City cannot restructure fire department by eliminating all full-time positions
By Barbara L. Jones
BridgeTower Media Newswires
MINNEAPOLIS, MN — The interests of unionized public employees trumped the interests of managerial policymakers at the Minnesota Supreme Court on Oct. 9. The city of Brainerd can’t reorganize its fire department in a way that eliminates the jobs of all the members of the International Association of Firefighters, Local 4725, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision.
Justice David Lillehaug wrote the opinion for the majority, and Chief Justice Lori Gildea dissented, joined by Justice G. Barry Anderson, in Firefighters Union Local 4725, et al. v. City of Brainerd.
The court said that the city committed an unfair labor practice by interfering with the existence of the local, even if its actions were pursuant to the city’s inherent managerial policy because the purpose was to save money. The opinion affirms the Court of Appeals, although with a different analysis.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Marshall Tanick said the case is important as the first Supreme Court interpretation of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act but also has implications for private sector labor unions in that employers cannot change existing labor agreements.
Tanick said the plaintiffs seek reinstatement, back pay and back benefits.
—————
City eliminated the union local
The case analyzes two PELRA provisions. One is the unfair labor practices provision, Minn. Stat. § 179A.13, subd. 2(2), and the other is the inherent managerial policy provision, Minn. Stat. § 179A.07, subd. 1.
The city’s and the union’s conflict dates back to 2015, when the city and the local executed a three-year collective bargaining agreement that covered the five unionized full-time fire equipment operator positions but not the nonunion part-time paid on-call firefighters, who receive nominal compensation and limited benefits.
Subsequently, the city decided to restructure the fire department by eliminating the full-time positions, using part-time fire fighters with a full-time assistant fire chief position. The union full-time employees lost their jobs and were replaced by nonunion on-call firefighters. The assistant chief position was filled by one of the on-call firefighters and not one of the laid-off full time employees.
As Lillehaug clearly pointed out, the city not only acknowledged but affirmatively asserted that its actions had eliminated the local. But, it said, a decision on a matter of inherent managerial policy is not an unfair labor practice under Minn. Stat. sec. 179A.07, subd. 1.
The District Court granted summary judgment to the city but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals concluded that it is not a matter of inherent managerial policy for a public employer to reorganize a department when the reorganization interferes with the existence and administration of a union.
—————
Unfair labor practices
The first question before the court was about the unfair labor practices provisions in Minn. Stat. § 179A.13, subd. 2(2), which says that public employers are prohibited from interfering with the formation, existence, or administration of any employee organization. The statute has never been interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The city did not deny interference but asked the court to apply the statute to only those acts that are not permitted under the inherent managerial policy provision, section 179A.07, subdivision 1.
The court, however, did not agree with the Court of Appeals that the reorganization of the fire department was not an “inherent managerial policy.” But it said that the statute specifically limits the extent of the legal protection that such a decision enjoys because it says only that a public employer is not required to meet and negotiate on matters of inherent managerial policy.
The city and the League of Minnesota Cities, amicus curiae, argued that the limit on the city’s options was bad public policy, but the court declined to consider the argument because the statute is clear and unambiguous. “If the language of section 179A.13, subdivision 2(2), does not embody sound public policy, it is up to the Legislature to revise it,” the court said.
—————
Unlawful motive
The city also argued that a decision on a matter of inherent managerial policy is an unfair labor practice only if the decision was based on an unlawful motive, such as anti-union animus. But the court said it could not read a motive element into the statute because the Legislature did not write one and the court could not add words to the statute. Other parts of PELRA require a motive element on the part of the employer.
Additionally, the court said, “Even if it would be good policy to add a new motive element to a 48-year-old law the drafting task — again — would be for the Legislature.”
