Overload pay is back on the table

By Jay Hammond, staff counsel

In October, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a decision impacting teacher negotiations as well as all public sector bargaining in Iowa. It was a victory won by the Waterloo Education Association through the Office of Advocacy Services of the ISEA.

But first, a bit of background. Iowa's collective bargaining law, also known as Chapter 20, outlines a laundry list of topics which are "mandatory" subjects of bargaining and must be discussed if one side so desires. Other topics not on the list are deemed "permissive" which means the employer can refuse to even discuss them.

This was a critical case because the court, in a prior decision issued in 2002 (also involving the Waterloo Education Association, Waterloo I ), had held an "overload" proposal to be a permissive subject of bargaining because the proposal "adversely affected" management rights under Section 20.7 of the Iowa Code. If left unchallenged, the decision of 2002 could have immeasurably damaged public sector bargaining in Iowa because virtually every bargaining proposal, even a simple wage proposal, "adversely affects" a management right.

The Waterloo Education Association filed a second negotiability dispute at the Public Employment Relations Board in 2003 (Waterloo II ) asking that a revised overload proposal be held mandatory. The proposal basically required additional pay if a teacher taught more than five periods - or 300 minutes - in a day. The Board ruled the proposal permissive on the basis of the court's decision in Waterloo I, and the case again reached the Iowa Supreme Court.

The Association urged the court to reexamine its opinion in Waterloo I . Specifically, the Association urged the court to reject the "adverse affect on a management right" test for determining whether a proposal was mandatory or permissive, and return to its prior test of determining "on the face "of the proposal whether it fell within one of the mandatory subjects of bargaining. Additionally, the Association asked the court to hold the revised overload proposal before the court mandatory.

The court held for the Association on both issues. It specifically rejected the "infringement" test of Waterloo I and returned the procedure of deciding whether a proposal is mandatory by simply determining if the proposal falls within section 20.9 of the Iowa Code. It then went on to examine the proposal in Waterloo II , in light of this test, and found the proposal mandatory.

So the ability to bargain overload is back. However, there are still overload proposals that could be held permissive if not properly constructed. Therefore, if you intend to put an overload proposal on the bargaining table, it should first be reviewed by your UniServ director.