## Facts

- The Waterloo Education Association (Association) was the exclusive bargaining representative for teachers in the Waterloo Community School District.
- During collective bargaining, the Association proposed an “overload pay” provision requiring extra compensation when teaching assignments exceeded set thresholds.
- The proposal provided additional compensation for:
  - Elementary teachers assigned to teach more than 300 minutes per day.
  - Middle and secondary teachers assigned to teach six classes per day.
- The proposal set compensation for the additional teaching assignment at the employee’s hourly, proportionate per diem rate.
- The District asserted the proposal involved a permissive (not mandatory) subject of bargaining under Iowa Code § 20.9.
- The Iowa Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) ruled the proposal permissive, stating it believed precedent compelled that result, though it indicated it would have found the proposal mandatory absent that constraint.
- On judicial review, the district court affirmed PERB.
- The Association appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Association’s overload pay proposal is a mandatory subject of bargaining under Iowa Code § 20.9, or a permissive subject the District need not bargain.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court and remanded.
- The Court held the specific overload pay proposal was a mandatory subject of bargaining under Iowa Code § 20.9.
- The Court concluded PERB misapplied prior precedent in classifying the proposal as permissive.

## Legal Principles

- Scope-of-bargaining disputes under Iowa Code § 20.9 are evaluated using a two-pronged analysis:
  - Whether the proposal is encompassed by a mandatory-subject category listed in § 20.9 (including wages, hours, overtime compensation, and supplemental pay).
  - Whether the proposal’s predominant effect relates to mandatory subjects (terms and conditions of employment) rather than the public employer’s reserved management prerogatives.
- A proposal tying additional compensation to workload beyond defined thresholds falls within statutory categories such as wages/hours/supplemental pay when its dominant thrust is payment for additional work.
- A proposal is not rendered permissive merely because it has incidental effects on workload assignment; the controlling inquiry is the proposal’s predominant purpose and effect.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the Association’s overload pay proposal primarily regulated compensation for additional teaching duties and therefore constituted a mandatory subject of collective bargaining under Iowa Code § 20.9, requiring reversal of PERB’s permissive classification and remand for further proceedings.


Waterloo Educ. Ass’n v. Iowa Pub. Emp. Rels. Bd., 740 N.W.2d 418 (Iowa 2007)