Laserfiche WebLink
terminations from Minn. Stat. <br />§ 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. Public Employment <br />Relations Board <br />Issue: Dating back to the 1970's, Minnesota <br />had a Public Employment Relations Board <br />(PERB) in place, but over time, its <br />responsibilities were changed and reassigned <br />to another bureau. Until the reemergence of <br />the PERB in 2014, unfair labor practices <br />(ULPs) actions could be brought in <br />Minnesota District Courts through injunctive <br />relief. In 2014, the Legislature recreated <br />PERB to hear ULPs filed by employees, <br />employers and labor unions under the Public <br />Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA). <br />The board was created in Minn. Stat. ch. <br />179A and after receiving initial funding, the <br />board has yet to be fully funded or <br />operational. Much of the current statutory <br />language regarding implementation should <br />be amended to ensure the PERB operates <br />successfully and efficiently for both public <br />employees and employers. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports the structure and process <br />to address ULPs that was utilized before <br />the reestablishment of the PERB in 2014. <br />If the PERB is implemented fully and <br />funded sufficiently, the League of <br />Minnesota Cities encourages the <br />Legislature to make the following <br />changes: <br />a) Create statutory authority for the <br />PERB to establish a fee -based <br />structure for filing ULPs and to pay <br />for hearing officers, with costs to be <br />shared by employers and authorized <br />representatives; <br />b) Allow the PERB to defer to the <br />decisions made by an arbitrator to <br />prevent duplicative litigation on the <br />same issue; and <br />c) Amend the Minnesota Government <br />Data Practices Act and the Open <br />Meeting Law to properly maintain the <br />integrity of the hearing process. <br />HR-6. 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-7. 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 />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 83 <br />