Laserfiche WebLink
structure to the state's Pay Equity <br />Compliance Coordinator within the <br />Department of Management and Budget. <br />The data is then subject to analysis to <br />determine if there are inequities in the city's <br />pay structure. Since its passage, the <br />administrative rules implementing the Act <br />have not substantively changed. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports the Local Government <br />Pay Equity Act, and seeks to partner with <br />the Legislature and the state's Pay Equity <br />Compliance Coordinator to update and <br />improve the current system so that cities <br />can more efficiently and effectively fulfill <br />the mandated reporting requirements. <br />Local governments and the state should: <br />a) Explore and document problems <br />individual local governments are <br />experiencing, and evaluate whether <br />the problems are widespread and if <br />they can be resolved administratively; <br />b) Evaluate the reporting process, and <br />make recommendations for <br />improvement as needed; <br />c) Review the methodology for analyzing <br />pay equity data; and <br />d) Evaluate the process by which cities <br />receive notification of reporting <br />requirements and compliance issues <br />and make recommendations for <br />improvement as needed. <br />HR -4. Public Employment Labor <br />Relations Act (PELRA) <br />Issue: The League of Minnesota Cities <br />supports the purpose of the Public <br />Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) <br />to balance the rights and interests of public <br />employees, public employers, and the <br />general public. However, certain changes <br />are necessary to assist public employers in <br />implementing this law. For example, current <br />definitions of "public employee" are <br />confusing and difficult to manage. In <br />addition, the arbitration process has <br />produced decisions that are contrary to the <br />interests of the public, and the legal standard <br />for overturning arbitration decisions is very <br />difficult to meet. Also, recent <br />interpretations of Minn. Stat. § 179A.25 <br />(independent review of non-union employee <br />grievances) has created uncertainty and <br />confusion in the longstanding judicial <br />process used by courts to review city council <br />administrative decisions, particularly <br />employment termination decisions of non- <br />union employees. <br />Response: Minn. Stat. ch. 179A should be <br />modified to: <br />a) Change the definition of "public <br />employee" under PELRA by <br />removing the existing 14-hour/67-day <br />requirement and replace it with a <br />definition in which employees must <br />work more than an annual average of <br />20 hours per week. <br />b) Exclude temporary or seasonal <br />employees from the PELRA definition <br />of public employee in Minn. Stat. <br />ch. 179A. <br />c) Provide different options for accessing <br />arbitrators and utilizing the <br />arbitration process in order to <br />"address inequities" between union <br />and management representatives. <br />d) Allow public employers to bypass <br />mandatory arbitration required under <br />PELRA and directly access the <br />district court system in situations <br />where an employee is being <br />terminated for gross misconduct (e.g., <br />sexual harassment, sexual abuse, theft <br />or a felony conviction) that is related <br />to the employee's position with the <br />public employer. <br />e) Repeal Minn. Stat. § 179A.25 or, in <br />lieu of repeal, exclude employment <br />terminations from Minn. Stat. <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 75 <br />