AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State
Iowa Supreme Court
928 N.W.2d 21 (2019)

- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
In 2017, the Iowa legislature amended the Public Employment Relations Act to eliminate payroll deductions for union dues and narrow the scope of topics subject to mandatory collective bargaining for some units. Before the amendments, there had not been a strike among state public employees since the act passed in 1974. Under the amendments, unions with membership comprised of 30 percent or more public-safety employees (PSEs) had broad authority to exercise bargaining rights on behalf of members, including those who were not PSEs, whereas unions that did not meet the 30-percent threshold had limited bargaining rights, including on behalf of PSEs. Among the changes, previously mandatory bargaining topics such as base wages and overtime pay were converted to permissive bargaining topics for unions under the 30-percent threshold. Most police and fire fighters as well as conservation officers were designated as PSEs, but corrections officers were not. Iowa Council 61 of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) (plaintiffs) challenged the amendments under the equal-protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The district court granted the state’s (defendant) motion to dismiss, and the AFSCME appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waterman, J.)
Dissent (Apel, J.)
Dissent (Cady, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.