Prof'l Fire Fighters of E. Mo. v. City of Rich. Heights

680 S.W.3d 134

PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF EASTERN MISSOURI, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2665, Appellant,

v.CITY OF RICHMOND HEIGHTS, Respondent.

WD 86174

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Opinion filed: November 28, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI, THE HONORABLE S. COTTON WALKER, JUDGE

Megan Hoffman, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Brian C. Hey, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.

Division One: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge and Janet Sutton, Judge

EDWARD R. ARDINI, JR., JUDGE

Professional Fire Fighters of Eastern Missouri, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665 (the "Local") appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County, affirming a decision of the State Board of Mediation (the "Board"). The Lo- cal filed a Petition for Certification of Representation with the Board, seeking to create a bargaining unit consisting of fire captains employed by the City of Richmond Heights (the "City") and to be certified as that unit’s bargaining representative. The City filed a motion to dismiss the Local’s petition. The Board granted the City’s motion and dismissed the petition pursuant to the "contract bar rule." The Local sought judicial review of the Board’s dismissal of its Petition for Certification of Representation in the Circuit Court of Cole County (the "trial court"). The trial court affirmed the decision of the Board. We find the Board’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable, and thus we reverse the trial court’s judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

There exists between the Local and the City a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing that the Local is the exclusive bargaining representative of all full-time employees of the City’s fire department, excluding "Captains, Battalion Chiefs, and Fire Chief." Beginning in September 2020, the Local and the City engaged in collective bargaining negotiations to modify the existing MOU, which resulted in the City rejecting several proposals by the Local to include captains in the bargaining unit. The Local then turned to the Board in its efforts.

"The State Board of Mediation is a quasi-judicial board created by section 295.030 to oversee labor disputes arising between parties subject to Chapter 295 (which generally relates to ‘labor relations affecting public utilities’)." St. Louis Police Officer’s Ass’n v. St. Louis Cty., 670 S.W.3d 86, 88 n.1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). "Several other Missouri statutes have ‘borrowed’ the Board for their purposes," including—as relevant to this appeal—section 105.525, which is part of Missouri’s public sector labor law. Id. Section 105.525 provides that "[i]ssues with respect to appropriateness of bargaining units and majority representative status shall be resolved by the state board of mediation."¹

[1–3] In October 2021, the Local filed a Petition for Unit Clarification with the Board, seeking to expand the certified bargaining unit of fire department employees to include captains. The Board dismissed the Local’s petition without prejudice pursuant to the "contract bar rule." The Board’s contract bar rule provides that "petitions to the State Board of Mediation are untimely if the bargaining unit subject to the petition is covered by an active labor agreement, unless the petition is filed no earlier than 90 days and not later than 61 days before the termination of the agreement." Prof’l Fire Fighters of E. Mo., IAFF Local 2655 v. City of Hazelwood, Public Case No. UC 2014-007, 2014 WL 12767422, at *3 (Mo. State Bd. of Mediation Dec. 23, 2014).² In dismissing the Lo- cal’s petition, the Board explained that "a valid agreement exists between [the City’s] Fire Department and [the Local]," "[t]he term of the agreement is for a year period which is in effect until April 21, 2022," and that "being the case, the agreement acts as a bar to any election until the ‘open window’ period which is January 22, 2022 to February 20, 2022."

On January 17, 2022, the Local again filed a Petition for Unit Clarification with the Board, seeking to expand the certified bargaining unit to include captains. The Board again dismissed the petition without prejudice pursuant to the contract bar rule, as the "open window" period did not begin until January 22nd.

On February 11, 2022—within the "open window" period—the Local re-filed its Petition for Unit Clarification. This time the Board dismissed the petition with prejudice on the grounds that the petition violated the "Wallace-Murray Rule, which prohibits adding previously excluded employees to the unit without an election."³

Counsel for the Local e-mailed the chairman of the Board, asking what type of petition the Local should file to request an election to include captains in the existing bargaining unit:

The Board’s website only lists four types of Petitions which may be filed, and none of those Petitions appear to fit squarely into the current situation. The closest arguably applicable Petition would be the Petition for Certification of Representation. Before our office files this Petition, we wanted to seek confirmation from you that this is the Petition the Board is asking to be filed in order for an election to be conducted to include Captain’s [sic] in the existing bargaining unit. If this is not the proper Petition, please advise.

The chairman responded, "You are correct; a Petition of Certification of Representation is proper. Should the election be successful, we could then merge the two units with a Unit Clarification Petition."

On March 10, 2022, the Local filed a Petition for Certification of Representation with the Board, "requesting an appropriate unit consisting of Fire Captains." Attached to the petition was the required "showing of interest"—a form that listed the names of three fire captains and stated that these captains "desire[d] to have the [Local] as their exclusive bargaining representative."⁴ The City submitted an objec- tion letter to the Local’s petition.⁵

The Board conducted a telephone conference with the parties, during which the chairman of the Board requested the parties file briefing. Counsel for the Local sent correspondence to the chairman seeking clarification as to what issues the chairman wanted briefed. The chairman responded that, "the City indicated that the Captains are members of management. The Board will look at the seven factors that the City mentioned in their objection letter, organizational structure, job descriptions, etc., to reach a decision."

[4, 5] As context to the chairman’s response, managerial employees are not deemed "employees" within the purview of section 105.510, which provides that "[e]mployees … of any public body shall have the right to form and join labor organizations and to present proposals to any public body relative to salaries and other conditions of employment through the representative of their own choosing." See Baer v. Civilian Pers. Div., St. Louis Police Officers Ass’n, 747 S.W.2d 159, 163 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988) ("the legislature did not intend for all persons on the public payroll to be considered employees for bargaining purposes," and "[t]he Board consistently takes the position that the definition of ‘employee’ in § 105.510 excludes both ‘managerial’ and ‘confidential’ employees"); see also Mo. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n v. Mo. State Bd. of Mediation, 695 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Mo. banc 1985) ("In the course of labor relations, someone must act on behalf of the public employer and it is the responsibility of the Board to exclude from an otherwise appropriate bargaining unit those employees, if any, whose duties involve acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer in relation to other employees." (internal marks omitted)). Managers "are generally defined as those employees who formulate, determine or effectuate policies on behalf of their employer." Cent. Cty. Emergency 911 v. Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters Local 2655, 967 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). The Board considers seven factors when determining whether employees are managerial. See id.

Consistent with the chairman’s request, the Local filed a brief in support of its petition. The Local asserted that the issue of "whether or not Captains are members of management" was "not ripe for consideration by the Board since its present Petition seeks only an election for Captains to determine their exclusive bargaining representative." The Local also argued that, even if the issue was ripe for consideration, captains were not members of management under the seven factors considered by the Board in determining managerial status.

Rather than brief the issue requested by the Board, the City filed a motion to dismiss the Local’s petition as untimely pursuant to the contract bar rule. The City asserted that "a valid MOU [was] in effect" and was "not set to expire," therefore the Board should dismiss the Local’s petition.

The Board agreed with the City, and on May 3, 2022, the Board dismissed the Local’s petition with prejudice pursuant to the contract bar rule, finding that "a valid agreement existed] between the City of Richmond Heights Fire Department and the IAFF Local 2655" and that agreement was "active and will remain active until April 21, 2023." The Board stated that although its "previous dismissal indicated that the MOU was in effect until April 21, 2022[,] … that was assuming the union would adhere to the terms of the MOU and submit a written request to the employer to modify the MOU. Because the union did not do that, the current contract is in effect until April 21, 2023."⁶

On May 17, 2022, the Local appealed to the trial court. See § 105.525 ("In the event that the appropriate administrative body or any of the bargaining units shall be aggrieved by the decision of the state board of mediation, an appeal may be had to the circuit court of the county where the administrative body is located or in the circuit court of Cole County."). The Local...