Opinion ID: 1804878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Proposals 2, 9, and 16.

Text: Turning to an analysis of the specific proposals at issue, we first consider together proposals 2, 9, and 16. These proposals predominantly concern the establishment and operation of labor/management committees. AFSCME argues we should look to the substantive purpose of the proposed labor/management committees to properly frame the overall proposal topic. With respect to proposal 2, AFSCME contends the substantive purpose of the proposed committee is health and safety. Because health and safety is a section 20.9 mandatory bargaining subject, AFSCME contends the proposal should be ruled mandatory. With respect to proposal 9, AFSCME contends the substantive purpose of the committee is vacationsalso a section 20.9 mandatory bargaining subject. With respect to proposal 16, AFSCME contends that because the scope of the proposed committee is limited to the discussion and study of mandatory bargaining subjects, the proposal should be ruled a mandatory subject of bargaining. At the outset we note that almost any proposal, depending on how it is drafted, could point with some comfort to section 20.9 as authority for a contention that the proposal is a mandatory subject for negotiation. When framing the scope of a disputed proposal topic, we are concerned with determining what the employer would be bound to do if a proposal were taken to arbitration and incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. See Charles City Community Sch. Dist., 275 N.W.2d at 774. The PERB's approach in Andrew Community School District is to see if the proposal deals with any specific subject listed as a topic of mandatory bargaining under section 20.9. Andrew Community Sch. Dist., 84 P.E.R.B. 2629. Under this analysis, if a section 20.9 subject is listed or substantively implicated, the procedural proposals through which the mandatory subject to be negotiated is reached are irrelevant. We believe this view ignores the reality of the proposals offered for negotiation and broadens the scope of the topics enumerated by the legislature as mandatory bargaining subjects. Moreover, it decides whether a proposal is one of mandatory bargaining by merely looking for the topical word as listed in section 20.9, virtually a mechanical exercise. At the same time, we are chary about focusing solely on the substantive purpose of a proposal, lest an evaluation of the merits of a proposal be required. We will not engage in a debate or resolution of the merits of a contract proposal. See Clinton Police, 397 N.W.2d at 766; Charles City Educ. Ass'n, 291 N.W.2d at 666; Charles City Community Sch. Dist., 275 N.W.2d at 769. If incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement, proposals 2, 9, and 16 would require the State to establish and operate labor/management committees. The establishment and operation of labor/management committees is therefore the predominant characteristic of these proposals. Whether the substantive purpose of the labor/management meeting concerns health and safety, vacations, or any other mandatory bargaining subject, or whether the substantive purpose of the committees impinge on employer section 20.7 rights is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether proposals to establish and operate labor/management committees are mandatory subjects of bargaining under section 20.9. The establishment and operation of labor/management committees for any purpose is not specifically listed as a mandatory subject of bargaining under section 20.9. We construe the scope of each item on the laundry list of mandatory bargaining subjects narrowly. See Charles City Community Sch. Dist., 275 N.W.2d at 773. Therefore, we hold proposals 2, 9, and 16 are permissive subjects of bargaining.