Opinion ID: 2273678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does it Make a Difference

Text: While the majority spends great effort in overruling Clouse and in giving all employees, including those represented by the employee associations in this case . . . the `right to bargain collectively,' it does not outline what differences from existing law would result by doing so. Missey and the public sector labor law have already marginalized Clouse by allowing meet and confer rights and giving public employees the right to form and join labor organizations and to present proposals to any public body . . . through the representative of their own choosing. Sec. 105.510. The majority does not expressly define the right to collective bargaining in the public sector as opposed to the procedure already in place. The majority limits the right of the public employees to bargain collectively by expressly acknowledging that nothing in this constitutional provision requires public employers to reach agreements with their employee associations and stating that the employer is not required to reach an agreement with employees as to working conditions. As for the right to strike, the majority further limits traditional ideas of collective bargaining by stating that the law forbids strikes by public employees and public employees  unlike their private-sector counterparts  are not permitted to strike. The majority does not appear to have given public employees anything more than the rights public employees already enjoy to meet and confer and to choose their own representative.
Whether or not Clouse is overruled, the rights of the appellants are the same and, therefore, the relief they would be entitled to is the same. Under either approach, the appellants are entitled to relief on their claim that the board wrongfully refused to meet and confer with them prior to adopting any grievance procedures, which is a working condition. In addition, the transportation employees are entitled to relief on their claim that the Board wrongfully refused to meet and confer with them prior to adopting policies governing payroll deductions and dismissal and discipline procedure. The board would be required to accept proposals and meet and confer with the employee representatives, when requested, prior to adopting policies relating to salaries, grievance procedures and other working conditions in the future, although it is not required to agree to anything. Finally, the CTP adopted by the board is invalid and the appellants would be entitled to meet with the board through their exclusive representative, rather than through a collaborative team. However, the board would not be required to meet and confer with the appellants prior to adopting its policy on the further details of the discussion procedure. Sec. 171.011.