Public Safety Employee Bargaining: Possible Changes
2011-05/18 Dean R. Dietrich                                                             Printer Friendly PDF Version

New legislation has been proposed that greatly affects collective bargaining with police, fire, and deputy sheriff (public safety employees) bargaining units.  Assembly Bill 127 (which has been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance) amends Section 111.70 and Section 111.77 of the Wisconsin Statutes relating to collective bargaining for public safety employees. 

One of the primary features of this proposed legislation is to modify the State Statutes to declare that a number of items are either permissive subjects or prohibited subjects of bargaining in regard to public safety negotiations.  The proposed legislation would make it a permissive subject of bargaining for a local government unit to negotiate with a public safety employee union over whether or not the local government unit will deduct union dues from the earnings of the public safety employee.  More importantly, the proposed legislation establishes a number of prohibited subjects of bargaining over which the local government unit would not have to bargain (and could not bargain) with the public safety union.  The list of prohibited subjects includes: 

• The decision to contract with any person who is not a municipal employee for the performance of services;

• The decision to contract with any other municipal employer for the performance of services (i.e., police, fire, and deputy sheriff services);

• The decision to contract with any other municipal employer to consolidate services or units of government;

• The decision to permit individuals who perform services without payment of wages (i.e., volunteers) to perform services for the municipality that would otherwise be performed by municipal employees;

• The decision over the selection of health care coverage plans, including the option for the municipal employer to offer a health savings account that complies with federal law instead of or in addition to a health care benefit plan;

• The employer’s share of premium costs for health care coverage or the municipal employer’s contribution to a health savings account provided the total employer share of premium costs is at least 75% of the total premium costs for the health care coverage plan; and

• Any requirement that the employer pay, on behalf of the public safety employee, the first 5.8% of earnings that the employee is required to pay as contributions to the Wisconsin Retirement System.

The above provisions would be considered prohibited subjects of bargaining and the municipal employer could not negotiate on those topics with the public safety union.

In addition, the proposed legislation would modify the interest arbitration criteria to be used by an arbitrator under Section 111.77 of the Wisconsin Statutes.  The arbitrator would be required to give “greater weight” to the following criteria:

• The local economic conditions and the municipality’s budget;

• The probability that the proposal would require service cuts;

• The ability of the proposal to limit fringe benefit increases to the cost-of-living increases; and

• The ability of the proposal to reflect cost-of-living adjustments in the increase or decrease in wages and fringe benefits (total compensation) that are not prohibited or permissive subjects of collective bargaining.

Further, the proposed legislation would prohibit an arbitrator from giving any weight to (1) the total compensation given to employees of similar organizations in communities with different economic conditions and costs of living, and (2) any reserve funds held by the municipality. 

The proposed legislation also creates a modified QEO-type of limitation on interest arbitration proceedings.  The public safety employee bargaining unit could not proceed to interest arbitration if the offer it makes requires the annual expenditure for total compensation per employee in the bargaining unit to be more than the amount spent in the previous year, increased by the percentage change of the consumer price index for the prior three years, plus 1%.  Exactly how such a limitation on interest arbitration would be administered is very unclear at this time.

The above proposals reflect an attempt to limit interest arbitration proceedings in public safety collective bargaining situations.  While this is a proposal from one state representative, it has been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance for consideration.  It is very possible that a proposal of this type would be inserted into the Budget Bill to limit the type of collective bargaining that would occur with police, fire, and deputy sheriff bargaining units.

Please feel free to contact Dean Dietrich, the author of this article, or any of the attorneys in the Local Governments & Municipalities Focus Team of Ruder Ware: Steve Immel, Jeff Jones, Chris Toner, Steve Lipowski, Randi Osberg, Ron Rutlin, Mary Ellen Schill, or Bryan Symes, if you have questions in regard to this update.

© 2011 Ruder Ware, L.L.S.C. Accurate reproduction with acknowledgment granted. All rights reserved.
This document provides information of a general nature regarding legislative or other legal developments. None of the information contained herein is intended as legal advice or opinion relative to specific matters, facts, situations, or issues, and additional facts and information or future developments may affect the subjects addressed.