Laserfiche WebLink
§ 179A.25; require a 60 -day <br />timeframe for filing a petition for <br />review of a grievance under Minn. <br />Stat. § 179A.25; and clarify that <br />decisions of Bureau of Mediation <br />Services (BMS) under this section are <br />non-binding and merely advisory. <br />HR -5. Payment of Arbitration Fees <br />Issue: Like other employers, cities must <br />sometimes make difficult employment <br />decisions and uphold certain principles in <br />order to best serve the public. In a union <br />environment, grievance arbitration is <br />generally used as a "last -resort" remedy <br />when a difficult employment decision must <br />be made or to uphold an important principle. <br />Legislation has been introduced in the past <br />that would require a city or the union to pay <br />arbitration fees if a reasonable settlement is <br />offered and refused in a grievance situation, <br />and the arbitrator ultimately decides on a <br />less favorable remedy. The legislation would <br />have the impact of discouraging cities from <br />using the grievance arbitration process in a <br />manner that best serves the public good. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities opposes legislation that would <br />undermine the grievance arbitration <br />process and discourage cities from using <br />the process in the manner intended. <br />Specifically, the League opposes any <br />legislation that proposes payment of <br />grievance arbitration fees when a <br />settlement is offered and declined. <br />HR -6. Essential Employees <br />Issue: Cities must balance the health, <br />welfare, and safety of the public with the <br />costs to taxpayers. Essential employee status <br />removes the right to strike, but gives the <br />right to mandatory binding arbitration. This <br />status can result in arbitration awards that <br />exceed the city's budget or conflict with the <br />city's compensation policy. <br />Response: The Legislature should <br />carefully examine requests from interest <br />groups seeking essential employee status <br />under Minn. Stat. ch. 179A (PELRA). <br />The League of Minnesota Cities opposes <br />legislation that mandates arbitration that <br />increases costs and removes local <br />decision-making authority. <br />The League supports a mandate for Final <br />Offer/Total Package arbitration for all <br />essential groups on a trial basis. The <br />League also supports a change in the <br />PELRA law that would strengthen <br />existing language (Minn. Stat. § 179A.16, <br />subd. 7) requiring arbitrators to consider <br />a public employer's obligation to <br />efficiently manage their operations. <br />Specifically, the statute should be <br />amended to require arbitrators to take <br />into consideration any wage adjustments <br />already given to or negotiated with other <br />groups — both union and non-union for <br />the same employer in the same contract <br />year. <br />HR -7. Re-employment Benefits <br />Issue: Cities employ many workers in <br />seasonal and temporary positions such as <br />parks and recreation -related positions. In the <br />past, such workers generally have not filed <br />for unemployment benefits because there <br />has not been an expectation of continued <br />employment. In recent years, cities have <br />experienced an increase in the number of <br />such workers applying for unemployment <br />benefits. This increases costs to cities and <br />taxpayers in a way that may not have been <br />originally intended. <br />In the 2012 legislative session, a new law <br />was passed which prohibits employers from <br />entering into agreements with employees not <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 76 <br />