Opinion ID: 1804878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Procedures Argument.

Text: AFSCME claims that because proposals 7 and 10 are procedures for implementing mandatory subjects of bargaining, they are for this reason mandatory bargaining subjects. We have defined the term procedure broadly in our prior cases interpreting section 20.9. See Saydel Educ. Ass'n, 333 N.W.2d at 488-89; Aplington Community Sch. Dist., 392 N.W.2d at 499; Northeast Community Sch. Dist., 408 N.W.2d at 49; City of Dubuque, 444 N.W.2d at 497. We held in each of these decisions the term procedure, as used in PERA, contemplates substantive criteria. However, our decisions are limited to interpreting this term in conjunction with its use in the section 20.9 subjects transfer procedures, evaluation procedures, procedures for staff reduction, and grievance procedures. Id. By no means have these decisions created a new section 20.9 mandatory bargaining subject entitled procedures for implementing mandatory subjects of bargaining. Therefore, we find wholly without merit AFSCME's argument that each proposal is a mandatory subject of bargaining because it is a procedure for implementing a mandatory subject of bargaining.