Opinion ID: 2265673
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: collective bargaining agreement

Text: ¶ 5 In the City's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Decision the City asserts the arbitration board rendered a decision that does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, exceeds the board's authority and violates public policy. More specifically, the City argues that the decision (1) is based on general considerations of fairness and equity rather than the express terms of the agreement; (2) does not give effect to the express terms of the agreement; (3) imposes legislative requirements on the City that are not expressly provided in the agreement; and (5) commands a result that violates Oklahoma's constitution. The City relies on Wyatt-Doyle & Butler Engineers v. City of Eufaula, 2000 OK 74, 13 P.3d 474. That case held that a municipality cannot create an obligation one year that results in a debt in a succeeding year without violating Article 10, § 26 of Oklahoma's constitution. Wyatt-Doyle & Butler Engineers, 2000 OK 74, ¶ 14, 13 P.3d at 479. ¶ 6 The Union answered in a motion to dismiss. It asserted that the dispute taken before the arbitration board was interest arbitration and not grievance arbitration. Grievance arbitration involves interpreting a collective bargaining agreement and subsequently resolving a dispute between the public employer and the public employee. Interest arbitration involves the resolution of an impasse in collective bargaining over the terms of a new contract. City of Bethany v. Public Employees Relations Board, 1995 OK 99, ¶ 1, n. 3, 904 P.2d 604, 607, n. 3. ¶ 7 The Union argued that when the City rejected the second year of the two-year agreement, the rejection reopened the monetary issues. As authority, the Union cites 11 O.S.Supp.2009, § 51-108. [1] The title page of the Opinion and Award of Board of Arbitration states Interest ArbitrationWages and states the years as 2008-2009. Page two of the opinion in the General Background states: The parties have negotiated a wage reopener for the second year of their two-year contract. It is the wage reopener that results in this dispute. The issue as articulated by the board of arbitration is Whether IAFF Local 2095 employees are legally entitled to a 6.1% across the board pay raise, effective July 1, 2008, by virtue of their CBA with the City. The board of arbitration stated that the parties had each stipulated its last best offer, 3% for the City and 6.1% for the Union. [2] The board addressed the constitutional argument that an obligation had been created in one year which would be paid in the next year, and rejected City's assertion that the obligation had been created in a previous year. ¶ 8 However, the board concluded in making its award that the Union is legally entitled to a 6.1% wage adjustment as negotiated by the parties pursuant to contract. In a dissenting opinion, one of the members of the board observed that the parties made a two-year agreement, and that to make the agreement legal the parties inserted language recognizing that any wage increases in year two of the agreement would be awarded only if funds were appropriated by the City Council. He continued in his dissent that the parties had a lengthy history of collective bargaining and the Union knew or should have known of the limitations on the city's funding abilities. Article 14, § 1 entitled Wages/Hours in the collective bargaining agreement included the sentence Salary movement is subject to the appropriation of funds by the City Commission. The majority of the board of arbitration construed that language to reach a result favorable to the Union.