Laserfiche WebLink
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-8. Re-employment Benefits <br />Issue: Cities are often required to help pay <br />the benefits of workers who have initially <br />been denied benefits through their <br />employment with the city but later been re- <br />employed by a different employer; <br />sometimes this occurs when the employee <br />has been found to have committee gross <br />misconduct while employed by the city. <br />Additionally, employers are prohibited from <br />entering into agreements with employees not <br />to contest or appeal payment of <br />unemployment benefits as part of a <br />settlement agreement at termination of <br />employment. Because most cities are <br />"reimbursement employers," the majority of <br />the cost of benefits paid to the employee are <br />at the direct expense of the city. The ability <br />to enter into such an agreement can greatly <br />aid a city in reaching a settlement at a <br />relatively low-cost to the city's taxpayers. <br />Response: Cities should not be forced to <br />pay benefits as bae wage employers if the <br />employee is determined to have <br />committed gross misconduct during their <br />employment with the city, even if the <br />employee voluntarily resigns. In addition, <br />cities (as reimbursement employers) <br />should be allowed to enter into <br />agreements with employees to not contest <br />a determination of eligibility for <br />unemployment benefits where the <br />employer and employee mutually agree to <br />this as a term of separation. <br />HR-9. Public Employee Defined <br />Benefit Pension Plans <br />Issue: Public pensions are an important <br />employee benefit that can help cities attract <br />and retain employees. However, unlike <br />salary and other employee benefits that are <br />established by each city, the pension <br />contribution rates and benefit levels are set <br />by the state legislature. Benefit levels and <br />plan costs must be carefully balanced to <br />assure long-term sustainability of the <br />pension plans and affordability to employers <br />and employees. <br />Recent adjustments to balance PERA plan <br />costs have largely focused on contribution <br />increases rather than benefit adjustments. On <br />January 1, 2015, the employer and employee <br />contribution rates for the PERA General <br />Plan each increased by 0.25% of salary, <br />resulting in the current employer rate of 7.5 <br />percent of salary and an employee rate of <br />6.5 percent of salary. For PERA Police and <br />Fire (P&F) employees, the employer <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 84 <br />