Home / courts / State Supreme Court upholds public employees’ pay for union work

State Supreme Court upholds public employees’ pay for union work

az-supreme-court-620 (002)

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that cities can pay public employees to work on union business.

In a decision with statewide implications, the justices, in a 3-2 ruling, rejected claims by the Goldwater Institute that such deals between governments and unions amounts to an unconstitutional gift of public funds. Justice Scott Bales, writing for the majority, said the deal between the city of Phoenix and the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association benefits both the city and the taxpayers who are footing the bill.

That logic drew a stinging dissent from Justice Ann Scott Timmer.

“No public purpose is served by diverting officers from safeguarding the public to work almost unchecked for PLEA,” she wrote for herself and Justice Robert Brutinel. “The city has no control over how PLEA directs the officers on release time and is not even told what the officers do for PLEA.”

Tuesday’s ruling will have implications beyond Phoenix.

The Goldwater Institute says that in 2011, when it first objected, it found similar contracts in Tucson,  Tempe, Mesa, Chandler and Glendale. The high court decision not only ratifies existing contracts but clears the way for new ones in cities that don’t now have them.

This case involves provisions that have been in contracts between Phoenix and the police union since 1977, allowing a certain number of hours of paid release time when officers are excused from their usual duties while they perform activities for PLEA and conduct union business.

After the Goldwater Institute sued, both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals declared the provision illegal.

Bales acknowledged the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution bars cities and other public entities from making any “donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation.” He said it is designed to keep public entities from getting involved in non-public enterprises and “protecting public funds against use for the purely private or personal interest of any individual.”

But Bales said he finds there is a public purpose in the agreement, formally known as a memorandum of understanding.

“It procures police services for the city,” he wrote. And Bales noted that it gives the city a single entity to deal with all officers, as PLEA is required to represent all police officers in all matters, whether or not they are union members.

“Moreover, the city benefits from more efficient negotiations because it collectively negotiates with PLEA, rather than with individual employees,” Bales wrote.

Beyond that, Bales rejected arguments that what the city is spending in paid time off is far beyond any benefit to the city.

He said the memorandum of understanding at issue — representing one unit of the police department — costs the city $660 million. And Bales said no one is questioning whether that amount is unfair.

“Viewed in the context of the MOU overall, the $1.7 million in release time payments is not grossly disproportionate to the value of what PLEA and the Unit 4 officers have agreed to provide in return.”

Timmer, in her dissent, said the flaw in all that is there is no evidence that Phoenix would be unable to employ police officers if there were not a release-time provision in the contract. Bales brushed that aside.

“The same could be said about various forms of benefits ranging from vacation time to life insurance,” he wrote. And Bales said the agreement has to be examined in totality, not just one specific expenditure.

The chief justice also found fault with Timmer’s contention that having police officers doing union work means less time protecting the public.

“Had the release time provision been omitted, the officers might have received other benefits under the compensation package, such as personal time or paid vacation time,” Bales wrote.

But Timmer said that’s not necessarily true. She said if the city were not paying for officers to work on union business those dollars could be diverted for other important police services. And Timmer said even if the money for release time would otherwise have been paid to officers, that does not necessarily mean that the release time serves a public purpose as “compensation.”

“Following the majority’s logic, the city could compensate officers by giving money to a private business to establish a coffee house near a police station for the officers’ enjoyment,” she wrote.

While Tuesday’s ruling ends the debate about whether the Gift Clause applies, it may not put the issue to bed.

Bales acknowledged that there may still be a separate claim to be brought under the state’s Right to Work constitutional provisions specifying that employees who decline to join unions cannot be denied the same rights as those who do.


  1. This is an opening for absolute misuse of government resources, e.g. telephones, postage etc.
    Moreover, the most egregious mis-user will be teachers, administrators and other school personnel.
    They have been famous (infamous) for taking advantage of this element for years.

  2. Steve Lowen, release time has been around for decades, its nothing new and gives the labor organizations the time for their officers to represent their members to the benefit of the members and the public they serve. Todays ruling illustrated what we always knew: that there is nothing illegal or egregious with employees deferring their own pay through the MOU to fund release time. I also fail to see how it relates to telephones and postage.

  3. Steve Lowen, what do you have against public education? So far as I can see, teachers freely put in inordinate amounts of time, even contribute their own salaries to buy supplies, all for the privilege of educating our children.

    More to the point, unions handle a lot of the training that quality jobs require, thereby relieving government of some of the burden and enduring a workforce that doesn’t consist exclusively of day laborers, a situation predicted for AZ by Commerce officials — a direct result of anti-labor attitudes and legislation. It’s time for AZ to enter the 21st Century, as the Supreme Court has made permanently possible.*

    * Assuming Ducey doesn’t pack the court with anti-labor Justices. It must be tempting. But also, suicide for Arizona.

  4. ‘Sol Saguaro,’ I have nothing against public education, UNLESS it doesn’t work…and, in Arizona it does not work. Graduates, many from post high school level, cannot structure a sentence, spell, or hold a cogent conversation. Our ‘Educators,’ in all too many cases, lack credentials in general or their specialities.
    Your witless point that I ‘disdain’ Unions is patently ludicrous. I came from a union background and fully appreciate their worth and, yes, Arizona is anti-collective bargaining.
    Unfortunately, this new ruling will simply allow politics to be the thrust. Hours will not be spent campaigning for worker welfare, but rights of elected officials, and other connected parties…and, we do not need more groups, e.g. churches, lobbyists, ad nauseum focusing on denying Rights to Women, LGBT Communities, immigrants and minorities.

  5. Back in 2013 Phoenix Police Officers in Phoenix came under attack – not on the street but in the court. Not with a gun but with a gavel. This week the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of those men and women who run to gun fights by allowing them to freely spend the money they earn in a dangerous and honorable profession – whether it be on health insurance, vacation, sick leave, uniform allowance, and also on labor representation. In a right-to-work state like Arizona it was disappointing and alarming to see “conservatives” at the Goldwater Institute employ the liberal tactic of legislating from the bench; and do so at the expense of front-line rank and file law enforcement personnel. It appears the court saw the value of common sense, rights of police officers and the will of the voters. One ought to refrain from saying they support the police while at the same time undermining their right to professionally protect themselves in legally unique and culturally vital profession.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also

Mark Brnovich (Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Court denies AG’s bid to sue Board of Regents

The state Court of Appeals won't let Attorney General Mark Brnovich sue the university system over what he claims are unconstitutionally high tuition hikes.