Iowa State Education Association and Davenport Education Association v. State of Iowa, Iowa Public Employment Relations Board

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 17–1834
Filed May 17, 2019
IOWA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
and DAVENPORT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Appellants,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD,
MIKE CORMACK, JAMIE VAN FOSSEN, and MARY GANNON,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D.
Huppert, Judge.
Unions representing public school employees appeal summary
judgment dismissing their constitutional challenges to 2017
amendments to the Public Employment Relations Act. AFFIRMED.
Alice O’Brien and Lubna A. Alam of the National Education
Association, Washington, D.C.; Becky S. Knutson of Davis, Brown,
Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C., Des Moines; and Jeremiah A. Collins of
Bredhoff & Kaiser P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Matthew C. McDermott, Michael R. Reck, Kelsey J. Knowles, and
Espnola F. Cartmill of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
Jay M. Smith of Smith & McElwain Law Office, Sioux City, for
amici curiae Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO; Communications
2
Workers of America; and International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 234.
Adam D. Zenor of Grefe & Sidney, P.L.C., Des Moines, and
Frank D. Garrison of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation,
Springfield, Virginia, for amicus curiae Kevin Rohne.
3
WATERMAN, Justice.
This appeal, submitted with AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State, ___
N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2019), also filed today, presents constitutional
challenges to the 2017 amendments to Iowa Code chapter 20, the Public
Employment Relations Act (PERA). The amendments ended payroll
deductions for union dues and narrowed the scope of mandatory
collective bargaining topics for bargaining units comprised of less than
thirty percent “public safety employees,” defined to include most police
officers and firefighters but not prison guards, campus police officers,
and emergency medical technicians. The new classifications result in
many public employees losing significant statutory bargaining rights
compared to other public employees with arguably similar jobs. Two
unions representing public school employees filed this action seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief against the State of Iowa, the Iowa
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), and three PERB board
members. The plaintiffs allege the 2017 amendments violate the equal
protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The district court granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the action, and we
retained the plaintiffs’ appeal.
Our role is to decide whether constitutional lines were crossed, not
to sit as a superlegislature rethinking policy choices of the elected
branches. We conclude the 2017 amendments withstand the
constitutional challenges. The parties agree the equal protection claims
are reviewed under the deferential rational basis test. As more fully
explained in AFSCME Iowa Council 61, the legislature could reasonably
conclude that the goal of keeping labor peace with unions comprised of
at least thirty percent public safety employees, and the greater risks
faced by police and firefighters, justified the classification. We hold the
4
legislative classifications are not so overinclusive or underinclusive as to
be unconstitutional under our court’s rational basis test. For the
reasons explained below, we also reject the plaintiffs’ equal protection
challenge to the prohibition on payroll deductions for union dues.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment in favor of
the defendants.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In this case, we consider another challenge to House File 291
amending PERA, Iowa’s collective bargaining statute, Iowa Code chapter
20. We discuss chapter 20 and House File 291’s 2017 amendments in
AFSCME Iowa Council 61, ___ N.W.2d at ___, and do not repeat that
discussion here.
The plaintiffs in this case, the Iowa State Education Association
(ISEA) and the Davenport Education Association (DEA), are unions
representing public school employees. The ISEA represents more than
30,000 members throughout the state, most of whom are public school
teachers. The ISEA has 400 local associations that negotiate collective
bargaining agreements with school districts in Iowa. The DEA represents
the professional staff working for the Davenport Community School
District. PERB has certified the DEA as the exclusive bargaining agent to
represent those employees. The employees represented by the ISEA and
the DEA are not “public safety employees” as defined in the 2017
amendments.
In April 2017, the ISEA and the DEA filed this civil action for
declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging House File 291 violated article
I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution by denying equal treatment to the
5
unions and the employees they represent.1 The defendants, the State of
Iowa; PERB; PERB’s chairperson, Mike Cormack; and PERB board
members Jamie Van Fossen and Mary Gannon, filed an answer and
affirmative defenses. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment.
The district court concluded that House File 291 passed rational
basis scrutiny without violating article I, section 6 of the Iowa
Constitution and, therefore, granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendants. As to the differentiation between public safety employees
and all other public employees, the district court concluded that the
legislature gave public safety employees greater bargaining rights
because of the potential risk to public safety if these employees went on
strike and because, if other public employees went on strike, it would fall
on public safety employees to enforce the law in the ensuing labor
unrest. Because the district court relied on the strike-avoidance
rationale, the court did not consider the State’s other proffered rationale
that the differentiation was also rationally based on the unique safety
issues public safety employees face requiring expansive bargaining rights
on topics like health insurance. As to payroll deductions, the district
court accepted the fiscal responsibility goal advanced by the State,
reasoning that the legislature could conclude “that collective bargaining
is expensive, disruptive and not in the best interest of citizens” and there
was no constitutional requirement to continue payroll deductions for
union dues merely because payroll deductions for other organizations
were permitted.
1The ISEA and the DEA also raised a due process challenge to House File 291’s
amendments to the bargaining representative certification and retention process, but
they have chosen not to pursue this challenge on appeal.
6
The ISEA and the DEA appealed, and we retained their appeal.
II. Scope of Review.
“We review summary judgment rulings for correction of errors at
law.” Baker v. City of Iowa City, 867 N.W.2d 44, 51 (Iowa 2015). “We
view the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
making every legitimate inference that the evidence in the record will
support in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bass v. J.C. Penney Co., 880
N.W.2d 751, 755 (Iowa 2016).
We review constitutional claims de novo. State v. Groves, 742
N.W.2d 90, 92 (Iowa 2007). Our standard of review with regard to
constitutional challenges to statutes is well established,
We review constitutional challenges to a statute de novo. In
doing so, we must remember that statutes are cloaked with a
presumption of constitutionality. The challenger bears a
heavy burden, because it must prove the unconstitutionality
beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, “the challenger must
refute every reasonable basis upon which the statute could
be found to be constitutional.” Furthermore, if the statute is
capable of being construed in more than one manner, one of
which is constitutional, we must adopt that construction.
State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655, 661 (Iowa 2005) (quoting State v.
Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 233 (Iowa 2002)), superseded by
statute on other grounds, 2009 Iowa Acts ch. 119, § 3 (codified at Iowa
Code § 692A.103 (Supp. 2009)), as recognized in In re T.H., 913 N.W.2d
578, 588 (Iowa 2018).
III. Analysis.
The ISEA and the DEA make two constitutional challenges to
House File 291. First, the plaintiffs argue that House File 291’s two-
class scheme of collective bargaining violates article I, section 6 of the
Iowa Constitution. We address and reject this argument in the
companion case filed today. AFSCME Iowa Council 61, ___ N.W.2d at ___.
7
In AFSCME, we concluded that the two-class bargaining scheme
withstood rational basis scrutiny. Id. We reach the same conclusion in
this case, without repeating that analysis. See id. We now address the
plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge to the payroll deduction prohibition.
House File 291 prohibits public employers from administering
payroll deductions for union dues and prohibits collective bargaining
over payroll deductions for union dues. 2017 Iowa Acts ch. 2, §§ 6, 22
(codified at Iowa Code § 20.9 and § 70A.19 (2018)). The plaintiffs argue
these prohibitions violate article I, section 6, the equal protection clause
of the Iowa Constitution, which provides, “All laws of a general nature
shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to
any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the
same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Iowa Const. art. I,
§ 6.
Iowa’s equal protection clause “is essentially a direction that all
persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Varnum v. Brien, 763
N.W.2d 862, 878–79 (Iowa 2009) (quoting Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa v.
Fitzgerald (RACI), 675 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2004)).
The plaintiffs concede that the elimination of payroll deductions for
union dues does not infringe on their First Amendment rights. See, e.g.,
Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353, 359, 129 S. Ct. 1093,
1098 (2009) (“While publicly administered payroll deductions for political
purposes can enhance the unions’ exercise of First Amendment rights,
Idaho is under no obligation to aid the unions in their political activities.
And the State’s decision not to do so is not an abridgment of the unions’
speech; they are free to engage in such speech as they see fit. They
simply are barred from enlisting the State in support of that endeavor.”);
In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298, 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting every
8
federal circuit to address the issue has rejected First Amendment
challenges to “legislation eliminating state-sponsored collection of union
dues through payroll deductions”). The plaintiffs’ challenge to the payroll
deduction prohibition does not implicate a fundamental right, and
therefore, we apply a rational basis review.
“The rational basis test is a ‘very deferential standard.’ ” NextEra
Energy Res. LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30, 46 (Iowa 2012)
(quoting Varnum, 763 N.W.2d at 879–80). Plaintiffs bear “the heavy
burden of showing the statute unconstitutional and must negate every
reasonable basis upon which the classification may be sustained.” Id.
(quoting Bierkamp v. Rogers, 293 N.W.2d 577, 579 (Iowa 1980)). As we
recently reiterated in unanimously rejecting a federal equal protection
challenge, courts have only a limited role in rational basis review.
We many times have said, and but weeks ago
repeated, that rational-basis review in equal protection
analysis “is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom,
fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” Nor does it authorize
“the judiciary [to] sit as a superlegislature to judge the
wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations
made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor
proceed along suspect lines.” For these reasons, a
classification neither involving fundamental rights nor
proceeding along suspect lines is accorded a strong
presumption of validity. Such a classification cannot run
afoul of the Equal Protection Clause if there is a rational
relationship between the disparity of treatment and some
legitimate governmental purpose. Further, a legislature that
creates these categories need not “actually articulate at any
time the purpose or rationale supporting its classification.”
Instead, a classification “must be upheld against equal
protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable
state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the
classification.”
A State, moreover, has no obligation to produce
evidence to sustain the rationality of a statutory
classification. “[A] legislative choice is not subject to
courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational
speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.” A
statute is presumed constitutional and “[t]he burden is on
9
the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative
every conceivable basis which might support it,” whether or
not the basis has a foundation in the record. Finally, courts
are compelled under rational-basis review to accept a
legislature’s generalizations even when there is an imperfect
fit between means and ends. A classification does not fail
rational-basis review because it “is not made with
mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some
inequality.” “The problems of government are practical ones
and may justify, if they do not require, rough
accommodations—illogical, it may be, and unscientific.”
Baker, 867 N.W.2d at 57 (alterations in original) (quoting Heller v. Doe ex
rel. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319–21, 113 S. Ct. 2637, 2642–43 (1993)).
Our role is similarly limited under the Iowa Constitution. See
Qwest Corp. v. Iowa State Bd. of Tax Review, 829 N.W.2d 550, 560 (Iowa
2013) (“[In RACI,] we made clear that actual proof of an asserted
justification was not necessary, but the court would not simply accept it
at face value and would examine it to determine whether it was credible
as opposed to specious.”); King v. State, 818 N.W.2d 1, 30 (Iowa 2012)
(“RACI has not been the death knell for traditional rational basis review.
Since RACI was decided, we have continued to uphold legislative
classifications based on judgments the legislature could have made,
without requiring evidence or ‘proof’ in either a traditional or
nontraditional sense.”).
We use a three-part rational basis analysis when reviewing
challenges to a statute under article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution.
“First, we must determine whether there was a valid, ‘realistically
conceivable’ purpose that served a legitimate government interest.”
Residential & Agric. Advisory Comm., LLC v. Dyersville City Council, 888
N.W.2d 24, 50 (Iowa 2016) (quoting McQuistion v. City of Clinton, 872
N.W.2d 817, 831 (Iowa 2015)). “Next, the court must evaluate whether
the ‘reason has a basis in fact.’ ” McQuistion, 872 N.W.2d at 831
 10
(quoting RACI, 675 N.W.2d at 7–8). Third, “we evaluate whether the
relationship between the classification and the purpose for the
classification ‘is so weak that the classification must be viewed as
arbitrary.’ ” Residential & Agric. Advisory Comm., LLC, 888 N.W.2d at 50
(quoting McQuistion, 872 N.W.2d at 831).
The plaintiffs argue that there is no realistically conceivable
purpose for prohibiting the payroll deduction for union dues while still
allowing payroll deductions for dues or contributions to other
organizations. The plaintiffs contend administering payroll deductions
imposes no burden on public employers who actually incur greater costs
removing the deductions from their payroll systems. For that reason, the
plaintiffs argue the payroll deduction prohibition cannot be supported on
the stated objective of fiscal responsibility. The plaintiffs argue that the
purpose of PERA supports allowing payroll deductions for union dues.
See Iowa Code § 20.1(1) (stating that the statute’s purpose is “to promote
harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its
employees by permitting public employees to organize and bargain
collectively”). According to the plaintiffs, the real reason for House File
291 is to starve unions of dues to curtail their ability to collectively
bargain for public employees, and without any other realistically
conceivable purpose, House File 291 cannot withstand rational basis
scrutiny.2
Amicus, AFL-CIO, argue that payroll deductions were often of little
consequence to employers and most employers readily agreed to these
provisions. Amicus argue that this is because joining a union is
voluntary, as was electing to have dues deducted from your paycheck,
2The record does not show whether the unions lost revenue or members as a
result of the prohibition on payroll deductions for union dues.
11
and employers were not required to pay an agency fee. Ultimately, the
system allowed the employee the ability to direct where his or her money
went. AFL-CIO argues that House File 291 is unconstitutional because it
continues to allow employees to direct their wages to nonunion entities
and activities while singling out unions, even if the employee has
authorized the payroll deduction for his or her union dues. The purpose
of the amendments, amicus argue, is to cripple the ability of employees
to choose union representatives to advocate on their behalf.
The plaintiffs concede, as they must, that the State is not
constitutionally required to provide payroll deductions at all. Rather, the
plaintiffs contend that once the State allows voluntary payroll deductions
for charitable contributions or dues for other professional organizations,
the equal protection clause requires the State to also allow payroll
deductions for union dues. Yet the plaintiffs and their amicus cite no
decisions holding it is unconstitutional to disallow voluntary payroll
deductions for union dues while allowing deductions for other
organizations. To the contrary, the United States Supreme Court and
other appellate courts have rejected equal protection challenges to
enactments or policies eliminating payroll deductions for union dues
while allowing payroll deductions for nonunion organizations. See
Ysursa, 555 U.S. at 359–60, 129 S. Ct. at 1098–99 (noting “the State is
not constitutionally obligated to provide payroll deductions” and holding
“Idaho’s decision to allow payroll deductions for some purposes but not
for [union] political activities is plainly reasonable”); City of Charlotte v.
Local 660, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, 426 U.S. 283, 288–89, 96 S. Ct.
2036, 2039–40 (1976) (rejecting equal protection challenge to city’s
refusal to deduct union dues while allowing United Way and other
payroll deductions); Bailey v. Callaghan, 715 F.3d 956, 960 (6th Cir.
12
2013) (rejecting first amendment and equal protection challenges to
Michigan statute prohibiting school payroll deductions for union dues);
S.C. Educ. Ass’n v. Campbell, 883 F.2d 1251, 1257, 1263–64 (4th Cir.
1989) (rejecting freedom of speech and equal protection challenges to
enactment prohibiting payroll deductions for union dues while allowing
payroll deductions for charities because the state has no “affirmative
obligation . . . to assist [the union] by providing payroll deduction
services”); Ark. State Highway Emps. Local 1315 v. Kell, 628 F.2d 1099,
1103–04 (8th Cir. 1980) (holding state department could allow automatic
payroll deductions for other organizations while denying deductions for
union dues); W. Cent. Mo. Reg’l Lodge No. 50 v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs,
916 S.W.2d 889, 892–93 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (rejecting equal protection
challenge to city’s policy allowing payroll deductions for United Way and
the Kansas City Police Credit Union but not union dues). These
decisions are persuasive authority for rejecting the plaintiffs’ equal
protection challenges under the Iowa Constitution.
The Iowa amendments eliminated payroll deductions for all public
employee union dues. By contrast, the Wisconsin legislature eliminated
payroll deductions for union dues for some public employees while
allowing public safety employees to continue using automatic payroll
deductions for their union dues. Unions challenged that classification as
irrational and based on improper motivations and political favoritism.
Wis. Educ. Ass’n Council v. Walker, 705 F.3d 640, 653 (7th Cir. 2013).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
squarely rejected political payback as a basis for an equal protection
challenge to the enactment ending union payroll deductions.
As unfortunate as it may be, political favoritism is a
frequent aspect of legislative action. We said as much in
Hearne v. Board of Education, 185 F.3d 770, 775 (7th Cir.
13
1999). There, members of the Chicago Teachers Union
challenged on various constitutional grounds, including the
Equal Protection Clause, an act of the Republican-dominated
legislature that severely curtailed Chicago teachers’ job
security relative to teachers in other parts of the state. Id. at
773. The unions argued, in part, that the Republican
legislature retaliated against them for opposing Republicans
in the previous election. Id. We candidly remarked, “there is
no rule whereby legislation that otherwise passes the proper
level of scrutiny . . . becomes constitutionally defective
because one of the reasons the legislators voted for it was to
punish those who opposed them during an election
campaign.” Id. at 775. We went further stating, “[i]ndeed
one might think that this is what election campaigns are all
about: candidates run a certain platform, political promises
made in the campaign are kept (sometimes), and the winners
get to write the laws.” Id. These sorts of decisions are left for
the next election. Accordingly, we must resist the
temptation to search for the legislature’s motivation for the
Act’s classifications.
Id. at 654 (alteration in original) (emphasis added). The Seventh Circuit
recognized it is not the court’s role to redraw the legislative classification
and held “the payroll dues prohibition survives rational basis review.” Id.
at 657.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reached the same conclusion.
Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker, 851 N.W.2d 337, 365 (Wis. 2014)
(holding the “payroll deduction prohibitions survive the plaintiffs’ equal
protection challenge under rational basis review”). The Iowa amendment
on payroll deductions presents an even smaller target for an equal
protection challenge because it treats all public employees alike. We join
the foregoing authorities in rejecting the plaintiffs’ equal protection
challenge to the payroll provision.
As the district court correctly concluded, “The fiscal interests of the
government are routinely accepted as a rational basis for legislative
activity that is viewed as a cost-saving measure for the public.” See
Adams v. Fort Madison Cmty. Sch. Dist., 182 N.W.2d 132, 141 (Iowa
1970) (“[T]he state has a compelling interest in seeing that [government]
14
units are maintained in healthy financial condition.”). The legislature
could rationally choose to stop helping unions collect dues through
payroll deductions. The Iowa Constitution does not require public
employers to collect dues for the very unions that sit across the
bargaining table negotiating at arms’ length for higher wages and costlier
employee benefits at taxpayer expense. The State argued that “collective
bargaining is expensive, disruptive, and not in the best interest of
citizens.” We agree with the district court “that the concerns of the
legislature regarding the cost of collective bargaining provide a rational
basis for making the classification concerning [the] payroll deduction.”
The district court noted the plaintiffs did not challenge the factual basis
for the legislature’s cost-saving premise, which the court accepted as a
matter of “common knowledge.”
We hold the payroll deduction prohibition survives Iowa’s rational
basis review. See McQuistion, 872 N.W.2d at 831. Public employees do
not have a constitutional right to payroll deductions for union dues.
There is no constitutional equal protection violation merely because
voluntary automatic payroll deductions continue for charities or
organizations that do not target the public fisc. Employees remain free
to retain their union membership and to pay their union dues directly.
House File 291 reflects lawful policy choices by the legislature.
The 2017 amendments did not infringe on a fundamental right of speech,
association, or equal protection that could justify judicial intervention.
The plaintiffs’ remedy lies in the elected branches or at the ballot box.
Walker, 705 F.3d at 654; see also In re Div. of Criminal Justice State
Investigators, 674 A.2d 199, 204 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996) (“The
solution, if there be one, from the viewpoint of the firemen, is that labor
unions may someday persuade state government of the asserted value of
15
collective bargaining agreements, but this is a political matter and does
not yield to judicial solution.” (quoting Atkins v. City of Charlotte, 296
F. Supp. 1068, 1077 (W.D.N.C. 1969))). Indeed, the Sixth Circuit,
upholding a Michigan statute prohibiting school districts from using
payroll deductions for union dues, aptly observed,
The applicability of rational-basis review is a strong
signal that the issue is one for resolution by the democratic
process rather than by the courts. This case is no exception.
Public Act 53 proscribes the “use of public school resources”
for collection of union dues, but does not bar other state or
local employers from using their resources for that same
purpose. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.210(1)(b). The
question here is whether there is any conceivable legitimate
interest in support of this classification. We hold that there
is: the Legislature could have concluded that it is more
important for the public schools to conserve their limited
resources for their core mission than it is for other state and
local employers. The plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim
therefore fails.
Bailey, 715 F.3d at 960. We reach the same conclusion and leave this
issue for the democratic process.
IV. Conclusion.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s summary
judgment in favor of the defendants.
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur except Appel, J., Cady, C.J., and Wiggins, J.,
who concur in part and dissent in part.
16
#17–1834, Iowa State Education Ass’n v. State
APPEL, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
This case presents two issues. As discussed more fully in AFSCME
v. State, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2019) (Appel, J., dissenting), I dissent
from the majority’s decision upholding the overinclusive and
underinclusive classification of public employees entitled to broader
collective bargaining rights.
The plaintiffs in this case also ask us to consider whether another
aspect of House File 291, 2017 Iowa Acts ch. 2, §§ 6, 14, 22 (codified at
Iowa Code §§ 20.9, .26, and § 70A.19 (2018)), fails rational basis review.
The majority rejects the plaintiffs’ challenge. For the reasons below, I
concur with the majority on this issue.
House File 291 prohibits public employers from administering
payroll deduction for employee dues payments to any employee
organization and forbids collective bargaining over the subject. Iowa
Code § 20.9(3); id. § 70A.19. It also forbids collective bargaining over
“payroll deductions for political action committees or other political
contributions or political activities.” Id. § 20.9(3). The law allows,
however, any other type of payroll deduction for any purpose. For
example, payroll deduction may be used for dues to a professional
organization, so long as it does not qualify as an employee organization
under Iowa Code section 20.3 (2018). Id. §§ 70A.17A, .19. Membership
dues may not be subject to deduction for groups such as the Iowa State
Education Association (ISEA) or the Davenport Education Association
that essentially wear two hats, one as an employee organization and the
other as a professional organization for teachers.
Why? The district court thought there might be money to be
saved. But the record indicates that it would cost more money to remove
17
the payroll deductions for ISEA and similar organizations than to just
leave well enough alone. In short, the dues checkoff provision of the
statute in fact imposes costs. If cost savings were the sole reason to
support the statute’s treatment of union dues checkoff, I would likely
find it invalid.
However, the real purpose behind the action is obvious. The
legislature intended not to save money, but to weaken unions by making
it more difficult for them to collect dues. As a matter of policy, the
legislature is free to promote, or hinder, the ability of public employee
unions to engage in collective bargaining. The means chosen to make
unionization of public employees more difficult—elimination of dues
checkoff—rationally achieves that goal. There is no problem of
overinclusiveness or underinclusiveness here. See LSCP, LLLP v. Kay-
Decker, 861 N.W.2d 846, 859 (Iowa 2015); Racing Ass’n of Cent. Iowa v.
Fitzgerald, 675 N.W.2d 1, 7–8 (Iowa 2004).
As pointed out by the union in this case, while the legislature
sought to undercut unions in its approach to dues checkoff in House File
291, it did not repeal or amend Iowa Code section 20.1(1). That
provision provides, “The general assembly declares that it is the public
policy of the state to promote harmonious and cooperative relationships
between government and its employees by permitting public employees to
organize and bargain collectively . . . .” Iowa Code § 20.1(1).
Oftentimes, legislative expression of general goals of a statute can
be helpful in interpreting ambiguous provisions of a statute. But the
legislative language dealing with union dues checkoff is not ambiguous.
It is quite clear. The union is not really arguing that Iowa Code section
20.1 should be used as an aid in statutory interpretation. What the
union advances is a kind of legislative estoppel theory—having declared a
18
general goal in the introductory language of a statute, the legislature
cannot undermine that goal through subsequent legislative
classifications.
But while a general prefatory provision of a statute may be used as
a tool of statutory interpretation, such general language cannot be used
to suspend or invalidate subsequent unambiguous legislation. And I do
not think that use of general prefatory language in a statute prevents the
legislature from enacting subsequent legislation that cuts against or
limits that general purpose. It may be that the legislature is engaging in
political messaging that some might find objectionable, namely,
purporting to generally promote collective bargaining while enacting
legislation specifically designed to undermine it. But that is a political
problem, not a legal one.
For the above reasons, I concur on the issue of dues checkoff. I
dissent on the classifications in House File 291 relating to “public safety
employees.”
Cady, C.J., and Wiggins, J., join this concurrence in part and
dissent in part.