Opinion ID: 2543561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the public employees relations board is the entity statutorily authorized to determine, in an individual proceeding, the membership status of a collective bargaining unit

Text: ¶ 17 The second issue raised on certiorari is whether the PERB has the authority to determine the membership status of a collective bargaining unit. FOP insists this court has held  on two previous occasions  that the bargaining unit's membership is strictly defined by statute and cannot be subject to PERB's redetermination. ¶ 18 The legislature created the PERB to accomplish the objectives and to perform the duties prescribed by the FPAA. [31] Among the PERB's several functions is to decide in each case before it in which the issue is raised the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, based on a list of enumerated factors. [32] Undeterred by this clear statutory language, FOP claims this court's decisions in Stone v. Johnson [33] and City of Bethany v. Public Employees Relations Bd. [34] countermand (or undermine) the legislative mandate. We cannot agree. ¶ 19 In Stone, the city and the firefighters' union were negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. The city insisted that certain high-ranking supervisory members of that department be excluded from the bargaining unit. This court held the city's position was not consistent with good-faith negotiation because the legislature specifically included those individuals in the bargaining unit. [35] Once included by statute in the bargaining unit, one may not be bargained out of that unit by the parties to the collective bargaining agreement. ¶ 20 The difference between Stone and the present case is that in order to bargain one out of the unit, one must first be included in that unit. Because probationary police officers are not permanent members of the police department with regard to grievance arbitration rights, it necessarily follows that they also are excluded from the bargaining unit for that purpose. As probationary officers are not pro tanto in the unit, they cannot be bargained out of it. In short, Stone does not apply. ¶ 21 In Bethany, the firefighters' union and the city were negotiating for renewal of a collective bargaining agreement. The city insisted that certain issues be exempt from arbitration under the new agreement. The union presented its case to the PERB, which issued a cease-and-desist order. This court held the FPAA does not allow the parties to enact a regime in which some aspects of the collective bargaining agreement are exempt from arbitration. [36] The thrust of that holding is the parties cannot create a two-tier system of grievances by selectively bargaining some issues out of the arbitration process. [37] If this were allowed, an impermissible system would emerge which would render some disputes arising under the collective bargaining agreement arbitrable, while other issues could be denied the very same benefit. [38] ¶ 22 The Stone rationale also applies to Bethany. In order to negotiate an issue out of arbitration, that excluded issue must first be subject to that process. That is not the case with probationary police officers. Excluding probationary officers from arbitration does not offend Bethany. This is so because probationary officers' grievances are deemed not a proper subject for arbitration.