In a win for unions, the Florida Supreme Court this week refused to take up a case that will force the city of Gainesville to collectively bargain changes in retiree health-insurance benefits.
The city, which sought to overturn a 1st District Court of Appeal ruling, argued in court documents that the case could have broad implications for government agencies that want to rein in benefit costs.
"At issue is the right of a public employer to manage the benefits it provides to public employees,'' the city said in a brief asking the Supreme Court to take the case. "Public employers, like any other employer, have the right to set the terms and conditions of employment and to change the terms in response to changing conditions.''
Justices did not explain their reasons for declining to take up the case.
The case stemmed from a 2008 decision by the city to contribute set amounts of money toward each retiree's health-insurance premiums. Previously, the city had pegged its contributions to percentages of the premiums -- a more-generous method that could lead to contributions growing as premiums increased.
The contributions had not been a part of collective-bargaining agreements between the city and employee unions. But the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed with union arguments that the percentages had become what is known as a "past practice" that was subject to bargaining.
"Job-related benefits, although not catalogued in an existing bargaining agreement, may nevertheless constitute terms and conditions of employment which are not subject to change by the employer unilaterally,'' the appeals-court said.
Though the circumstances differed, the 2nd District Court of Appeal also ruled recently that the Polk County school district couldn't bypass collective bargaining in imposing insurance changes on employees. The district tried to impose costs on employees because of budget problems.
