Cole County Presiding Judge Jon Beetem has ruled in favor of three unions, representing a number of state employees, in a 2018 lawsuit they filed against the state saying at least some parts of a state law - that made major changes to the merit system for state employees - violated provisions of the Missouri Constitution.
Their target was Senate Bill 1007, which was sponsored in the Legislature in 2017 by now-Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, and was signed into law June 1 by then-Gov. Eric Greitens, on the day he resigned and turned over his duties to current Gov. Mike Parson.
The unions filing the suit were the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Communications Workers of America Local 6355; and Service Employees International Union, Local 1.
Defendants were: the state government as a whole; the Office of Administration; and the departments of Social Services, Health and Senior Services, Agriculture, Corrections, Mental Health, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Revenue, Office of Probation and Parole, Highway Patrol, Veterans Commission, Office of Adjutant General and State Emergency Management Agency.
According to online court records, Beetem stated in his ruling SB 1007 does not restrict collective bargaining, and the state has violated the State Constitution "by acting as if it did - by repudiating labor agreements while they were in effect, refusing to process grievances, unilaterally changing terms of employment, and refusing to bargain in good faith over just cause protections, seniority as a factor in employment decisions, and grievance/arbitration procedures."
Beetem said the state shall bargain in good faith with the unions over the terms of successor collective bargaining agreements, without any constraint from SB 1007.
In the 32-page lawsuit, the plaintiffs noted: "Senate Bill 1007 made drastic changes to essential terms and conditions of employment for state employees by purportedly designating them as 'at will' employees, thereby subjecting them to termination for 'no reason or any reason,' with the exception of a small group of state employees who are required to have merit system protections pursuant to terms of federal funding."
Created in the mid-1940s, the system was, according to the Office of Administration's webpage, "designed to protect employees from arbitrary actions, personal favoritism and political coercion."
At the time Greitens signed the bill into law, the merit system covered about 56 percent of all state employees, while the others worked at non-merit departments and agencies.
The 2018 law put all state employees under the same, non-merit regulations. This includes removing the testing requirements to qualify for a job and canceling the appeals process for a merit system employee who was disciplined or fired.
The lawsuit argued state officials and the heads of various departments or agencies "unilaterally imposed (new) policies" when the new law went into effect, and those changes "purport to prohibit state employees from bargaining, through their union, for a requirement that discipline be imposed only 'for cause' - an essential term and condition of employment that Plaintiffs have negotiated for decades, and that is reflected in contracts between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and that protect employees from arbitrary termination for no reason or any reason."
The lawsuit said collective bargaining rights are protected by at least two sections of Missouri's Constitution.
In its Bill of Rights, the lawsuit said, Article I, Section 29, "obligates both public employers and unions to bargain in good faith, to enter into contracts securing agreed-upon terms, and to refrain from making unilateral changes to significant terms and conditions of employment."
And Article I, Section 13, the lawsuit said, "guarantees '(t)hat no law impairing the obligation of contracts can be enacted.'"
However, the lawsuit argued, the state officials' changes to employees' work rules and conditions ignored contractual rights that had already been agreed to - in contracts that still are in effect and in contracts that expired this year, but included terms they remained in effect until a new contract was negotiated.
"The adoption of SB 1007 and Defendants' unilateral adoption of emergency rules and policies, and their refusal to consider grievances, have impaired the obligations in the (collective bargaining agreements) of Plaintiffs to the detriment of Plaintiffs and bargaining unit employees," the lawsuit said.
"This impairment is substantial and those eliminations cannot be justified as reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose."