JEFFERSON CITY • The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments this morning in three cases that could have a far-reaching impact on the way collective bargaining works for public employees in cities and school districts throughout Missouri.

The cases could determine how workers choose unions, whether government employers must bargain in "good faith" and exactly what that means.

It will be the first time that the court has weighed in on these issues since ruling in 2007 that public employees have a constitutional right to engage in collective bargaining with their employers.

In that decision, which involved the Independence-National Education Association's battle with the Independence School District, the high court said the Missouri Legislature was responsible for passing laws establishing a framework for collective bargaining.

But in the four years since the decision, the Legislature has not acted to set up bargaining rules. Thus, the disputes ended up in court.

All three cases involve St. Louis-area governmental agencies.

One centers on whether the Construction Careers Center in St. Louis bargained in good faith when the board of the charter school adopted a salary schedule without first presenting it at the bargaining table during lengthy negotiations with the American Federation of Teachers.

The union contends the school thwarted the collective bargaining process.

"I think you do have to hold employers to making an honest attempt to reach an agreement," said attorney George O. Suggs, representing the teachers' union. "What you can't do is to take steps to make sure that you don't agree."

The school argued that it did not frustrate the bargaining process because administrators met with the union, listened to union proposals and presented them to the school's governing board before rejecting them.

Judge Laura Denvir Stith questioned that description of bargaining, saying that the school's position meant "the government will listen politely and then go into another room and make the decision."

The other two cases involve police attempts to organize and bargain in Chesterfield and University City.

When employees choose a union to represent them, normally the State Board of Mediation supervises the election and certifies the winner. But teachers and police are not included under that law, so cities and school districts make their own rules.

The Fraternal Order of Police is challenging the practices in the cities of Chesterfield and University City.

In 2007, the union sent letters to Chesterfield officials, seeking to become the bargaining agent for officers and sergeants in the city's police department. The city declined to so designate the union.

Robert M. Heggie, representing the city of Chesterfield, said the city was "concerned about putting a union between the residents and the city in terms of providing police service."

The trial court ordered the city to establish a framework for bargaining and to hold a union certification election. Heggie questioned whether any court has the ability to direct the city to establish such procedures without violating the constitutional separation of powers.

So if there's no law spelling out the procedures, who should establish them, asked Judge Mary Russell.

"The Legislature should," Heggie responded.

The Fraternal Order of Police noted that it has unsuccessfully sought collective bargaining legislation for years.

If the city has no obligation to let employees exercise their constitutional right to bargain, "we can go home right now," said the union's attorney, Greg Kloeppel. "But I don't believe that's what this court said" in the 2007 Independence ruling.

That ruling "is very clear," Kloeppel said. "It is up to the employer to set the framework."

Both sides say the cases could result in landmark decisions.

"The Independence case gave us our rights," said Jeff Roorda, who represents the St. Louis Police Officers Association and was among the spectators in the full courtroom. "It just didn't give us a vehicle to get to our rights."

The Missouri Municipal League filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court to preserve the separation of powers.

"There's a process in place to address this," said Dan Ross, executive director of the municipal league. "You go to the Legislature and work it until you get it resolved."