## Facts

- Sitka is a unified home-rule municipality whose charter required the assembly to adopt an administrative code including provisions for “recognizing employee organizations.”
- Alaska’s Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) granted public employees collective-bargaining rights and allowed political subdivisions to reject PERA by legislative action under section 4.
- Before PERA took effect, Sitka enacted a personnel policy ordinance establishing a city-designed “employees’ negotiating committee,” with one elected representative per department, to meet with management regarding conditions, benefits, and salaries.
- In 1973, Sitka enacted an ordinance stating it rejected PERA under section 4 and was exempt from PERA.
- Electrical department employees selected IBEW Local 1547 as their bargaining representative; Sitka refused recognition and insisted representation occur only through its negotiating committee structure.
- IBEW sued, arguing Sitka had not effectively rejected PERA and that Sitka’s personnel policy ordinance violated the charter’s requirement to recognize employee organizations.

## Issues

1. Whether Sitka effectively rejected PERA under section 4, exempting itself from PERA’s collective-bargaining requirements.
2. Whether Sitka’s personnel policy ordinance satisfied the charter requirement to provide for “recognizing employee organizations,” or instead unlawfully displaced employee-chosen representation with a city-created committee.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court held Sitka validly rejected PERA by ordinance pursuant to section 4.
- The Court held Sitka’s personnel policy ordinance violated Sitka’s municipal charter because it failed to provide for recognition of employee-selected organizations.
- The Court reversed the portion of the superior court judgment that had required compliance based on PERA.
- The Court affirmed the order requiring Sitka to recognize and negotiate with the electrical department employees’ chosen representative (IBEW) on charter grounds.

## Legal Principles

- A political subdivision may exempt itself from PERA by legislative action rejecting the Act under section 4; once rejected, PERA does not govern that subdivision’s labor relations.
- A municipal charter prevails over inconsistent municipal ordinances; an ordinance that conflicts with charter mandates is invalid to the extent of the conflict.
- A charter requirement to provide for “recognizing employee organizations” requires recognition of organizations chosen by employees, including an external labor union, not merely participation in a management-designed internal committee.

## Conclusion

Sitka was not bound by PERA because it properly rejected the Act, but it still had to recognize and bargain with the employees’ chosen union because its charter required meaningful recognition of employee organizations and the city’s committee-only system did not satisfy that mandate.


City & Borough of Sitka v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Loc. 1547, 653 P.2d 332 (Alaska 1982)