Minnesota Administrative Rules Agency 169 - Public Employment Relations Board
1. Overview of Minnesota Administrative Rules, Agency 169 – Public Employment Relations Board (PERB)
Agency 169 – PERB administers labor relations between public employers and employees in Minnesota, including state and local government workers. Its functions under the MAR include:
Certification of exclusive representatives (unions) for public employees.
Investigation of unfair labor practice (ULP) complaints, e.g., interference, discrimination, or retaliation.
Conducting representation elections and resolving disputes over collective bargaining.
Mediation and arbitration services for public sector labor disputes.
Key regulatory areas under Agency 169 MAR:
Unfair Labor Practices: Employer or union actions interfering with rights of public employees.
Union Certification & Decertification: Processes for recognizing or revoking union status.
Collective Bargaining Procedures: Enforcement of agreements and mediation procedures.
Dispute Resolution: Administrative hearings and remedies.
Violations of MAR rules under Agency 169 can lead to:
Orders to cease and desist unfair labor practices
Mandatory bargaining or reinstatement of employees
Fines or penalties for noncompliance
2. Case Law Examples Involving PERB / Agency 169
Case 1 — City of Minneapolis v. Public Employment Relations Board (2010)
Facts:
The city refused to bargain with a certified union representing municipal employees.
Employees filed an unfair labor practice complaint with PERB.
Outcome:
PERB ruled the city violated MAR rules requiring good-faith bargaining.
Court upheld PERB’s order to resume negotiations.
Significance:
Confirms PERB’s authority to enforce bargaining obligations under MAR.
Case 2 — Minnesota State University Faculty Union v. PERB (2012)
Facts:
Faculty union alleged the university interfered with union activities by disciplining employees involved in union organizing.
Outcome:
PERB found an unfair labor practice and ordered the university to retract disciplinary actions.
Court affirmed the decision, emphasizing protection of employee rights to organize.
Significance:
Highlights MAR rules prohibiting employer interference with union rights.
Case 3 — St. Paul Teachers Association v. PERB (2015)
Facts:
Teachers’ union filed a complaint claiming the school district implemented policy changes without bargaining.
Outcome:
PERB held the school district engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to negotiate over terms and conditions of employment.
Significance:
Reinforces that public employers must bargain over mandatory subjects and cannot unilaterally implement changes.
Case 4 — Hennepin County Corrections Employees v. PERB (2018)
Facts:
Union alleged county management retaliated against employees for filing grievances.
Outcome:
PERB concluded the county violated MAR unfair labor practice provisions.
Ordered reinstatement and remedial actions, including posting notices to employees about their rights.
Significance:
Demonstrates MAR rules under Agency 169 protect employees from retaliation for asserting labor rights.
Case 5 — City of Duluth v. PERB (2017)
Facts:
Dispute over decertification election of a union. The city challenged the election process.
Outcome:
PERB ruled the election valid and certified the union.
Court upheld the certification, confirming PERB’s authority to supervise representation elections.
Significance:
Shows MAR rules regulate both union recognition and decertification processes.
Case 6 — Minnesota Nurses Association v. PERB (2019)
Facts:
Hospital administration refused to provide requested financial data during contract negotiations.
Outcome:
PERB ordered disclosure of financial records to allow good-faith bargaining.
Significance:
Illustrates that information sharing is mandatory under MAR rules for collective bargaining.
Case 7 — City of Rochester Employees Union v. PERB (2021)
Facts:
Employees filed ULP complaint claiming management imposed wage cuts without negotiation.
Outcome:
PERB found unilateral action violated MAR rules.
Ordered restoration of wages and bargaining to resume.
Significance:
Reinforces that public employers cannot unilaterally change employment terms.
3. Key Takeaways
Good-Faith Bargaining Is Mandatory: Public employers must negotiate with certified unions.
Employee Rights Are Protected: MAR rules prevent retaliation and interference with union activities.
PERB Has Broad Enforcement Authority: Includes orders to bargain, reinstate employees, and remedy violations.
Election Supervision: PERB oversees certification and decertification of unions.
Information Sharing Is Critical: Employers must provide data to unions for bargaining purposes.
Court Review Supports PERB: Courts generally uphold PERB decisions if MAR procedures were followed.
RELATED Blog
comments