The Texas Supreme Court recently upheld a provision in the Austin Firefighters Association collective bargaining agreement that provides paid leave for “Association Business.” The case, Roger Borgelt, et al. v. Austin Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 975, et al., involved a challenge brought by Austin taxpayers and the State of Texas, who argued that providing paid leave for union activities constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds to the union. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the provision serves a public purpose and provides a public benefit.
The challenged provision, Article 10 of the collective bargaining agreement, granted 5,600 hours of paid leave each year for Association Business Leave (ABL). The Association president could use up to 2,080 of these hours annually. Other authorized Association representatives could use the remaining hours. To utilize ABL, firefighters had to obtain approval from both the Association president and the fire chief (or designee), who was required to approve requests unless they conflicted with the Department’s operational needs.
The taxpayers and the State argued that Article 10 violated the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clauses, which prohibit the government from giving public funds to private entities without receiving adequate consideration in return. They highlighted instances where ABL was allegedly used for private purposes like political activities, fundraising events, and other non-work-related activities.
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, ultimately found that Article 10 did not violate the Gift Clause. It reasoned that the collective bargaining agreement as a whole provided sufficient consideration because the City received firefighting services in exchange. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Article 10 itself contained limitations ensuring that ABL served a public purpose. These limitations included:
Permitted uses of ABL: The Court interpreted the definition of “Association Business” narrowly to encompass activities related to maintaining a stable employment relationship and improving the fire department’s service to the public. Examples included collective bargaining, grievance adjustments, dispute resolution, and attending union conferences and meetings.
Prohibition on certain activities: The agreement explicitly prohibited the use of ABL for political activities except for those related to firefighter safety and employment conditions.
City approval and control: The Court stressed that the requirement for fire chief approval, coupled with the City’s managerial control over firefighters, provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that ABL was used for legitimate public purposes.
The Court emphasized the importance of construing governmental contracts to avoid constitutional issues and relied on the presumption that government entities intend to comply with the Constitution. Based on this presumption and the limitations within Article 10, the Court held that the provision served a predominantly public purpose and did not constitute an unconstitutional gift.
However, the Court made clear that its decision did not condone any misuse of ABL. It emphasized that the City and the Association were obligated to implement Article 10 in accordance with its terms and limitations as interpreted by the Court. The Court explicitly stated that its ruling did not preclude future challenges if evidence emerged that the parties were not adhering to the agreement’s requirements. The Court also suggested that the legislature could enact legislation to provide stricter oversight of such provisions if deemed necessary.
Borgelt v. Austin Firefighters Ass’n, IAFF Loc. 975, 692 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. 2024).
Editorial Note: The Borgelt decision has significant implications for police and firefighter unions in Texas and other states, as it affirms the legality of provisions for paid leave for union business within collective bargaining agreements. It also underscores, however, the importance of carefully drafting such provisions to ensure they serve a clear public purpose and incorporate safeguards to prevent misuse. The Court’s emphasis on actual implementation and potential future challenges serves as a reminder that unions and municipalities must diligently adhere to the terms and limitations of their agreements to avoid legal challenges.