MT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASS N v DEPT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 84-406 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 IN THE MATTER OF THE UNIT CLARIFICATION NO. 6-80, MONTANA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner and Appellant, DEPARTMENT OF ADMILIISTRATION, LABOR RELATIONS BUREAU; and THE BOARD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS, Respondents and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Honorable Henry Loble, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Hjort, Lopach Montana & Tippy; Barry L. Hjort, Helena, For Respondent : Jayne Mitchell, Dept. of Administration, Helena, Montana James Gardner, Board of Personnel Appeals, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: 4 ~ i ;5 - 1985 May 3, 1985 August 5 , 1985 Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by the Montana Public Employees Association (MPEA), appellant, from an adverse decision by the Board of Personnel Appeals (BPA), respondent, and the decision of the District Court affirming the order of the BPA, that excluded certain employees from a labor bargaining unit. We affirm. Two issues are presented on appeal. They are: (1) Whether the District Court erred in affirming the agency decision that a change of exclusive representatives nullified the applicability of the grandfather clause provided for in S 39-31-109, MCA; and (2) Whether the District Court erred in denying the appel.lantls application to present additional evidence. Prior to November 1979, the employees at Montana State Prison were American represented in collective bargaining by Federation Employees, AFL-CIO. replaced by the of State, County, and the Municipal This representative was decertified and MPEA in November 1979. After the representative of the employees changed, the Labor Relations Bureau of the Montana Department of Administration filed a petition for unit clarification of the labor bargaining unit before the BPA. The petition sought a determination that certain classes of employment positions at Montana State Prison were "supervisory employees" and therefore should be excluded from the labor bargaining unit. A hearing examiner of the BPA determined that positions titled "correctional lieutenants" were llsupervisory.'f The appellant filed exceptions t o this determination and the . matter was then appealed to the BPA. The appellant argued before the board that a grandfather clause, S 39-31-109, MCA, contained in Bargaining the Act, Montana Public 39-31-101 ยง$ Employees through Collective 39-31-409, MCA, preserved the existing bargaining unit and precluded unit clarification. examiner. This argument was not made before the hearing After hearing and considering the matter the Board ruled that the change of representatives for the bargaining unit removed the existing unit from the application of the grandfather clause. was then adopted The hearing examiner's proposed order as the final order. The MPEA then petitioned for judicial review. Before stayed and judicial the review began, the review was held agency order was in abeyance pending the outcome of City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters Local No. 521 (Mont. 1982), 651 P.2d 627, 39 St.Rep. 1844. That case involved the grandfather clause as it pertained to bargaining units and bargaining agreements in existence in 1973, the effective date of the Act. was decided judicial review After City - Billings of commenced. The appellant petitioned for leave to present additional evidence based on of City - Billings. The District Court denied the reauest ruling that no good cause had been shown and affirmed the agency final order. that a change of It ruled that the Board's interpretation representative results grandfather status was rational discretion. and not in an a loss of abuse of This appeal followed. Issue no. 1 concerns the propriety of the decision of the BPA that a change of representative nullifies appl-ication of the grandfather clause. In 1973, the Montana legislature enacted a employees. 39-31-409, law governing collective bargaining This law is contained in SS 39-31-101 through MCA, Bargaining Act. here. for public the Montana Public Employees Collective Several provisions of this Act are relevant First, the policy of the Act: "39-31-101. Policy. In order to promote public business by removing certain recognized sources of strife and unrest, it is the policy of the State of Montana to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining to arrive at friendly adjustment of all disputes between public employers and their employees." Next, pursuant to national labor policy, as set forth in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. S 151, et seq, (19761, the Montana Act specifically excludes supervisory and management employees employee. " Section 39-31-103 (2)(b)(iii), MCA. employees are allowed 39-31-201, MCA. from the to bargain definition of "public Only public col.lectively. Section Supervisory and mana.gement employees were effectively denied membership in collective bargaining units. See, City of Billings v. Billings Firefighters Local No. 521 (Mont. 1982), 651 P.2d 627, 629, 39 St.Rep. 1844, 1845. The last provision applicable here is the grandfather clause: "39-31-109. Existing collective bargaining agreements not affected. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to remove recognition of established collective bargaining agreements already recognized or in existence prior to July 1, 1973." The Board of Personnel Appeals held that this statutory provision does not apply when there has been "such a change of exclusive representatives in a grandfathered agreement and bargaining unit. " "Such a change" meaning election and certification of a new exclusive representative. The Board of Personnel Appeals argues that a change of exclusive representation nullifies the applicability of the grandfather clause as to preserving the unit. The Board argues that the term "recognized," in its technical la.bor vernacular, applies only to representatives and it therefore follows that, because units are not "recognized," the legislature did not intend to preserve units by enacting the grandfather clause. rational. is a This interpretation of the law is The word "recognized" as used in S 39-31-109, MCA, term of art representative. used in labor as The BPA decision also referring to a is in line with relevant portions of the acts set forth above which, in effort to remove causes of strife and unrest, supervisory employees from bargaining units. the District Court did not err exclude We hold that in affirming the agency decision. Issue no. 2 need not be considered or decided here because the resolution of issue no. 1 negates the need for Citl of additional evidence based on - - Billings to be received in this case. The District Court is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
