1. It shall be a prohibited practice for any public employer, public employee, or employee organization to refuse to negotiate in good faith with respect to the scope of negotiations as defined in section 20.9.
2. It shall be a prohibited practice for a public employer or the employer’s designated representative to:
a. Interfere with, restrain, or coerce public employees in the exercise of rights granted by this chapter.
b. Dominate or interfere in the administration of any employee organization.
c. Encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization, committee, or association by discrimination in hiring, tenure, or other terms or conditions of employment.
d. Discharge or discriminate against a public employee because the employee has filed an affidavit, petition, or complaint or given any information or testimony under this chapter, or because the employee has formed, joined, or chosen to be represented by any employee organization.
e. Refuse to negotiate collectively with representatives of certified employee organizations as required in this chapter.
f. Deny the rights accompanying certification granted in this chapter.
g. Refuse to participate in good faith in any agreed upon impasse procedures or those set forth in this chapter.
h. Engage in a lockout.
3. It shall be a prohibited practice for public employees or an employee organization or for any person, union, or organization or their agents to:
a. Interfere with, restrain, coerce, or harass any public employee with respect to any of the employee’s rights under this chapter or in order to prevent or discourage the employee’s exercise of any such right, including, without limitation, all rights under section 20.8.
b. Interfere, restrain, or coerce a public employer with respect to rights granted in this chapter or with respect to selecting a representative for the purposes of negotiating collectively or the adjustment of grievances.
c. Refuse to bargain collectively with a public employer as required in this chapter.
d. Refuse to participate in good faith in any agreed upon impasse procedures or those set forth in this chapter.
e. Violate section 20.12.
f. Violate the provisions of sections 732.1 through 732.3, which are hereby made applicable to public employers, public employees, and employee organizations.
g. Picket in a manner which interferes with ingress and egress to the facilities of the public employer.
h. Engage in, initiate, sponsor, or support any picketing that is performed in support of a strike, work stoppage, boycott, or slowdown against a public employer.
i. Picket for any unlawful purpose.\n\nTue Dec 09 22:32:26 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 20 (35, 0) 7 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (COLLECTIVE BARGAINING), §20.12\n\n j. Negotiate or attempt to negotiate directly with a member of the governing board of a public employer if the public employer has appointed or authorized a bargaining representative for the purpose of bargaining with the public employees or their representative, unless the member of the governing board is the designated bargaining representative of the public employer.
4. The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether orally or in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of any prohibited practice under any of the provisions of this chapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. [C75, 77, 79, 81, §20.10] 2010 Acts, ch 1165, §7 – 13; 2017 Acts, ch 2, §7, 26, 27; 2021 Acts, ch 80, §10 Referred to in §20.11 \n
Notes of Decisions
State v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 744 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 2008).
· cites it 36× “” Iowa Code § 20.10 (1) (emphasis added). The ALJ stated there was no evidence in the record that would establish the willfulness of the State’s violation of section 20.”
Jackson Cnty. Pub. Hosp. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 280 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1979).
· cites it 8× “The complaint alleged that Scott and Edson were discharged for union activity and that the discharges violated sections 20.10(2)(a), (b) and (d). The hearing officer and the PERB found that prohibited practices, violations of sections 20.”
Norton v. Adair Cnty., 441 N.W.2d 347 (Iowa 1989).
· cites it 14× “” Our question is *354 whether this is a grant of exclusive or merely concurrent jurisdiction over complaints alleging a breach of the fair representation duty.”
UE Local 893/IUP v. State of Iowa, 928 N.W.2d 51 (Iowa 2019).
· cites it 5× “In its prohibited-practice complaint, UE alleged that the State had engaged in prohibited practices described in Iowa Code section 20.10, which provides, 1. It shall be a prohibited practice for any public employer .”
Cerro Gordo Cnty. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 395 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “Cerro Gordo County appeals the district court’s affirmance of a Public Employment Relations Board ruling that County Care Facility employee Denzil Jones was discharged for union activities in violation of Iowa Code § 20.10 (2)(a), (c) and (d) (1985), and order reinstating Jones.”
Mount Pleasant Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 343 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 1984).
· cites it 8× “Another part of chapter 20 of the Iowa Code provides in section 20.10(4): 4. The expressing of any views, argument or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of any unfair labor practice…”
Uni-United Fac. v. Iowa Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 545 N.W.2d 274 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 14× “Violations of the general duty to collectively bargain over mandatory subjects of bargaining are codified in Iowa Code section 20.10, which states in relevant part: (2) It shall be a prohibited practice for a public employer [such as the State/UNI] or the employer’s designated…”
Thompson v. City of Des Moines, 564 N.W.2d 839 (Iowa 1997).
· cites it 2× “Although Thompson believed this “end run” — like the others — amounted to a prohibited practice under Iowa Code section 20.10(3)(b) and revealed the animus underlying his eventual termination as the city’s chief negotiator, no prohibited practice claim was ever filed.”
Ross v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 417 N.W.2d 475 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 8× “Iowa Code § 20.10 (2)(a) and (b) (1985). In contrast, the ISP contends that it fired Ross because he was insubordinate in refusing to cooperate with the ISP’s investigation, and because of his use of illegal drugs.”
Kelly v. State, 525 N.W.2d 409 (Iowa 1994).
· cites it 3× “Finally we cannot agree that the disparity violates Iowa Code section 20.10. 2 Even assuming that the disparate increases “coerced” employees to join a union, a contention by no means conceded, plaintiffs’ argument fails.”
— Iowa Code § 20.10(1) — 8 cases
State v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 744 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 2008).
“” Iowa Code § 20.10 (1) (emphasis added). The ALJ stated there was no evidence in the record that would establish the willfulness of the State’s violation of section 20.”
UE Local 893/IUP v. State of Iowa, 928 N.W.2d 51 (Iowa 2019).
“In its prohibited-practice complaint, UE alleged that the State had engaged in prohibited practices described in Iowa Code section 20.10, which provides, 1. It shall be a prohibited practice for any public employer .”
— Iowa Code § 20.10(2) — 5 cases
Uni-United Fac. v. Iowa Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 545 N.W.2d 274 (Iowa 1996).
“Violations of the general duty to collectively bargain over mandatory subjects of bargaining are codified in Iowa Code section 20.10, which states in relevant part: (2) It shall be a prohibited practice for a public employer [such as the State/UNI] or the employer’s designated…”
Ross v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 417 N.W.2d 475 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987).
“Iowa Code § 20.10 (2)(a) and (b) (1985). In contrast, the ISP contends that it fired Ross because he was insubordinate in refusing to cooperate with the ISP’s investigation, and because of his use of illegal drugs.”
— Iowa Code § 20.10(2)(a) — 9 cases
Jackson Cnty. Pub. Hosp. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 280 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1979).
“The complaint alleged that Scott and Edson were discharged for union activity and that the discharges violated sections 20.10(2)(a), (b) and (d). The hearing officer and the PERB found that prohibited practices, violations of sections 20.”
State v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 744 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 2008).
“” Iowa Code § 20.10 (1) (emphasis added). The ALJ stated there was no evidence in the record that would establish the willfulness of the State’s violation of section 20.”
Uni-United Fac. v. Iowa Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 545 N.W.2d 274 (Iowa 1996).
“Violations of the general duty to collectively bargain over mandatory subjects of bargaining are codified in Iowa Code section 20.10, which states in relevant part: (2) It shall be a prohibited practice for a public employer [such as the State/UNI] or the employer’s designated…”
Kelly v. State, 525 N.W.2d 409 (Iowa 1994).
“Finally we cannot agree that the disparity violates Iowa Code section 20.10. 2 Even assuming that the disparate increases “coerced” employees to join a union, a contention by no means conceded, plaintiffs’ argument fails.”
— Iowa Code § 20.10(2)(c) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 20.10(2)(e) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 20.10(2)(g) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 20.10(3) — 2 cases
Norton v. Adair Cnty., 441 N.W.2d 347 (Iowa 1989).
“” Our question is *354 whether this is a grant of exclusive or merely concurrent jurisdiction over complaints alleging a breach of the fair representation duty.”
— Iowa Code § 20.10(3)(a) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 20.10(3)(b) — 2 cases
Thompson v. City of Des Moines, 564 N.W.2d 839 (Iowa 1997).
“Although Thompson believed this “end run” — like the others — amounted to a prohibited practice under Iowa Code section 20.10(3)(b) and revealed the animus underlying his eventual termination as the city’s chief negotiator, no prohibited practice claim was ever filed.”
— Iowa Code § 20.10(3)(h) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 20.10(4) — 1 case
Mount Pleasant Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 343 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 1984).
“Another part of chapter 20 of the Iowa Code provides in section 20.10(4): 4. The expressing of any views, argument or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of any unfair labor practice…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.