The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15- Internation Association of Fire Fighters, Local 614 Final Order of The Board Reversed and RenamedGALLATIN COUNTY CLERK' OF DISTRICT COURT JENNIFER ?G15 JUN 16 pn 4 17 FILED �{� !iY MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT GALLATIN COUNTY CITY OF BOZEMAN, Petitioner, V. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 613, Respondent. Cause No. DV -14-850B On November 6, 2014, the City of Bozeman ("the City") filed a Petition for Judicial Review. The City filed its Opening Brief on February 27, 2015. On March 19, 2015, Respondent, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 613 ("IAFF") filed Respondent's Brief. On April 3, 2015, the City filed Petitioner's Reply Brief. A hearing on this matter was held on May 27, 2015. From the oral arguments and its review of the briefs, the Court is fully advised. BACKGROUND An organization of Bozeman firefighters has existed since 1939 when the firefighters became exclusively represented by the IAFF, referring to themselves as Local 613 of the IAFF. At some point prior to 1968, the City's firefighters ended their representational relationship with the IAFF and for over thirty years, the firefighters' bargaining unit was exclusively under local control. In 1999, the City's firefighters voted to have the IAFF again serve as their exclusive representative, and since then the City has recognized the IAFF as such during collective bargaining. The City and its firefighters have been parties to a series of collective bargaining agreements, both oral and written, the latest of which is effective from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015. The first written collective bargaining agreement between the City and its firefighters was in 1976 and the firefighters' bargaining unit at that time consisted of all firefighters below the rank of deputy chief — chiefs and deputy chiefs were excluded from the unit. Currently, the chief and deputy chiefs remain excluded from the bargaining unit. The City's fire department now has three stations. The organization of the fire department is as follows: Each fire station is staffed 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Firefighters work 48 hours on, 96 hours off. Firefighters are assigned to one of three "shifts." Each shift consists of two engine companies and one ladder company (one company assigned to each station every 'day). Each company consists of a captain, an engineer (a firefighter/equipment operator) and two firefighters. In 2009, when the City opened its third fire station, the City created the new position of battalion chief. The position of battalion chief was created to fulfill what the City perceived as the need for better coordination among the nine companies and the need for 24/7 command coverage. There are currently three battalion chiefs — one battalion chief to cover each shift. Battalion chiefs coordinate the work of their shift, ensure effective communication among the three companies of the shift, and ensure that all of the companies follow department policies and procedures. 2 The City sought to exclude the battalion chiefs from the firefighters' bargaining unit. The IAFF challenged the City's exclusion of the battalion chief position from the bargaining unit. As a result, the City filed a Petition for Unit Clarification with the Department of Labor and Industry Board of Personnel Appeals ("Board's seeking an order that the exclusion is proper because the position is a management, supervisory, and confidential position under § 39-31-103, MCA. On June 6, 2014, a Hearings Officer issued his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order ("Recommended Order"), recommending that the Board deny the City's _ Petition for Unit Clarification and hold that the battalion chief position is not properly excluded from the bargaining unit. The Hearings Officer's recommendation was based exclusively on the conclusion that, under § 39-31-109, MCA, the battalion chief position created in 2013 should be grandfathered into the bargaining unit that existed prior to 1973. The City filed timely objections to the Recommended Order on June 30, 2014. The parties briefed the issue before the Board and the Board held oral argument on October 16, 2014. The Board issued its written Final Decision on October 27, 2014, adopting the Recommended Order in full. The City then timely filed this Petition for Judicial Review. STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court reviews an agency decision under the standards set forth in the Montana Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), § 2-4-101 et seq., MCA. The APA allows the court to reverse or modify an agency decision if the substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: "(i) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; ... (iv) affected by other error of law; (v) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; [or] (vi) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted 3 exercise of discretion" § 2-4-704(2)(a), MCA. In performing that review, the Court reviews findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous, but pays no such deference to the agency's legal conclusions. Steer, Inc. v. Dep't of Rev., 245 Mont. 470, 474, 803 P.2d 601, 603 (1990) (quoting reference omitted). The Court reviews legal conclusions de novo to determine whether the agency's interpretation of the law is correct. Id. at 474-75, 803 P.2d at 603; see also City of Great Falls v. Dept of Pub. Serv. Regulation, 2011 MT 144, ¶ 11, 361 Mont. 69,254 P.3d 595. DISCUSSION In interpreting a statute, the Court's duty is "to implement the objectives the legislature sought to achieve, and if the legislative intent can be determined from the plain language of the statute, the plain language controls." Moreau v. Transp. Ins. Co., 2015 MT 5, 113, 378 Mont. 10, 342 Pad 3 (quoting reference omitted). Additionally, in construing a statute, "the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted." § 1-2-101, MCA. The Court finds that the Board's decision is based on a misinterpretation of § 39-31-109, MCA. That statute provides: "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." At one time, the Board interpreted the statute to include bargaining units as well as bargaining agreements and the Montana Supreme Court found that interpretation to be rational. Billings v. Billings Firefighters Local 521, 200 Mont. 421, 431-432, 651 P.2d 627,.632-633 (1982). Because the Montana Supreme Court found the interpretation to be rational, it upheld the Board's decision that the statute included bargaining units as well as bargaining agreements. However, at the time of Billings Firefighters, the Montana Supreme Court was reviewing an 4 agency's conclusions of law under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. That is no longer the appropriate standard of review. Courts now review an agency's conclusions of law de novo to determine if they are correct. Steer, Inc., 245 Mont. at 474-75, 803 P.2d at 603. The Board's interpretation of § 39-31-109, MCA to include bargaining units is a conclusion of law and the Court finds that it is an incorrect conclusion. The statute specifically applies to collective bargaining agreements — it is silent as to bargaining units. The legislature's intention is clear from the plain language of the statute. Had the legislature intended to include bargaining units into the statute, it easily could have done so, but did not. It is not the office of the judge to insert language that has been omitted. § 1-2-101, MCA. The statute should be applied according to its plain terms. Under the plain terms of the statute, bargaining units, separate from the bargaining agreements that they may have been a party to prior to July 1, 1973, are not subject to the grandfather clause. In other words, the composition of the bargaining unit was only protected under § 39-31-109, MCA as long as it was a party to a valid collective bargaining agreement that was in existence prior to July 1, 1973. Once the grandfathered collective bargaining agreement expired or was otherwise terminated, the bargaining unit was no longer protected by the grandfather clause — the bargaining unit and all future collective bargaining agreements would be required to comply with the Montana Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act, §§ 39-31-101 to 39-31-409, MCA. Here, it is undisputed that the City and IAFF are parties to a collective bargaining agreement that became effective July 1, 2013. As a result,.the grandfather clause provided in § 39-31-109, MCA is not applicable to this case and the battalion chief position cannot be "grandfathered" into the bargaining unit. Pursuant to § 2-4-704(2)(a)(i), MCA, the Court reverses the Board's Final Order which allowed the battalion chiefs to remain in the bargaining 5 unit pursuant to § 39-31-109, MCA. The Board's decision rested entirely on its misinterpretation of ,§ 39-31-109, MCA. The Board made no factual or legal determinations as to whether the battalion chiefs are managerial, supervisory, or confidential employees which would require their exclusion from the bargaining unit. Therefore, the Court remands this matter back to the Board for a determination of whether the battalion chiefs are managerial, supervisory, or confidential employees. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Final Order of the Board is REVERSED. This matter is REMANDED to the Board for further proceedings to determine whether the battalion chiefs are managerial, supervisory, or confidential employees which would require their exclusion from the bargaining unit. Dated this day of June, 2015. Hon. Mike Sal gni District Judge c:/ ✓Jason S. Ritchie / 1V11c ael P. Manning /'Michelle M. Sullivan ✓IUrl J. Englund - ON