Rights of Public Employee in MN

A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE ENJOYS A STATUTORY RIGHT, CREATED BY MINN. STAT. 179A.06, SUBD. 1, INDEPENDENT AND EXCLUSIVE OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, TO EXPRESS HIS OR HER VIEWS TO HIS OR HER EMPLOYER.

There has been some litigation in Minnesota over the issue of whether a public employee enjoys the right, independent of his or her labor contract, to bring complaints or grievances directly to the employer without first contacting the labor union. This has especially proved to be a concern where the employee is a minority and still within the probationary period proscribed for certain public employment positions. What are a public employee’s rights when the employee’s labor union is prevented, due to the employee’s probationary status, from bringing a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement?

Minnesota Statutes Section 179A.06 reads as follows:

179A.06. Rights and obligations of employees.

 

 

 

 

 

Subdivision 1. Expression of views. Sections 179A.01 to 179A.25 do not affect the right of any public employee or the employee’s representative to express or communicate a view, grievance, complaint, or opinion on any matter related to the conditions or compensation of public employment or their betterment, so long as this is not designed to and does not interfere with the full faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment or circumvent the rights of the exclusive representative. Sections 179A.01 to 179A.25 do not require any public employee to perform labor or services against the employee’s will.

 

 

The public employee’s right created by Minn. Stat. 179A.06, Subd. 1 (1999) is only limited by the conditions placed upon it by the statute. That limit prevents a public employee from interfering “with the full faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment or circumvent the rights of the exclusive representative.” Id.

Marshall County Cent. Educ. Ass’n. v. Independent School Dist. No. 441, 363 N.W.2d 126 (Minn. App. 1985) (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Marshall County“) seems controlling of this issue. Marshall County deals squarely with the issue of a public employee’s statutory right to grieve the conditions or compensation of employment, whether independent of or in conjunction with the existence of an exclusive representative.

Patricia Dunning, the co-plaintiff in Marshall County, was “untenured” when her public employer decided to terminate her employment. Ms. Dunning had “expressed concern” and complained that her salary was “inappropriate.” Ms. Dunning’s employer did not tolerate many challenges before ending her employment. Ms. Dunning brought her complaints and concerns directly to her employer¹ and no union grievance procedure was underway when Ms. Dunning’s public employer wrongfully discharged her. Ms. Dunning had been commended for her work performance.

In Marshall County, the Minnesota Court of Appeals examined the issue of whether PELRA grants an independent right to express a view, grievance complaint or opinion regarding a public employee’s compensation. This Court stated, in reliance upon Ekstedt v. Village of New Hope, 193 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 1972), that “even if an employee is mistaken or in error with respect to allegations in a grievance, an employee cannot be discharged for submission of a grievance.” The Court examined the meaning of the word “grievance,” and determined that a liberal interpretation was required. The Court determined that “some complaint” or a “dispute or disagreement” was sufficient.

The statute the Court examined in Marshall County in 1985 was carried over, nearly word-for-word, into Minn. Stat. 179A.06, Subd. 1 (1999). As in the present statute’s progenitor, Minn. Stat. 179A.06 (1999)² also creates a right independent of the collective bargaining agreement.

For questions pertaining to the rights of  a Minnesota public employee, please call Boris Parker at (612) 355-2201 for a free telephone consultation.