Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 65 / 05-2138 Filed February 29, 2008 SHERIFF DENNIS KUCERA and the TAMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, TAMA COUNTY, IOWA, Appellees, vs. DINO BALDAZO and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 238, Appellants.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Douglas S. Russell, Judge.

Deputy sheriff appeals summary judgment ruling holding civil service appeal is the exclusive remedy to challenge the termination of his employment. AFFIRMED.

Scott D. Soldon and Yingtao Ho of Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Paige Fiedler of Fiedler & Newkirk, P.L.C., Urbandale, for appellants.

John P. Roehrick of Roehrick Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.

2 HECHT, Justice. This case requires us to decide whether a deputy county sheriff holding a classified civil service position, who has been notified of the termination of his employment, may challenge the termination under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between his union and the county, or whether he may seek relief only through an appeal to the county's civil service commission. We conclude the termination of the deputy's employment may be challenged only through an appeal to the civil service commission under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision. I. Factual and Procedural Background.

On May 13, 2005, Dennis Kucera, the Tama County Sheriff, terminated the employment of his deputy, Dino Baldazo.1 Baldazo was a member of Teamsters Local 238, a union that was a party to a collective bargaining agreement with Tama County.2 Baldazo filed a grievance under the terms of the agreement on May 19, 2005, and the sheriff responded the same day affirming the termination and denying the violation of the agreement claimed by Baldazo. On May 24, 2005, the union sent a written notice to the sheriff informing him that his response to the grievance was unacceptable and

document dated the same day and signed by the sheriff and Baldazo suggests the termination followed a confrontation between Baldazo and the Tama County Attorney on May 12, 2005. preamble paragraph of the agreement designates the "Tama County Sheriff's Office" as the employer, and the signature block of the document identifies the employer as "Tama County Sheriff Office." The sheriff and the Chairman of the Tama County Board of Supervisors executed the agreement for the county. Unless otherwise indicated in this opinion, in the interest of brevity and clarity our references to the sheriff shall also constitute references to the county as the employer. The term of the bargaining agreement ran from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005.
2The

1A

3 invoking the arbitration procedures under the collective bargaining agreement.3 The sheriff and the union selected an arbitrator and agreed upon a date for the arbitration of their dispute. The arbitration was never held, however, because the sheriff subsequently concluded Baldazo's challenge to the termination was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil service commission. The sheriff filed a petition in equity against Baldazo and the union requesting the district court to (1) stay the arbitration proceedings initiated by Baldazo and the union under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and the Public Employment Relations Act codified in Iowa Code chapter 20 (2005); (2) declare Baldazo's remedy, if any, for termination of his employment as a deputy sheriff must be pursued through a civil service proceeding under Iowa Code chapter 341A rather than through arbitration; and (3) declare Baldazo's right to challenge the termination under chapter 341A expired when he failed to appeal to the civil service commission within ten days after the termination of his employment. Baldazo and the union filed an answer and counterclaim asserting Baldazo's statutory right to challenge the termination through an appeal to the civil service commission is not preclusive of the right to pursue the grievance process authorized by the collective bargaining agreement. The pleading further asserted the sheriff should be ordered to participate in arbitration under the agreement because he (1) violated provisions of the Public Employment Relations Act as codified in Iowa Code chapter 20 and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement when he refused to arbitrate Baldazo's grievance; (2) waived, by participating temporarily in the
collective bargaining agreement between the county and the union provided Baldazo shall lose his seniority rights if he "is discharged and said discharge is not reversed through the grievance procedure."
3The

4 grievance procedure, the claim that arbitration is unavailable to Baldazo and the union under the collective bargaining agreement. The pleading filed by Baldazo and the union also alleged the sheriff should be estopped, as a consequence of his temporary participation in the grievance process and his failure to object to Baldazo's invocation of the grievance procedures under the collective bargaining agreement until more than ten days after the termination, from asserting (1) the civil service commission has exclusive jurisdiction over Baldazo's challenge to the termination; and (2) any future civil service appeal by Baldazo and the union challenging the termination is untimely because the sheriff did not object to the invocation of the grievance procedures or contend the civil service commission has exclusive jurisdiction of the matter until after the time for filing an appeal with the civil service commission had expired.4 In its ruling granting the sheriff's motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded "civil service commissions [provide] the sole means for deputy sheriffs to appeal disciplinary actions." Baldazo's waiver and estoppel claims. appealed. II. Scope and Standards of Review. The ruling rejected

Baldazo and the union have

"Review of a case in equity resulting in summary judgment is for correction of errors at law." Keokuk Junction Ry. v. IES Indus., 618 N.W.2d 352, 355 (Iowa 2000) (citing Iowa R. App. P. 4; Baratta v. Polk County Health Servs., 588 N.W.2d 107, 109 (Iowa 1999)). Summary judgment is

appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3);
appeal to the civil service commission must be filed "within ten days after presentation to the [employee] of the order of removal." Iowa Code

Download SHERIFF DENNIS KUCERA and the TAMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, TAMA COUNTY, IOW

Iowa Law