Opinion ID: 1613382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: participating employer's duty to determine employees' status

Text: WPPA contends that its proposal relates solely to the employees' deferred level of compensation which we have held is a mandatory subject of bargaining. City of Brookfield v. WERC, 153 Wis. 2d 238, 242-43, 450 N.W.2d 495, 497 (Ct. App. 1989) (Brookfield II). WERC agrees and also relies on Brookfield II. WERC concluded: In essence, [WPPA's] proposal seeks to improve the level of deferred compensation which [an] employe will be entitled to receive for providing the County with employment service. [4] Brookfield II is inapposite. In that case, the union sought to bargain on its proposal that the city provide group health benefits to employees who retired during the term of the collective bargaining agreement. The city was free to bargain on the union's proposal unconstrained by statute. Here, sec. 40.02(48)(a), Stats., requires that the County determine whether its jailers qualify as protective occupation participants. The County lacks the power in a collective bargaining agreement or otherwise to make a final determination that its jailers are protective occupation participants; its decision is subject to review and appeal by DETF under sec. 40.06(1)(em), Stats. [5] We conclude that the duty imposed on the County to determine the status of participating employees in the Wisconsin retirement system is part of the legislative plan to ensure the integrity of the public employe trust fund. [3] The legislature was aware that the treatment of protectives in early retirement and pension plans had led to actuarially unsound systems. See Report and Recommendations of the Joint Legislative Interim Committee on Pension and Retirement Plans, Senate Journal, Supplement, Sixty-Eighth Session at 6, 19-20, 66-67, 71, and 79 (1947). It was also aware that the requirement of limited tenure in protective occupations creates special retirement problems. Governor's Retirement Study Commission Final Report, January 15, 1959. In 1964, the Retirement Research Council (RRC) [4] noted that [o]ne of the most troublesome problem areas in the development of a sound retirement program for public employes in Wisconsin centers around the benefit program[s] for employes in what are commonly referred to as the protective occupations. RRC Staff Report No. 10 at 1 (1964). RRC noted that since coverage of protective occupation employees in 1948, the legislature had often been successfully petitioned to add additional employment categories within the special retirement benefit programs. Id. at 1-2. RRC stated: The requests of additional groups for inclusion in such programs have multiplied in recent years, posing a serious problem for the legislature in attempting to maintain some semblance of order and equity in the development of the retirement and other related benefit programs. Id. at 2. In 1967, the legislature lowered the normal retirement age and years-of-service requirement for protective occupation participants in the Wisconsin retirement fund. Chapter 355, Laws of 1967. Protective occupation participant was redefined in section 2 of the law. The Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems (JSCRS) [5] recommended this legislation as in the best public interest. Appendix to 1967 S.B. 415, Report by Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems, at 94. The JSCRS report to the legislature incorporated a portion of RRC's study of the retirement age and years-of-service pattern for protective occupation employees in the retirement systems of other states. RRC concluded that [a]n individual whose principal duties do not consist of 51% or more of his work time being devoted to active law enforcement or active fire suppression would not be eligible for protective occupation membership. Id. at 93. RRC stated that [i]t is assumed that an individual's duties, under the protective occupation philosophy, would subject him to periods of great mental and physical stress as well as possible personal injury or perhaps even death, and that [t]hese employes must be able to undergo great mental and physical strain on occasion. Id. at 93-94. It is evident that RRC and JSCRS considered that the status of protective occupation participant would be limited to a narrow class of employees meeting stringent standards. Those standards remain unchanged in sec. 40.02(48)(a), Stats. What has changed is the degree of state control over the determination by the municipal employer that an employee is a protective occupation participant. [6] In the 1989 executive budget bill, 1989 S.B. 31, sec. 815e, the governor recommended amendments to sec. 40.02(48), Stats., which would have required DETF to approve or deny each classification of a participant as a protective occupation participant based upon DETF's determination whether the employee's occupation met the statutory requirements. 1989 S.B. 31 (analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau at 384-85). However, upon recommendation of JSCRS, these amendments were deleted from the budget bill. JSCRS recommended greater study and development. 1989 S.B. 31, Appendix at 379. In place of these provisions, sec. 40.06(1)(em), Stats., was created in the budget act to make review by DETF discretionary as to protective occupation participants who are not state employees. Memorandum from Blair Testin, RRC/JSCRS Director of Retirement Research, to Senator Bob Jauch and Rep. Rick Grobschmidt, co-chairmen of RRC/JSCRS (June 19, 1989). Section 40.06(1)(em) provides in part: The department may review any determination by a participating employer to classify an employe who is not a state employe as a protective occupation participant and may appeal the determination to the board by filing a written notice of appeal with the board. [7] The budget bill retained sec. 40.06(1)(dm), Stats., which requires that the Department of Employment Relations approve each determination by a department head classifying a state employee as a protective occupation participant. The June 19, 1989 RRC/JSCRS Director's memo states: These amendments together appear to tighten the procedures governing protective designation, and these may be desirable . . . . Memorandum from Blair Testin, RRC/JSCRS Director of Retirement Research, to Senator Bob Jauch and Rep. Rick Grobschmidt, co-chairmen of RRC/JSCRS (June 19, 1989). The greater study and development recommended by JSCRS includes study of the appropriate classification of county jailers. Because of questions received by DETF regarding the retirement employment category of jailers, DETF surveyed the counties in 1985, asking for information as to their jailers. Memorandum from Blair Testin, RRC/JSCRS Director of Retirement Research, to Members of the Ad Hoc Committee on 40.65 [8] Benefits (May 14, 1986) (concerning local jailer classification). The survey revealed that thirty-four counties classified jailers as protective occupation participants, while twenty-nine classified them as general employees. Id. The memorandum stated: The DETF Board has reviewed appeals from jailers who are classified as general employees, and the [DETF] has deemed that they do not meet the requirement[s] for protective designation under present statutes. The DETF Board felt that the legislature should investigate their arguments further, and consider whether statutory changes were appropriate. Id. (emphasis in original). The memorandum further stated: If the legislature mandated all jailers to be classified as protectives, such action would ignore the local differences in job requirements. Id. In the memorandum, the Director of Retirement Research outlined alternatives that the Ad Hoc Committee could consider: do nothing; amend the definition of protective occupation participants to include jailers; expand the eligibility definition for benefits under sec. 40.65, Stats., to include any positions designated by the employer by unilateral action or collective bargaining; or amend the law to permit the employer to designate positions to be covered under the protective program even if they were not law enforcement or fire prevention service, if the positions otherwise would meet the requirements of frequent exposure to danger or peril and a requirement for high physical conditioning. Id. at 2. The Director of Retirement Research stated that the latter approach would allow employers to bargain on the protective designation. Id. The Ad Hoc Committee considered the RRC staff memo at its meeting of May 14, 1986. Minutes, May 14, 1986 meeting of 40.65 Ad Hoc Committee of the Retirement Research Committee (RRC files). According to a June 29, 1988 memorandum by the RRC/JSCRS Director of Retirement Research to RRC members, the Ad Hoc Committee determined that there was no need to mandate all local jailers as protectives. The memorandum stated: The Committee noted that the existing employer designation process allows county employers to recognize the existing differences in duties and job descriptions from county to county. Memorandum from Blair Testin, RRC/JSCRS Director of Retirement Research, to RRC/JSCRS Members (June 29, 1988). WERC notes that 1989 S.B. 352 specifically would have added county jailers to the list of employees deemed to be protective occupation participants, but the bill failed to pass. See 1989 S.B. 352, amending sec. 40.02(48)(am) and (c), Stats. WERC suggests that the failure of the bill may demonstrate that jailers are not deemed protective occupation participants presently unless they are specifically determined to be such by their employer. WERC also suggests, however, that the bill may have been intended simply to clarify that jailers already are protective occupation participants. It concedes that this interpretation is contradicted by the fact that the legislation would have conferred protective occupation participant status on jailers prospectively only. In the 1991-92 legislative session a renewed effort was made to include county jailers in the positions listed in sec. 40.02(48)(am) and (c), Stats. Assembly bill 1991 A.B. 482 was virtually identical to 1989 S.B. 352. It was considered by JSCRS at a public hearing on February 20, 1992. The minutes of the JSCRS meeting show that the bill was supported by the La Crosse County Sheriffs Department and Deputy Sheriffs Association, the Wisconsin County Police Association, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, the Wisconsin Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The bill was opposed by the Wisconsin Counties Association. Minutes, February 20, 1992 meeting of the JSCRS (RRC files). The bill failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution #1. Assembly Journal, April 7, 1992. [6] It is the general rule that the failure of the legislature to enact a bill is not evidence of legislative intent. State ex rel. Fitas v. Milwaukee County, 65 Wis. 2d 130, 135, 221 N.W.2d 902, 905 (1974). The nonpassage of a bill may be explainable for a number of reasons unrelated to the merits of the legislation. Id. We conclude, however, that the failure of the legislature to enact 1989 S.B. 352 or 1991 A.B. 482 is evidence of an understanding by the legislature and the proponents of the legislation that legislative action is necessary to permit counties to designate jailers as protective occupation participants without determining that they satisfy the requirements of sec. 40.02(48)(a), Stats. Public employee retirement systems are unique in that legislative adjunct agencies oversee the systems and suggest and pass on legislation affecting the systems. The RRC provid[es] a continuous review and study of the retirement benefits afforded by the state and . . . allocate[s] adequate study to the complexities of modern retirement programs. Section 13.51(1), Stats. No bill modifying a retirement system for public officers or employees may be acted upon by the legislature until it has been referred to JSCRS and the committee has submitted to the legislature a report as to the desirability of such proposal as a matter of public policy. Section 13.50(6)(a), Stats. [7] Here, RRC outlined to the Ad Hoc Committee on 40.65 Benefits alternative courses of legislative action. The Ad Hoc Committee determined that there was no need to mandate local jailers as protective occupation participants. The JSCRS did not recommend legislation which would have included county jailers in the enumeration of protective occupation participant[s] under sec. 40.02(48)(am) and (c), Stats. We conclude that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the failure of the legislature to include county jailers in the enumeration of protective occupation participants demonstrates that the legislature considers that county jailers are not protective occupation participants unless so determined by the county employer under sec. 40.02(48)(a), Stats. Without enabling legislation, the county employer may not submit that determination to the collective bargaining process.
We are also persuaded to our conclusion that the determination by the County of the status of jailers is not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining by comparing the provisions of MERA and the State Employment Labor Relations Act (SELRA). Under SELRA, a collective bargaining agreement between a state agency and its employees supersedes conflicting statutory provisions as to wages, hours, fringe benefits, and conditions of employment. [9] MERA does not contain a comparable provision. In Glendale Professional Policemen's Ass'n, the court noted that determining the scope of the municipal employer's duty to bargain under sec. 111.70, Stats., is particularly difficult because the statute does not contain a legislative resolution of statutory conflicts as does SELRA. 83 Wis. 2d at 106, 264 N.W.2d at 602. The failure of the legislature to include in MERA a provision giving collective bargaining agreements precedence over conflicting statutes evidences an intent that such priority does not exist.
We are further persuaded to our conclusion by the fact that when the legislature has wished to permit the employer to classify an employee as a protective occupation participant without requiring that the employer determine that the principal duties of the participant involve active law enforcement or active fire suppression or prevention, it has done so by specific legislation. Section 40.02(48)(bm), Stats., was created by 1989 Wis. Act 357, which permits a participating employer to classify an emergency medical technician (EMT) as a protective occupation participant, notwithstanding sec. 40.02(48)(a), Stats. Further, a determination by the employer under sec. 40.02(48)(bm) may not be reviewed by DETF or appealed to ETFB, unless it involves the classification of a state employee. In the May 14, 1986 memorandum the RRC/JSCRS Director of Retirement Research advised the Committee that one alternative as to local jailers was to amend the Wisconsin retirement system law and sec. 40.65, Stats., to permit the employer to designate positions as protective even if the employees were not involved in law enforcement or fire prevention. The memorandum stated that [t]his approach would allow employers to bargain on the protective designation, and to recognize the job requirements for the position and also the costs involved in the protective program. The legislature adopted that approach as to EMT's but has rejected that approach as to county jailers. It is evident that the classification of local jailers is highly controversial. It is also evident that the legislature and the proponents of protective occupation participant status for local jailers consider legislative action to be required before their status may become a mandatory subject of bargaining.
An employee who believes that he or she has been improperly classified as a general employee is not without remedy. The employee may appeal that determination to DETF and ETFB. Section 40.06(1)(e), Stats. [10] A decision of ETFB is reviewable by certiorari pursuant to sec. 40.08(12), Stats. [11, 12] Where a statute sets forth a procedure for review of an administrative decision, such remedy is exclusive, unless the remedy is inadequate. Nodell Inv. Corp. v. Glendale, 78 Wis. 2d 416, 422, 254 N.W.2d 310, 314 (1977). This requirement is sometimes termed the exhaustion of remedies doctrine and sometimes the primary jurisdiction doctrine. Here, the exhaustion of remedies doctrine applies rather than the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the administrative process began when the County addressed the classification of its jailers under sec. 40.02(48)(a), Stats. See Nodell, 78 Wis. 2d at 427 n.13, 254 N.W.2d at 316 n.13 (if administrative procedure has begun, the primary jurisdiction rule does not apply). [13] The premise of the exhaustion rule is that the administrative remedy: (1) is available to the party on his or her initiative, (2) is relatively rapid, and (3) will protect the party's claim of right. Nodell, 78 Wis. 2d at 424, 254 N.W.2d at 315. WPPA has not shown that the appeal procedure under sec. 40.06(1)(e), Stats., is inadequate in these or other respects. [14, 15] The exhaustion rule is a doctrine of judicial restraint which the legislature and the courts have evolved in drawing the boundary line between administrative and judicial spheres of activity. Castelaz v. Milwaukee, 94 Wis. 2d 513, 532, 289 N.W.2d 259, 268 (1980) (quoting Nodell, 78 Wis. 2d at 424, 254 N.W.2d at 315). However, the principle which underpins the doctrine supports equally the proposition that collective bargaining should not supplant the administrative remedy provided by sec. 40.06(1)(e), Stats. The exhaustion doctrine is premised on the notions that the expertise that comes with experience, and the fact-finding facility that comes with flexible procedures, enables the administrative agency to perform a valuable public function. Wisconsin Collectors Ass'n v. Thorp Finance Corp., 32 Wis. 2d 36, 44, 145 N.W.2d 33, 36 (1966). While Wisconsin Collectors discussed the primary jurisdiction rule, we noted in Village of Thiensville v. DNR, 130 Wis. 2d 276, 282 n.2, 386 N.W.2d 519, 522 n.2 (Ct. App. 1986), that the doctrines of exhaustion of remedies and primary jurisdiction have developed into complementary parts of a general principle. [16] In Village of Thiensville, we extended the exhaustion doctrine to competing administrative agencies. We stated that the spirit of the doctrine is served by allowing the agency with the expertise and experience to retain the right of first review. Village of Thiensville, 130 Wis. 2d at 282, 386 N.W.2d at 522. We conclude that the goals of the exhaustion/primary jurisdiction principleagency expertise and fact-finding facilityare best served by requiring that an employee who wishes to contest the employer's failure or refusal to classify the employee as a protective occupation participant appeal that determination to DETF and ETFB. It violates these goals to substitute for the administrative and judicial processes the collective bargaining process, where the decision as to whether a participating employee shall be classified as a protective occupation participant may be made by an arbitrator lacking the expertise and experience of DETF or ETFB.