Who's your daddy?
This month we discuss de facto parenthood, public employee raises, access to public records, and capital punishment.
Supreme Court of Washington Podcast (RSS) - Who's your daddy?
Opinion: Court refuses to order governor to fund $87 mil increase in workers contracts
SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Gregoire, No. 82551-3 (briefs and argument). In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice James Johnson, the Supreme Court has ruled against SEIU 775NW and declines to order the governor to insert a $87 million arbitration award in her budget proposal to the legislature.
SEIU 775NW represents approximately 25,000 individual health providers who negotiated with the state for wages and benefits. During 2008 negotiations, SEIU 775NW and the governor’s office were unable to reach an agreement for the 2009-11 budget, and an arbitrator awarded the workers a raise and fringe benefits amounting to $87 million. Gov. Gregoire, however, did not include the arbitrated award in the budget proposal that she sent to the legislature, arguing it was not financially feasible. SEIU 775NW argues that the law governing labor relations for these employees (RCW 74.39A.300) states that the governor must include arbitrated awards in her budget.
The question for the court has been whether “must” in the statute is a mandatory obligation upon the governor, or if it is a permissive suggestion. At argument the justices clearly wrestled with the real-world consequences of ruling for either party. A ruling for the workers sends the governor back to the budget planning stage and would result in other cuts to the budget. But a ruling for Gregoire seems to muddy the plain reading of a statute.
Justice Johnson wrote that writs of mandamus ordering a state official to take action are only appropriate when the ordered action is mandatory, rather than discretionary. “Deciding the allocation of limited state funds in order to achieve the statutorily required balanced budget necessarily involves the exercise of the governor’s discretion,” he wrote. “It is difficult to imagine an act more essentially a policy decision for the governor than the submission to the legislature of a budget during an economic downturn. The creation and submission of a budget proposal is clearly one of those discretionary acts that are ‘in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive,’ and inappropriate for mandamus.”
The court said it would decline to order the governor to make budget changes even if mandamus were appropriate. “[T] the court may refuse to grant relief where private rights would be unwisely advanced at the expense of public interests. The recent severe economic difficulties faced by our state present circumstances dictating such judicial restraint.”
Alternatively, the court said it would rule against the union as the remedy it sought was no longer available. “Similarly, because the relief sought by the petitioner here—a change in a budget proposal long since submitted for a budget already adopted by the legislature—is no longer available, this case runs afoul of our mootness doctrine.”
Chief Justice Madsen dissented, arguing that the law mandates inclusion of arbitrated awards in the governor’s budget, regardless of the state’s economic picture. “There is, of course, a fixed amount of funding available to achieve a balanced budget and one budget request included in a proposed budget means that there is less money remaining for other proposed requests. But this fact does not turn a mandatory duty into a discretionary one. Pursuant to a state law duly enacted by the legislature, the governor had a mandatory duty to include in the proposed 2009-2010 budget a request to fund the arbitration award in this case.”
Justice Richard Sanders signed Madsen’s dissent and filed his own brief dissent, writing: “This case deserved swift action to protect the rights of these workers and their union. I have signed the dissent but would have preferred to initially decide this case by order with opinion to follow.”
Tomorrow's opinions: April 8, 2010
The Supreme Court will issue rulings in several cases tomorrow.
In re PRP of Steven Clark, No. 81522-4 (argument). Whether a judgment and sentence on a guilty plea may be collaterally challenged beyond the one-year time limit on collateral attack based on the erroneous imposition of community placement, even though the original judgment and sentence was soon corrected to remove the term of community placement.
Merriman, et ux. v. Cokeley, et ux., No. 83700-7. Neighbors brought an action against lot owners, seeking to quiet title to disputed triangle of land. The trial court quieted title in lot owners but denied their request for attorney’s fees and costs.
SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Gregoire, No. 82551-3 (briefs and argument). The union representative for approximately 25,000 health care providers seeks a writ of mandamus to order Gov. Chris Gregoire to resubmit a budget to the legislature that includes the union's pay increases, which were the result of an arbitrated award. The governor had declined to request funding for the increases ($87 million) in the December 2008 budget proposal. As Justice Mary Fairhurst observed during arguments, the case could come down to how the court interprets the word "must."
Status of SEIU 775NW v. Gregoire
Petitioners in SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Gregoire, No. 82551-3, sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court ordering Governor Gregoire to resubmit a budget to the legislature that included the union's pay increases, which were the result of an arbitrated award. The governor had declined to request funding for the increases ($100 million) in the December 2008 budget proposal.
SEIU 775NW was granted an expedited hearing on March 10, and requested an expedited order, with an opinion to follow. The union hoped to win an order in time for the legislature to entertain the funding proposal.
It seems the union has run out of racetrack -- at least for the current session. The Washington Legislature adjurned on April 26. There are, however, two scenarios where the union could still get its award inserted into the 2009-11 budget, assuming the court rules in SEIU's favor. The court could order the governor to advance the contracts to the 2010 legislature when a supplemental budget is adopted. There is also talk of the legislature going into special session, and the court could order consideration of the union's arbitration award during the special session.
Argument recap: SEIU 775NW v. Gregoire
“Counsel, in this case, isn’t the focus really on what does ‘must’ mean?” Justice Mary Fairhurst’s question gets to the heart of SEIU 775NW v. Gregoire.
Petitioners SEIU 775NW claims that state law requires the governor to include in her budget a request for funds any negotiated union contract (if certified as financially feasible) or any award resulting from interest arbitration. SEIU 775NW and the governor’s office were unable to reach an agreement for the 2009-11 budget, and an arbitrator awarded the union’s workers a raise and fringe benefits amounting to $87 million. The governor failed to include the amount in her budget, something the union says the governor “must” do. Arguments yesterday focused on whether “must” in the statute is a mandatory obligation upon the governor, or if it is a permissive suggestion, subject to the governor’s discretion.
The justices are wrestling with the real-world consequences of ruling for either party. If the court rules for SEIU, the court is ordering the governor to return to the drawing board and make significant cuts to her budget. Not only that, but such an order seems to invade the governor’s duties and could be a violation of separation of power. But if the court rules for Gregoire, the plain reading of a statute is muddied.
Counsel for petitioners, Dmitri Iglitzin, argued the governor has binding duty to include arbitrated awards in her budget proposal. "If we think 'must' means 'may,' we are eviscerating the law," he said. SEIU 775NW is asking the Supreme Court to invalidate Gregoire’s original budget proposal and order her to propose a new budget with SEIU’s $87 million. (The case was originally joined by another union, which pushed the contract amounts to $100 million, which is the number referred to in argument.)
Several justices were concerned about dictating budget items to the governor and legislature. Justice James Johnson pointed out there are other unions facing a similar problem and wondered if the court will be asked to insert each contract into the budget separately. Justice Madsen asked if the court could order the governor to include the award in a future budget, rather than interfering in the budget process already underway. Justice Stephens pointed out that the governor must submit a balanced budget. "Those were the days, when we had just a $2.7 billion deficit," she joked. Justice Johnson and Chief Justice Alexander picked up on this. If $100 million is added to Gregoire’s budget, what gets removed? "This is a big deal,” said Alexander. Johnson asked if the $100 million could be taken from the Judiciary’s budget, and this seemed to send chills down several judicial spines.
Solicitor General Maureen Hart argued for the State, and she reminded the court of its recent ruling in Brown v. Owen. A writ of mandamus (ordering an official to take a specific action) is only appropriate where the law dictates a duty with precision and nothing is left to individual judgment. Hart said there is no statute requiring the governor to include anything in her budget—her only obligation is to propose a balanced budget. If the Supreme Court ruled for SEIU, she argued, it’s stepping into a discretionary field that belongs to the governor.
Justice Sanders asked if Hart could think of a better way to convey a mandatory duty than the word “must.” Hart said that “must” be interpreted with a more permissive flavor, in order to avoid a constitutional question. To do otherwise, she said, would lead to absurd consequences. What’s next? Could the legislature pass laws one year ordering the governor to include those items in her budget the next year? Hart dangled the possibility that budget mandates on the governor could be unconstitutional. Justice Sanders asked if she was arguing the statute is unconstitutional. Hart replied, “no,” and suggested that the Court interpret the law assuming it is constitutional.
SEIU 775NW is asking the Supreme Court for an expedited ruling—perhaps an order first with a full opinion to follow. We’ll see what they do. TVW has video of the argument:
Today at the Court
Oral arguments are scheduled today in four cases. (Docket schedule here, briefs for the cases here)
During the morning session (starting at 9:00 a.m.), the Court will hear:
In re Parentage of Frazier, No. 81043-5 This case is on appeal from Division One Court of Appeals, and originated in Snohomish County Superior Court. The question before the court is whether a stepparent qualifies as a common law de facto parent, with the accompanying rights and responsibilities.
The trial court ruled that the petitioner, a stepfather, could and did prove that he qualified as a de facto parent for his teenage stepdaughter, relying in part on precedent from In re Parentage of L.B. 155 Wash.2d 679 (2006), in which cohabiting lesbians who had parented since their child's birth were found to be de facto parents. Court of Appeals reversed, finding that stepparents have other statutory remedies and cannot claim de facto parent status based on the Parentage of L.B. decision.
Ames v. Wash. State Health Dep’t Med. Quality Assurance Comm’n, No. 80644-6. This case is on appeal from Division Three Court of Appeals, and originated from a Department of Health administrative hearing order, later upheld by the Benton County Superior Court. The question before the court is whether expert testimony is necessary in a disciplinary proceeding before the Medical Quality Assurance Commission when the commission panel is not comprised solely of licensed physicians.
The commission in question, comprised of a physician, a physician’s assistant and a member of the public, found the petitioner to have violated several laws by his use of a medical instrument to identify food allergies.
During the afternoon session (starting at 1:30 p.m.), the Court will hear:
Shafer v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., No. 81049-4. This case is on appeal from Division One Court of Appeals, and originated from a decision by the Department of Labor and Industries to not re-open a disability claim from 2000. The Department's decision was upheld by the Board of Industrial Appeals and King County Superior Court, but reversed by the Court of Appeals. The question before the Court is whether an order closing an industrial insurance claim based on an independent medical examination must be communicated to the worker’s attending physician in order to trigger the time period for administratively appealing the order.
SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Gregoire, No. 82551-3. This case originates from a writ of mandamus filed with the Supreme Court. The question before the court is whether the governor violated collective bargaining law by failing to include a request for funding for negotiated union contracts in her budget proposal. The petitioner wants the Court to order Governor Gregoire to withdraw her budget and submit a new one that includes a request for funds necessary to fulfill the negotiated contracts.
Check back at 2:15 today for a live blog of the oral arguments in the SEIU case.
Argument preview: SEIU 775NW v. Gregoire
(Scheduling note: be sure to return today at 2:15, when we will live blog today's argument.)
The underlying reality in this case is that Washington state currently faces a major budget crisis, with a projected $8 billion deficit. As a result, Governor Gregoire declined to include in her budget proposal pay increases for several classes of public employees.
SEIU 775NW says the governor violated state law by failing to include the union’s arbitrated agreement in her budget (for a cost of more than $87 million). Gov. Gregoire argues she has discretion to table public employee raises when they are not financially feasible.
Background
State law allows independent home care workers to unionize and bargain collectively with the governor’s labor office. SEIU 775NW represents 25,000 of these workers in Washington. The union and the state failed to reach an agreement for the 2009-11 budget, and the negotiations were referred to Arbitrator Timothy Williams. Williams awarded SEIU’s home care workers a raise: approximately 25-cents an hour in 2009 and 22-cents an hour in 2010 (total cost of the award exceeds $87 million).
By law, the governor submits an initial budget prior to legislative session. When Gov. Gregoire released her budget document last December, she failed to include a request for funds necessary to implement the SEIU 775NW arbitration award. The Office of Financial Management issued a statement determining that it was not feasible financially for the state to fund the agreement. (Several other union agreements were also left unfunded.)
This is significant because the legislature can only vote on funding for union-negotiated contracts or arbitration awards if requested by the governor.
Arguments
RCW 74.39A.300(2) sets the process for funding home care worker agreements. The request for funds cannot be included in the governor’s budget proposal unless the request:
(a) Has been submitted to the director of financial management by October 1st prior to the legislative session at which the request is to be considered; and
(b) Has been certified by the director of financial management as being feasible financially for the state or reflects the binding decision of an arbitration panel reached under RCW 74.39A.270(2)(c).
The SEIU 775NW argues that state law imposes a mandatory, non-discretionary obligation on the governor to request funds if these two pre-conditions are met. The union argues the binding decision of an arbitrator cannot be set aside by a "feasibility" determination.
The State argues that the governor’s actions constitute a lawful exercise of her discretion and authority. The State argues SEIU’s claim is not justiciable, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, and the requested relief would violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Procedural History
SEIU 775NW directly petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ordering Gov. Gregoire to withdraw her previous budget and submit a revised budget with a request for funds necessary to implement the arbitration awards. The Supreme Court is hearing this case on an expedited schedule, with a decision likely in time to impact the legislative budget process.
Petitioner SEIU 775NW is represented by Dmitri Iglitzin, Robert Lavitt, and Judith Krebs. Governor Gregoire is represented by the Hon. Rob McKenna, Stewart Johnston, and Maureen Hart.
Several other unions are pursuing similar (but separate) actions. One case, filed by the Washington Federation of State Employees in Thurston County Superior Court, was dismissed in February by Judge Anne Hirsh.
Case Briefs
- SEIU Petition (12/29/08)
- SEIU Motion for Accelerated Review (12/29/08)
- SEIU Proposed Writ (12/29/08)
- Governor Answer to Petition (1/13/09)
