upon 

that finding, PERB reversed the ALJ’s decision that the State 

committed a prohibited practice in violation of Iowa Code Section 

20.10(2)(a).

The district court issued a ruling in June 2015, affirming PERB’s dismissal 

of AFSCME’s prohibited practices complaint. AFSCME now appeals. 

II. STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW

Judicial review of an agency ruling is governed by [the Iowa 

Administrative Procedure Act [IAPA], Iowa Code chapter 17A]. The 

district court reviews the agency’s decision in an appellate capacity. 

 

1 AFSCME is an acronym for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 

Employees.
3

In turn, we review the district court’s decision to determine whether 

it correctly applied the law. We must apply the standards set forth 

[in the IAPA] and determine whether our application of those 

standards produces the same result as reached by the district 

court.

AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. Iowa Pub. Emp’t Relations Bd., 846 N.W.2d 873, 

877–78 (Iowa 2014) (citations omitted). If so, we affirm the judgment of the 

district court. See id.

PERB notes ASFCME has failed to designate which section of

17A.19(10), grounds for judicial relief, apply in this appeal. While ASFCME 

claims PERB incorrectly interpreted the law, ASFCME’s argument consists of 

attempts to demonstrate PERB incorrectly applied the law to the facts in this 

case. Therefore, we will focus our review on PERB’s application of law to fact. 

See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(m). Even if we also applied section 17A.19(10)(l)

(interpretation of law), given ASFCME’s heavy burden, we would reach the same 

conclusion and affirm PERB’s dismissal. 

“Because the legislature has now expressly vested PERB with discretion 

to apply chapter 20, we review PERB’s . . . application of section 20.8 to

determine if the ruling is ‘irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.’” AFSCME 

Iowa Council, 846 N.W.2d at 878 (quoting Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(m)).

A decision is “irrational” when it is “not governed by or according to 

reason.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1195. A 

decision is “illogical” when it is “contrary to or devoid of logic.” Id. at 

1127. A decision is “unjustifiable” when it has no foundation in fact 

or reason. See id. at 2502 (defining “unjustifiable” as “lacking in . . .

justice”); id. at 1228 (defining “justice” as “the quality or 

characteristic of being just, impartial or fair”); id. (defining “just” as 

“conforming to fact and reason”).
4

Id. “‘The burden of demonstrating . . . the invalidity of agency action is on the 

party asserting invalidity.’” Id. (quoting Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(a)).

III. ANALYSIS

ASFCME claims PERB’s decision to apply the “special circumstance” 

exception to prohibit DOC employees from wearing the pin was based on an 

irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable interpretation of law. See United States

Dep’t of Justice v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 955 F.2d 998, 1003–004 (5th Cir. 

1992) (defining the “special circumstances test” as “widely applied” by the 

National Labor Relations Board).

On this issue, the district court reasoned:

It is not disputed that union members have a statutory right 

to wear union insignia under Iowa Code § 20.8(3). It is also not 

disputed that an exception to this right exists for special

circumstances. Special circumstances that have been longrecognized as justification for employer infringement upon this right 

include where prohibition of an activity is necessary in order to 

maintain discipline and ensure safety. Republic Aviation Corp. v. 

N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 803 n.10 (1945).

In this case, at least two union staff members at the Iowa

Medical and Classification Center complained to their warden that 

they found the pins offensive. Subsequently, the DOC banned the 

pins because they were deemed disrespectful, did not display 

appropriate behavior, did not comport with the responsibility of the 

DOC to model prosocial behavior to offenders, and were in violation 

of DOC policies. These include policies requiring employees to 

conduct themselves in a professional manner which creates and 

maintains respect for the DOC and to avoid action that might 

adversely affect confidence in the criminal justice system. DOC

representatives testified that the pins herein were disrespectful to 

Governor Branstad, who is at the top of the DOC’s chain of 

command, and viewed them as an attack on the DOC from the top

down.

The work environment in the present matter is unlike any 

other. DOC employees are responsible for the housing, care, 

rehabilitation, and 24 hour supervision of criminal offenders whose 

offenses were deemed serious enough to warrant imprisonment.

The volatile nature of the prison setting presents unique needs 
5

which require a very high level of control and consistency to avoid 

disruption. Maintenance of control and avoidance of disruption in 

the prison environment are paramount to the safety of both 

employees and offenders. If there is any place where it is

necessary to maintain discipline, it would be in a prison. Internal

security within a correctional facility is central to all other 

corrections goals. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822–23 (1974). 

Though the need to maintain discipline and ensure safety would 

typically apply to employees, it is reasonable and necessary, within 

the DOC, to extend that need to the offenders under the 

employees’ supervision, as well.

These enhanced needs for control and consistency, along 

with the “paramilitary structure” of the Department of Corrections 

were significant factors contributing to PERB’s finding that special 

circumstances exist in this case. This court finds substantial 

evidence, as defined above, exists to support that finding.

This court further agrees that, given the volatile environment 

of a prison, the DOC should not be required to wait until 

correctional staff or inmate safety is actually jeopardized through

actual workplace disruption to prove special circumstances.

Workplace disruption within the DOC would undermine offender 

confidence not only in the DOC, but also in the criminal justice

system. Disruption and disorder within a prison, be it amongst staff 

or otherwise, could provide an excuse for negative, if not 

dangerous, offender behaviors. Given the unique work

environment in this situation, this court agrees that there is 

sufficient evidence to support a need for immediate action rather 

than require the DOC to wait until a potentially dangerous situation

develops.

We agree with the district court’s reasoning. AFSCME has been unable to 

carry its heavy burden and prove PERB’s decision was “[b]ased upon an 

irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable application of law to fact.” Iowa Code § 

17A.19(10)(m). We affirm PERB’s dismissal of AFSCME’s prohibited practice 

complaint. 

AFFIRMED.