City of Hugo v. State Ex Rel. Public Employees Relations Board
886 P.2d 485 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oklahoma's Fire and Police Arbitration Act, an administrative agency's statutory authority to issue a 'cease and desist' order for an unfair labor practice does not implicitly include the power to order affirmative relief such as reinstatement with back pay. When a state legislature models a statute on a federal act but omits specific language granting a particular remedy, it is presumed the legislature intended to withhold that remedy.
Facts:
- Jerry Tucker was a nine-year veteran firefighter for the City of Hugo with a clean disciplinary record.
- In September 1988, Tucker voluntarily completed an optional fire safety instructor course for which he received no additional compensation; another firefighter refused to take the course without consequence.
- In December 1988, Tucker became an active organizer for a firefighters' union, during which time municipal leaders made statements suggesting unionization could jeopardize firefighters' jobs.
- On January 4, 1989, Tucker was elected president of the newly formed union.
- The day after his election, the Fire Chief stripped Tucker of several duties and later demoted him from a leadership position.
- On July 17, 1989, the Fire Chief ordered Tucker to teach a burdensome schedule of ten fire safety classes, a task related to his optional certification.
- Tucker hesitated to sign the required form to begin teaching, seeking to discuss the heavy workload with the Mayor. The Fire Chief set a deadline of July 31st for compliance.
- Before the deadline, the Fire Chief suspended Tucker for insubordination. Tucker then signed and submitted the form on July 29, but the Chief refused to countersign it, and the City of Hugo terminated Tucker's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) against the City of Hugo.
- PERB found that Hugo had committed an unfair labor practice and issued a cease and desist order requiring Tucker's reinstatement with back pay and benefits.
- Hugo, as appellant, appealed PERB's order to the state district court (trial court).
- The district court reversed PERB's order, finding it was unsupported by the evidence and that PERB lacked jurisdiction.
- The Union and PERB, as appellants, appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of an unfair labor practice but held that PERB lacked the statutory authority to order reinstatement with back pay.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Public Employees Relations Board's statutory authority to issue a 'cease and desist' order under 11 O.S. 1991 § 51-104b(C) include the power to order affirmative relief, such as reinstatement with back pay and benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Kauger, Justice
No. The authority of the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) to issue a cease and desist order pursuant to 11 O.S.1991 § 51-104b(C) does not extend to requiring affirmative relief in the form of reinstatement with back pay and benefits. The court first found there was substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the City of Hugo committed an unfair labor practice, as Tucker's union activity was a substantial motivating factor in his termination. However, the court's primary analysis focused on statutory interpretation. The Oklahoma statute only grants PERB the power to issue an order requiring the offending party to 'cease and desist' from the unfair labor practice. The court contrasted this with the parallel federal law, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which explicitly grants the power to order 'such affirmative action including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay.' Because the Oklahoma Legislature modeled its act on the NLRA but omitted the specific language authorizing affirmative relief, the court presumed the omission was intentional. Therefore, the court concluded it could not judicially grant PERB a power that the legislature deliberately chose to withhold, even if this limitation rendered PERB's orders ineffective against completed unfair labor practices like a wrongful termination.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the remedial power of Oklahoma's Public Employees Relations Board, establishing that its 'cease and desist' authority is a negative injunction (to stop an action) and not a source of affirmative relief (to undo an action). The ruling forces employees who have been wrongfully terminated for union activities to seek 'make-whole' remedies like reinstatement through separate and more burdensome civil litigation, rather than through the specialized administrative agency. This case serves as a key example of the statutory interpretation principle 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' (the inclusion of one thing implies the exclusion of another) and highlights how legislative drafting choices can severely limit an agency's ability to fulfill its mission.
