DES MOINES, Iowa — A union representing Metro Waste Authority (MWA) employees has filed a lawsuit claiming MWA has "willfully refused to abide by terms of the collective bargaining agreement" since March 30.
Central Iowa Landfill Employees Council is a union that represents employees at the MWA. In the past, the union claims they have successfully negotiated with MWA and have enjoyed a "relatively harmonious" relationship.
However, the union alleges that the relationship has fallen apart as MWA is "effectively holding collective bargaining hostage", the lawsuit states.
The latest collective bargaining agreement began in July 2018 and expired on June 30, 2023. The union began negotiating the successor agreement with MWA in January, the lawsuit says, with the hopes that it could go into effect on July 1.
The union claims it first reached a tentative agreement with MWA in mid-March. A representative for the MWA, Attorney Matthew Brick, provided the tentative agreement to the union on March 26, which the union then ratified.
Two weeks after the ratification of the first tentative agreement, Brick allegedly contacted the union and stated that an associate had "found some additional terms needing updated" in the agreement.
After "seeing no changes of concern", the union signed and returned the new agreement in April.
The union alleges the MWA "went silent" until June 14, when MWA Executive Director Michael McCoy "suddenly demanded the Council provide a signed contract by 12:00 p.m. on June 15, 2023 for MWA to consider ratifying."
The union argues this request was in violation of Iowa Administrative Code Section 621-6.5(3), as public employers are required to operate on a 10-day ratification deadline. Additionally, given that the MWA had yet to ratify the agreement, the code did not require the union to sign the agreement.
Even so, the union signed the agreement on June 27, "in an effort to maintain amicable relations."
Then, on July 7, Brick asked the union to provide another signed agreement. The council complied, marking the third agreement the union delivered to the MWA.
On or around July 15, the union says they learned that the MWA planned to review a one-year successor agreement on July 19. In its agenda, the MWA claimed the agreement "includes all of the tentative agreements reached by the parties during the negotiations, except for the length of the contract." The union says it never signed an agreement considering a one-year deal.
A few days later, MWA director Joe Gatto told union representatives they would need to provide documents from the Iowa Laborers District Council Health and Welfare Fund, which is a separate entity from the union.
"Notably, the Fund has never been—nor is it now—a party to the collective bargaining agreement," the lawsuit states.
The MWA went on to approve the one-year successor agreement on July 19, despite no negotiations between the MWA and the union regarding a one-year deal. However, implementation of the one-year plan was contingent on receiving information from the Fund. The union claims this contract is "unreasonable and coercive".
"MWA is currently effectively holding collective bargaining hostage, contingent on a separate and distinct third party deciding to comply with its demand," the lawsuit states.
As such, the union is asking the court to require MWA to comply with the collective bargaining agreement, as well as make the affected employees "whole for any losses suffered by MWA's refusal to accept and abide by the collective bargaining agreement".
"By consistently failing and refusing to comply with its legal obligations to negotiate and ratify the tentative agreement, MWA has invaded the rights of the Council. . . to a fair contract governing the bargaining unit employees' wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment," the lawsuit states.
