Opinion ID: 1804878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Job Classifications.

Text: Although we hold proposal 16 is a permissive proposal for negotiation we now address the State's argument regarding job classifications because it will likely arise again. The State claims that section 20.9 contains an exception that makes issues of job classification totally exempt from mandatory bargaining. The argument is based on the State's construction of the second paragraph of section 20.9. That paragraph states: Nothing in this section shall diminish the authority and power of the department of personnel, board of regents' merit system, Iowa public broadcasting board's merit system, or any civil service commission established by constitutional provision, statute, charter or special act to recruit employees, prepare, conduct and grade examinations, rate candidates in order of their relative scores for certification for appointment or promotion or for other matters of classification, reclassification or appeal rights in the classified service of the public employer served. The PERB and the district court held that the above quoted paragraph of section 20.9 was intended to be read to exempt the department of personnel from bargaining over rating candidates ... for other matters of classification, reclassification or appeal rights in the classified service of the public employer served. The State argues that chapter 19A, creating the department of personnel, and the above quoted language of section 20.9 create an exception to the list of subjects of mandatory bargaining contained in section 20.9. The State construes the second paragraph of section 20.9 as though it read, nothing in this section shall diminish the authority and power of the department of personnel ... for other matters of classification, reclassification or appeal rights in the classified service of the public employer. The State argues that there are four rather than three categories of subjects that are exclusively reserved to the department of personnel and other public bodies for their decision making. Job classification would be included under this argument in the fourth reserved category by the phrase other matters of classification. We believe that a plain reading of section 20.9 reveals only three functions are reserved to the exclusive control of the personnel department. These are recruiting employees, preparing, conducting, and grading examinations and rating candidates for certification or classification. We make every effort to harmonize the provisions of chapter 19A and chapter 20. See Goergen v. State Tax Comm'n, 165 N.W.2d 782, 785-86 (Iowa 1969); State Employees' Ass'n v. New Hampshire Pub. Employee Labor Relations Bd., 118 N.H. 885, 397 A.2d 1035, 1038 (1978). We do not find from the language here considered in the second paragraph of section 20.9 any indication of a legislative intent to remove automatically job classifications from the laundry list of mandatory bargaining subjects under section 20.9. We hold that job classifications is a proper subject of mandatory bargaining under section 20.9, notwithstanding the language of the second paragraph of that section. The PERB and the district court correctly construed the second paragraph of section 20.9. We have considered all other arguments of the parties and deem it unnecessary to address them, given our discussion herein of the law controlling this decision. The decision of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. All Justices concur except CARTER, J., who concurs specially.