BMS REPRESENTATION DECISIONS

Click on a name below to view entire order:  (Orders are listed by date, with the most recently issued order listed first.)


Itasca County, Grand Rapids, Minnesota
          - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Pucli and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local 320 Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 14PCE 14PCE0605 (Order Issued August 6, 2014)

In a case of first impression, Itasca County was found to be the “public employer” as they exercise “final budgetary approval authority” under Minnesota Statutes 179A.03, Subd. 15 (a)(6) 2013 for a group of Probation Officers under a Minnesota Department of Corrections/County Probation Office system.


City of Minneapolis, Minnesota
        - and -
Minnesota Public Employees Association, Roseville, Minnesota
        - and -
AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota
        - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 14PRE0167 (Ruling issued February 20, 2014)

The Bureau issued a ruling that Council 5 and MNPEA shall share the cost of the hearing transciption equally and that there is not a reasonable appearance that MNPEA presently fails to comply with any of the requirements of sections 179.18 to179.231.


City of Minneapolis, Minnesota
        - and -
Minnesota Public Employees Association, Roseville, Minnesota
        - and -
AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota
        - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 14PRE0167 (Order Dismissing Complaint issued February 3, 2014)

The Minnesota Public Employees Association filed a petition with the Bureau requesting a representation election. AFSCME Minnesota Council 5 filed a complaint concerning the status of MNPEA as a labor organization within the meaning of PELRA. Teamsters 320 also filed a showing of interest to be on the ballot in the election.  Subsequently, AFSME withdrew it's complaint with prejudice. The Bureau dismissed the complaint with prejudice.


Metropolitan Council, Minneapolis, Minnesotnd
          - and -
American Federation of State, County and Munnicipal Emploeyes, Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 12PCL1146 (Unit Clarificaiton Order issued September 26, 2013)

AFSCME Council 5 requsted that their baragining unit be modified to include employees of the Transit Division. The Bureau determined that no compelling reason to modify the unit was presented. The description of the appropriate unit representd by AFSCME 5 was not amended.


City of Bloomington, Minnesota
     - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 12PCE1115 & 12PCE1116 (Certification Unit Determination Order Issued September 6, 2012)

The Bureau certified two units within the City’s Public Works department as appropriate units. The Bureau found persuasive the fact that an appropriate unit consisting of the entire Public Works Department was certified in 1973 and the parties never reached a collective bargaining agreement. The Bureau took this as strong evidence that the bargaining unit proposed by the City was not an appropriate unit.

NOTE:  On September 17, 2012, the City of Bloomington requested reconsideration of the Certification Unit Determination Order.  On September 17, 2012, the Bureau issued a Request for Reconsideration Order.

On October 8, 2012, the Bureau issued a Ruling on Reconsideration finding that the Certification Unit Determination Order Issued on September 6, 2012, was properly issued.

On October 12, 2012, the City filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

On July 15, 2013, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an Order affirming the Bureau's decision.


City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota
            - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 11PCE1283  (Certification Unit Determination Order Issued June 5, 2012)

The Bureau certified a unit of non-supervisory, non-confidential Firefighters which included Lieutenants, Fire Technicians, Captains, Division Chiefs and the Deputy Fire Marshall.  Based on the parties’ stipulation of using calendar year 2010 payroll data this unit includes some part-time Firefighters.


University of Minnesota, Unit No. 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota
            - and -
Graduate Student Workers United UAW, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 12PCE0753  (Ruling on Unfair Election Practice Charge Issued on June 5, 2012)


City of Coon Rapids, Minnesota
     - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 12PCL0486 (Unit Clarification Order Issued on April 29, 2012)

The Bureau issued an Order finding that certain seasonal employees of the City meet the definition of a public employee within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 179A.03, subd. 14, and are included within the bargaining unit represented by Local 320.

NOTE:  On April 27, 2012, the City of Coon Rapids requested reconsideration of the Unit Clarification Order.  On May 1, 2012, the Bureau issued a Stay of Unit Clarification Order.

On July 5, 2012, the Bureau issued a Ruling on Request for Reconsideration finding that the Unit Clarification Order Issued on April 19, 2012, was properly issued.

On August 3, 2012, the City filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Bureau issued an Order to Stay on September 28, 2012.

On April 15, 2013, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an Order affirming the Bureau's decision.


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota
            - and -
Great River Regional Library, St. Cloud, Minnesota

BMS Case No.  11PCE0630  (Reconsideration of Certification Unit Determination Order issued March 28, 2012)

Due to the significant Bureau errors in this case and the length of delays, it is no longer possible to fairly determine the wishes of the employees who initiated the original petition. Therefore, in the interest of public policy in promoting orderly and constructive relationships between public employers and their employees, the Bureau deems it appropriate to vacate its order of August 9, 2011 and dismiss the petition in this matter.


Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union,
Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Union)
 - and -
Independent School District No. 535, Rochester, Minnesota (District)

BMS Case No. 09PCL1116   (Reconsideration of Unit Clarification Order issued March 28, 2012)

Based on the strength of statutory language, court guidance, prior Bureau decisions, the parties thirty year history of collective bargaining, and the parties history of mutually agreeable modifications to the Recognition Article of the collective bargaining agreement, the Bureau will modify its Unit Determination Order of March 18, 2011. Upon Reconsideration the Bureau will exclude the positions of School Age Child Care Activity Assistant, Electrical Assistant and Low Voltage Technician from the current Unit Clarification Determination Order.


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota
            - and -
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
(Reconsideration of Unit Clarification Order issued March 27, 2012)

BMS Case No. 10PCL0214

The Bureau held that it did not err in its Unit Clarification Order issued on November 22, 2010, when it found that the position of Administrative Secretary in the Public Safety Department to not be confidential, and should be included in the bargaining unit represented by AFSCME 5


University of Minnesota, Unit 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota
            - and -
Graduate Student Workers United/UAW, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 12PCE0753 (Certification Unit Determination and Election Order issued March 1, 2012)


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota (Union)
            - and -
Southwest Health and Human Services, Marshall, Minnesota
          - and -
Lincoln, Lyon, Murray, Pipestone Public Health Services, Marshall, Minnesota
          - and -
Lincoln, Lyon, Murray Human Services, Marshall, Minnesota

BMS Case Nos. 11PCL0441and 11PCL0442; 11PCE0443 and 11PCE0444
(Unit Clarification and Dismissal of Certification Petition issued June 30, 2011)

The Bureau held that where there is no substantial change in the Public Employer enterprise, and a majority of the employees of a successor public employer(s) are retained, the certified exclusive representative is entitled to a presumption of majority status and be recognized as exclusive representative on this basis. However, BMS lacks authority to grant requested relief; specifically agency may not determine if the successor employer is an “alter ego” bound to a collective bargaining agreement which was in effect at the time successor employer was created.


UBAH Medical Academy District No. 4121, Hopkins, Minnesota
            - and -
Education Minnesota UBAH Medical Academy, Hopkins, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 11PCE0488 (Certification Unit Determination Order issued April 26, 2011)

The Bureau held that five teachers making up a majority of school’s board of directors were confidential under PELRA and thus not eligible for teacher bargaining unit certification election.

The Bureau 's decision was appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision. Click here to read the court's decision.


Independent School District 535, Rochester, Minnesota
          - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320, Minneapolis Minnesota

BMS Case No. 09PCL1116  (Unit Clarification Order issued March 18, 2011)

The petition is this case raised three issues: The confidential status of the Technical Repair Technician; the supervisory status of the Head Custodian Engineer High School and Head Custodian Engineer Middle School; and whether the following classifications share a community of interest with the employees in the Maintenance Units: Electrical Forman/Master Electrician, Electrical Assistant; Technical Repair Technician, Low Voltage Technician, School Age Child Care Activity Assistant, and CADD Operator.

The Bureau ruled that: The position of Technical Repair Technician is confidential within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 179A.03, subd. 4, and is excluded from the Maintenance Unit represented by Local 320.

The classifications of Head Custodian Engineer Middle School and Head Custodian Engineer High School are supervisory within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 179A.03, subd. 17 and are excluded from the Maintenance Unit represented by Local No. 320.

The classifications of Electrical Forman/Master Electrician and CAAD Operator do not share a community of interest with the other employees of the unit and are excluded from the Maintenance Unit represented by Local 320.

The classifications of Electrical Assistant, Low Voltage Technician and the School Age Child Care Activity Assistant do share a community of interest with the other employees of the unit and are included in the Maintenance Unit represented by Local 320.


City of Warren, Minnesota
            - and -
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Shoreview Minnesota

BMS Case No. 11PAF0062 (Order issued November 4, 2010)

Minnesota Association of Professional Employees may not continue as exclusive representative where there are no employees to represent.


Intermediate School District No 287, Plymouth, Minnesota
          - and -
School Service Employees, Local 284, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 10PCL159  (Unit Clarification Order issued October 22, 2010)

A joint petition was filed by School Service Employees, SEIU Local 284 and Intermediate School District No. 287 requesting that the Bureau determine appropriate unit placement for numerous employees.


Minnesota Judicial Branch, St. Paul, Minnesota
          - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota
          - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota
          - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 10PCL0356  (Unit Clarification Order issued September 8, 2010)

The issue raised in this case was whether or not the newly-created position of Minnesota Court Payment Center Clerk is properly included in the bargaining units represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 5, and Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320.  The Bureau found that the position is not properly included in the bargaining units.


City of Coleraine, Minnesota
          - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota
          - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local 320. Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case Nos. 10PCL0415 and 10PTR1309 (Unit Clarification Order and Transfer of Exclusive Representative Order Issued August 4, 2010)

The issue raised in this case was whether or not the AFSCME Council 65 Units may continue affiliation given one of the units is supervisory. The Bureau found the grandfathering provided in Statute and lack of any objections or challenges to these earlier determinations validates the current structure. Additionally, the AFSCME Council 65 has transferred the representation status of the Supervisory Unit to the Minnesota Teamsters Local 320.

NOTE: On August 16, 2010, the City of Coleraine objected to the Transfer of Exclusive Representative Order. On August 23, 2010, the Bureau issued a Stay of Transfer of Exclusive Representative Order.

After stipulation of the parties regarding the makeup of the transferred unit, the Employer withdrew its objection to the transfer order.  A Transfer of Exclusive Representative Order was issued on September 20, 2010.


University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
     - and -
AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case Nos. 09PCL0964, 09PCL0965, 09PCL0966
(Unit Clarification Order issued July 13, 2010)

Parties to a collective bargaining agreement established pursuant to statute (Minn. Stat. § 179A.11) may not exclude by agreement any public employees whose positions fall with its scope.

To be deemed excluded from public employee status under Minn. Stat. § 179A.03 Subd. 14(i) (2009) because they are “…employed in connection with the receipt of financial aid” an undergraduate student must be enrolled full-time and receive an individualized determination that their University employment is in connection with receipt of financial aid

In order to be excluded from public employee status irrespective of the number of hours worked, undergraduate students (pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 179A.03 Subd. 14(i)) must be enrolled a minimum of 12 credits per semester.

NOTE: On July 23, 2010, the University of Minnesota requested a stay, clarification and reconsideration of this Order. On July 26, 2010, the Bureau issued a Stay of Unit Clarification Order.


American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota
          - and -
Rochester Professional Employees Association, Rochester, Minnesota
          - and -
City of Rochester, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 08PCL1140 and 09PCL0557 (Unit Clarification Order issued April 22, 2010)

Storm Water Utility/Assistant Education (SWUAE) is not supervisory and is removed from its current placement in a supervisory bargaining unit represented by RPEA.  Balancing all statutory factors the position at issue is placed within the appropriate unit represented by AFSCME 65.  The key factor was bargaining history, the Bureau normally defers to bargained agreements of the parties concerning boundaries of a negotiated bargaining unit description.  Here, the parties negotiated bargaining unit description lacked broad guidance concerning inclusions or exclusions and consisted only of a list of job classifications.  The job classification of SWUAE was new and never subject to the bargaining over its inclusion or exclusion.  Therefore, in this case the parties negotiated bargaining unit scope was not a determinative factor.

The Event Sales Associate (ESA) is not supervisory and is removed from its current placement in a supervisory bargaining unit represented by RPEA.  Considering all statutory factors this position is excluded from the appropriate unit represented by AFSCME 65.  Here too bargaining history is the key factor; the ESA is not a new position, thus the parties had an opportunity to negotiate over its bargaining unit placement.  Since no evidence indicated this occurred, BMS accorded significant weight to the existing recognition clause.


City of Moorhead, Minnesota
        - and -
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 09PCL0245   (Unit Clarification issued November 23, 2009)

AFSCME 65 filed a petition requesting that the Bureau determine appropriate unit placement for numerous employees.


Certain Employees of Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota
     - and -
Education Minnesota Anoka County Juvenile Center Educators, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
County of Anoka, Anoka, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 09PDE0700 (Ruling or Request for Reconsideration issued July 1, 2009)

A request for reconsideration of a Certification of Exclusive Representative made by the employer was denied.


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 181, Brainerd, Minnesota
     - and -
Education Minnesota Brainerd Educational Assistants, Brainerd, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 09PCL0098 (Unit Clarification Issued January 5, 2009)

BMS Case No. 09PCL0098 (Rescission of Unit Clarification Order and Replacement Unit Clarification Order Issued May 12, 2009)

The issue raised in this case was whether the positions of Educational Assistant-Clerical and the Educational Assistant for: General Classroom, Title I, ECFE, School Readiness, ECFE Sibling Care and AEC Child Care  are more appropriately assigned to the unit represented by AFSCME.  The positions have existed within the Education Minnesota appropriate unit for some time and Education Minnesota objected to their exclusion.  The Bureau found one position to be clerical in nature and appropriately assigned it to the AFSCME unit while the other two are appropriately within the unit represented by Education Minnesota.

Education Minnesota Brainerd Educational Assistants appealed the Bureau's decision to the Court of Appeals on February 4, 2009. On May 11, 2009, the parties reached a stipulated agreement which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The Bureau then issued a Rescission of Unit Clarification Order and Replacement Unit Clarification Order on May 12, 2009.


Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota
     - and -
AFSCME, Minnesota Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 09PCE0159 (Issued December 1, 2008)

Union’s request for a bargaining unit consisting of all clerical, technical and professional employees of County Human Services Division was found to be “an appropriate unit, not withstanding 1990 Bureau decision favoring a wall to wall clerical and technical unit."   Standard to be applied is whether the Union’s proposed bargaining group is “an appropriate unit” not to seek the “most appropriate unit”.  Therefore, in addressing such questions the Bureau first determines if the Union’s proposal is “an appropriate unit” before considering alternative proposals.

Probation Officers assigned to Institutional Services Unit (ISU) are found to be “guards at correctional facilities” and thus essential employees within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §179A.03, Subd. 7 (2008).  As such they are excluded from the appropriate unit of all clerical, technical and professional employees of County Human Services Division.


State of Minnesota, Department of Finance and Employee Relations, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Minnesota Government Engineers Council, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Shoreview, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 08-PCL-1084   (Issued October 7, 2008)

The State’s new position of Construction Project Coordinator Principal (CPCP) was examined through the “community of interests factors;” Minn. Stat. §179A.09, subd. 1 (2008).

The Bureau concluded that a preponderance of the evidence indicates the CPCP shares a community of interest with the General Professional Unit, Unit No. 14, represented by the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees.


Teamsters Local 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota
            - and -
City of Hutchinson, Hutchinson, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 09-PCE-0030   (Issued September 30, 2008)

Sergeants in City Police Department are not supervisory within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §179A.03, Subd, 17 (2006), where the record shows they do not have the authority to directly undertake a majority of supervisory functions as required by the statute. 

Sergeants are included within appropriate unit of Police Officers where hearing record shows the two classifications share community of interest under appropriate unit criteria of Minn. Stat. 179A.09, Subd 1, (2006).  This is so, notwithstanding that Sergeants have direct authority to direct and assign employees, as well as effective recommendation of several other statutory functions


Independent School District 36, Kelliher, Minnesota
          - and -
Education Minnesota Kelliher Support Staff, Kelliher, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 08-PCL-1064 (Issued September 26, 2008)

The Union request for continuance due to no incumbent in the position of Technology Coordinator was denied by the Bureau.  The Bureau ruled that a position description, testimony from a prior incumbent and previous and current supervisor of the position could be sufficient to meet the statutory confidential exclusion.  In this matter, the exclusion was denied as the position would not be participating in collective bargaining for the employer and did not have access to labor relations information.  Hearing testimony revealed that an employee in the position would be disciplined if they accessed such information.


Independent School District No. 822, Mahtomedi, Minnesota
     - and -
Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 12, St. Anthony, Minnesota
     - and -
Education Minnesota - Mahtomedi Paraprofessionals, St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 09PCL0173 (Issued September 19, 2008)

The Bureau finds the petition to be untimely.  When more than one unit is involved in a petition for appropriate inclusion, the contract life of the contract covering the employee’s position in question is the determining open window timeline.


Independent School District No. 2137, Kingsland, Wykoff, Minnesota
     - and -
Minnesota School Employees Association, St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 08-PCL-1259 (Issued August 26, 2008)

The Bureau determined the position of Director of Facility Maintenance, Operations and Grounds is supervisory within the meaning of Inn. Stat. 179A03, subd. 17 (2007) and should be excluded from the appropriate unit. The District established it delegated the requisite authority to the position to perform or effectively recommend eight (8) of the ten (10) of the supervisory functions under the Statute.


State of Minnesota, Department of Finance and Employee Relations, St. Paul, Minnesota
         - and-
AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota

      
BMS Case No.  08-PCL-0340 and 08-PCL-0341 (Issued August 14, 2008)

Bureau of Mediation Services holds that the classifications of Security Counselor and Security Counselor Lead have not undergone “significant modification in occupational content” as required by Minn. Stat. §179A.10, Subd.4, (2008) to consider changing their bargaining unit assignment from State Unit 204 Health Care, Non-Professional, to State Bargaining Unit 208, Correctional Guards.  Among factors considered were other statutory evidence of legislative intent, and widely accepted definition of the term ‘occupational content’.


Clay County, Moorhead, Minnesota
     - and -
Lee Livdahl, Moorhead, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 08PIR1346 (Issued June 13, 2008)

A termination review by the County Administrator is not a "disinterested party or agency" as required by Minn. Stat. §179A.25 (2005).  Independent review is granted and an arbitration list was provided to the parties.


ISD 112, Chaska, Minnesota
     - and -
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 70, St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 08-PCL-0253 (Issued May 19, 2008)

BMS has jurisdiction to determine supervisory status of Building Operations Coordinators despite claim of unfair labor practices and a prior arbitration award that custodial and maintenance duties must be restored to the bargaining unit.  In order to be deemed to have authority to effectively recommend a statutory supervisory duty as intended by Minn. Stat. §179A.03, Subd.17 (2007) affected employees must affirm an understanding that they have been delegated such authority and substantiate required exercise of independent judgment by explaining how the authority would be exercised.


Mark Dungy, Lewiston, Minnesota
       - and -
City of Lewiston, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 08PIR0885 (Issued February 21, 2008)

A termination hearing held by the City Council as the final arbiter of a “negative employment situation” is not a disinterested party or agency as required by Minnesota Statute §179A.25 (2007), as neither the Bureau rules nor the independent review statute require a petitioner to exhaust available remedies before petitioning for independent review.  Independent review is granted and an arbitration list was provided to the parties.

NOTE: On April 21, 2008, the City of Lewiston appealed this matter to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Case No. A08-694. On May 22, 2008, the case was dismissed.


Minnesota School Employees Association, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 549, Perham, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 08-PCL-0069 (issued October 18, 2007)

The issue raised in this case was whether or not the part-time kitchen workers/cooks’ helpers of the District who work 2.5 hours per day, five days per week, for a total of 12.5 hours per week are public employees for purposes of PELRA, and if so, should they be included in the bargaining unit represented by MSEA. The Bureau determined that the normal full-time work week in this bargaining unit for cooks is 35 hours per week, so cooks who work less than 12.25 hours per week are not public employees within the meaning of §179A.03, Subd. 14 (e)(2006), and are excluded from the appropriate unit represented by MSEA.  Part-time kitchen workers/cooks’ who work 12.25 hours per week or more are public employees within the meaning of §179A.03, Subd. 14 (e) (2006) and are included in the appropriate unit represented by MSEA.


AFSCME, Minnesota Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
City of Duluth Supervisory Association, Duluth, Minnesota
     - and -
City of Duluth, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 07PCL0284  (Issued August 30, 2007)

The Bureau applied the six (6) factor common law test it established in AFSCME Council No. 65 and Community Health Service Agency, BMS Case No. 85-PR-A (April 19, 1985) to determine whether the Zoo’s Veterinarian was a public employee or an independent contractor. We determined Veterinarian was a public employee but lacked authority to reinstate her and the current incumbent was excluded from the bargaining unit because she was a part-time employee within the meaning of PELRA. 


Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Amalgamated Transit Union 1005, Minneapolis, Minnesota
     - and -
AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, Local 668, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 07PCL0623  (Issued August 16, 2007)

The Bureau determined that in accordance with Minnesota Statute 179A.03, Subd.14, employees placed in the newly created  positions (Payroll Specialist & Senior Payroll Specialist) should be represented by AFSCME Council 5 Local 668. This decision is based on the Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1994; Laws of Minnesota 1994, Chapter 628; and a unit clarification order issued by the BMS on February 9, 1996. See BMS Case Nos. 96-PCL-172; 96-PAM-209; 96-PCL-682; 96-PCL-683; 96-PCL-690 and 96-PCL-691.     

NOTE: There was an arbitration award related to this case issued by Richard Miller on February 22, 2008 - Metropolitan Council/Met Transit

The arbitration award was appealed to the Ramsey County District Court which vacated the arbitration award on April 15, 2009 - Metropolitan Council/Met Transit

The District Court Decision was reversed and remanded by the Minnesota State Court of Appeals on March 2, 2010 - Metropolitan Council/Met Transit


City of Cannon Falls, Cannon Falls, Minnesota
        - and -
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 07PCL0451  (Issued July 12, 2007)

The Bureau determined the positions of Utilities and Streets/Parks Supervisor were not supervisory within the meaning of PELRA and therefore should be included in Local 49’s appropriate unit of Public Work’s employees.  The City failed to establish it delegated the requisite authority to the positions to perform a majority of the supervisory functions under the Statute.


Scott County, Shakopee, Minnesota
     - and -
AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 07-PCL-0584  (Issued June 12, 2007)

The Bureau determined it was appropriate to accrete the newly established position of Field Probation Officer to the bargaining unit represented by Council 5.  The position shared a community of interest with the unit and Council 5 need not establish there was a showing of interest from the affected employees because accreting the position would not raise a representation question


City of Rochester, Minnesota
     - and -
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 949, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No 07-PDP-0818  (Issued March 16, 2007)

The Bureau orders that performance evaluations, commendations, interview rating forms, interview notes and other information related to evaluating and ranking candidates for Shift Foreman promotional opening be given to the Union in order for the Union to carry out its statutory responsibilities of grievance administration.


City of Winona, Minnesota
     - and -
International Association of Firefighters, Local 575, Winona, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 07PCL0325  (Issued December 6, 2006)

The Bureau held the bargaining unit of firefighters originally certified in 1972 should be split into two units, because the parties created a separate unit for supervisors in 1994. Having agreed to a second unit the Union also implicitly agreed to a separate impasse resolution for the the units under their collective bargaining agreements and PELRA.


Independent School District No. 656, Faribault, Minnesota
     - and -
Faribault Education Association, Faribault, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 06PCL1179   (Issued November 15, 2006)

BMS held that where the District required a teaching license, the position of Minnesota State Academies Liaison (MSAL) is a teaching position within the scope of the appropriate unit of teachers exclusively represented by the Association. Evidence showed that MSAL is not delegated a majority of required functions and is not supervisory within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §179A.03, Subd. 17.


State of Minnesota, Department of Employee Relations, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
AFSCME, Minnesota Council 5, South St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Shoreview, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 06PCL1207  (Issued November 6, 2006)

The Bureau determined that the newly-crafted classification of Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselor is professional within the PELRA definition and shall remain within Unit 14, General Professional Unit exclusively represented by MAPE.


City of West St. Paul, Minnesota
      - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 07PCE0109 (Issued October 23, 2006)

The Bureau found that the Payroll Clerk, Secretary to the City Manager/Deputy City Clerk and Technology Coordinator are confidential within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 179A.03. subd. 4, and are excluded from the appropriate unit.  This ruling was based on the fact that they have access to "information specifically collected or created to prepare the management position."  Minn. Stat. 13.37, subd. 1, paragraph (c) (2006)


City of Maplewood, Minnesota
     - and -
Maplewood Confidential and Supervisory Association, Maplewood, Minnesota
     - and -
Metropolitan Supervisory Association, Maplewood, Minnesota
     - and -
International Association of Firefighters, Local 4470, St. Louis Park Minnesota

BMS Case No. 06PCE1254 (Issued September 29, 2006)

The Bureau approved a stipulated appropriate unit consisting of confidential employees and employees who are both supervisory and confidential.  The Bureau also approved agreement to place several other employees into two currently certified bargaining units.


Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota
      - and -
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 06PRE01108 (Issued September 22, 2006)

The Bureau held that the bargaining unit of peace officers originally certified to Law Enforcement Labor Services should be split into two units given that among other things, the parties had negotiated two separate contracts, one for the full-time officers and one for the part-time officers, and the full-time officers have gone to arbitration separately.  An representation election will be held for the full time officers with Teamsters Local 320 and Law Enforcement Labor Services appearing on the ballot.


Independent School District No. 709, Duluth, Minnesota
     - and -
Education Minnesota, Duluth Clerical, Duluth, Minnesota
     - and -
Executive Employees Association, Duluth, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 06-PCL-1102 (Issued September 18, 2006)

Benefits Assistant (clerical employee) excluded from bargaining unit of other than essential employees where position meets statutory definition of confidential employee. Prior agreement by employee to seek no further confidential exclusions from appropriate unit is not enforceable before Bureau.


St. Cloud Education Association, St. Cloud, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 742, St. Cloud, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 06PCL1095 (Issued May 25, 2006)

The Bureau determined that the Technology Integration Specialist is not a teacher as defined at Minn. Stat. §179A.03, subd.18,(2005), where the State Board of Teaching or the State Board of Education do not require the position of TIS to hold or maintain a teaching license and the District does not currently impose this requirement.


Certain Employees of Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota
     - and -
Minnesota Nurses Association, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 06-HCE-503   (Issued March 2, 2006)

The Bureau held that when a certification of exclusive representative has been issued under, Minn. Stat. §179.16, Subd. 2 and following the objection period provided in Minn. R. 5505.1400, a certification is presumed valid and subject to a one year certification bar. BMS also concluded that sufficient cause to reconsider a certification under Minn. R. 5505.1500 may be found only under extraordinary circumstances


Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case Nos. 05-PCL-897 and 05-PCL-900 (Issued October 6, 2005)

The Bureau determined that part-time licensed peace officers met the definition of a public employee under Minn. Stat. 179A.03, subd. 14 (2005), and are included in the appropriate unit.   The employer had argued against inclusion based on lack of community interest between the full-time and part-time licensed peace officers.


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota
     - and -
Virginia Public Utilities Commission, Virginia, Minnesota
     - and -
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Shoreview, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 05-PCL-1018  (Issued August 2, 2005)

PELRA at Minn. Stat. §179A.03, subd. 17 (2004), where statutory language requires prior written agreement of the exclusive representative or a separate determination by the Commissioner for the removal of employees from a nonsupervisory appropriate unit, is not violated where there is no employee in a reclassified vacant position.


GradTRAC/UE Local 1105, Minneapolis, Minnesota
- and -
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 05-PCE-785   (Issued March 17, 2005)

Doubts about the accuracy of available home addresses for eligible voters support a finding that an on-site election, as opposed to mail-ballot, best meets statutory requirement   that, "commissioner shall strive for an election  process that provides for maximum participation by the affected employees."


Farmington Department Directors Association, Farmington, Minnesota
     - and -
City of Farmington, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 05-PCE-13  (Issued October 26, 2004)

Human Resource Director is included within petitioned for unit of supervisory, confidential department directors despite City’s assertion that including chief labor negotiator within unit created an “inherent conflict of interest”. City’s concern over a potential conflict of interest is insufficient to override consideration of community of interest shared with other department directors.


Education Moorhead, Moorhead, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 152, Moorhead, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 04-PCL-89  (Issued September 16, 2004)

Bureau determined that Early Childhood Family Education teachers are public employees if they meet the hour requirement of more than 14 hours per week and more than 67 works days a year.  Also it was found that Adult Basic Education teachers are teaching for credit classes and should be part of the teachers' bargaining unit


School Service Employees, Local  284, South St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 110, Waconia, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 04-PCL-199  (Issued July 26, 2004)

The issues in this case were whether the petition was timely and whether the Assistant Building and Grounds Supervisor is a supervisory employee under the statutory definition.     The Bureau found that the petition was timely and that the Assistant Building and Grounds Supervisor is a supervisory employee within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 179A.03, Subd. 17, and is excluded from the appropriate unit represented by Local 284.


City of Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
     - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 04-PCL-122  (Issued July 2, 2004)

The issues in this case were whether or not the petition was timely, whether the position of Finance Assistant is confidential, and whether the positions of Assistant Director of Public Works/Water and Sewer and Assistant Director of Public Works/Streets and Parks are supervisory.  The Bureau ruled that the petition was timely and that position of Finance Assistant is not confidential and included in the unit represented by Council 65.   The positions of Assistant Director of Public Works/Water and Sewer and Assistant Director of Public Works/Streets and Parks are supervisory and are excluded from the bargaining unit represented by Council 65.


Alexandria Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Alexandria, Minnesota
     - and -
Judith A. Rost, Petitioner

BMS Case No. 04-PIR-1363 (Issued June 23, 2004)

The Bureau determined that the petition falls within the jurisdiction of the Bureau and directed the parties to select a hearing officer to hear the case.  The Authority appealed the ruling to district court where the matter was dismissed.  The district court decision on the dismissal was affirmed by the court of appeals on October 10, 2006.  Click here to view Court of Appeals decision.  (The case was consolidated with the Clay County Case - see below.)   Arbitrator Joseph Daly was selected and hear the case. His decision was issued on July 2, 2008.   Click here to view Daly decision.  The Daly decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the arbitration decision on October 21, 2008.   Click here to view Court of Appeals decision.


County of Clay, Moorhead, Minnesota
     - and -
Betty Windom-Kirsch, Petitioner

BMS Case No. 04-PIR-1303 (Issued June 17, 2004)

The Bureau determined that the petition falls within the jurisdiction of the Bureau and directed the parties to select a hearing officer to hear the case.  The County appealed the ruling to district court where the matter was dismissed.  The district court decision was affirmed by the court of appeals on October 10, 2006.  Click here to view court of appeals decision.  (The case was consolidated with the Alexandria Housing and Redevelopment Authority Case - see above.)


Independent School District No. 761, Owatonna, Minnesota
     - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 04-PCL-1010   (Issued June 17, 2004)

The issues in this case were whether or not the position of payroll clerk is a confidential employee within the statutory definition and whether or not the position of purchasing agency has a community of interest with the other employees in the appropriate unit represented by Council 65.  The position of payroll clerk is not confidential and is included in the bargaining unit.  The purchasing agent does have a community of interest with the members of the bargaining unit represented by council 65 and is included in the unit.


Frank Yanez, William Gaston, Frank Belmares, Don Ortega, Patricia Good, John T. Olson, James Nicoletti, David Droogsma, Richard Letourneau, James Esparza, Douglas Spencer, Robert McKnight, Donald Pieper, Timothy Franklin, Ronald King, Les Peterson, Joseph Pozzini, Santiago Lopez, Challengers
          - and -
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 35, Eagan, Minnesota
           - and -
Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case Nos. 03-FSC-771 and 03-FSC-1241   (Issued June 14, 2004)

Fair share fee challenge concerned sufficiency of information provided by Local 35.   Interim order was issued by the Bureau and Local 35 provided all of the information requested by challengers.  Challengers allegations concerned federal law.   Bureau has no jurisdiction to decide issues under federal law.  Petition was dismissed.


Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union, Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota
     - and -
City of Coon Rapids, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 04-PCL-246 (Issued March 22, 2004)

The issue in this case was whether the position of Park Ranger/Police Reserve officer is appropriately included in the unit of public works employees represented by Local 320.  The Bureau concluded the position does not share a community of interest with the other employees in the unit represented by Local 320.


Dale A. Mashuga, Andover, Minnesota (Petitioner)
    -and-
Anoka-Hennepin Technical College, Anoka, Minnesota (Employer)

BMS Case No. 04-PIR-112 (Issued January 23, 2004)

Petitioner sought independent review of discharge from his position as a Customized Training Representative. The Employer sought dismissal arguing that because Petitioner was covered by a collective bargaining agreement which waived his right to arbitration, the petitioner may not receive independent review under Minn. Stat. § 179A.25 (2002).  The Bureau dismissed, finding: “A public employee who is represented by an exclusive representative may not receive independent review under Minn. Stat. § 179A.25.”

NOTE:  This case was appealed to the State of Minnesota, Court of Appeals, Case No. A04-284, on January 29, 2004.   On March 26, 2004, the case was dismissed.


Independent School District No. 11, Anoka-Hennepin, Coon Rapids, Minnesota
     - and -
Minnesota School Employees Association, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Cafeteria Personnel of District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, Coon Rapids, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PTR-942  (Issued September 10, 2003)

On March 6, 2003, the Bureau issued a transfer of Exclusive Representative Order (Order) transferring the certification of exclusive representative for certain employees of ISD NO.11, Anoka-Hennepin, Coon Rapids, Minnesota (District) from the Cafeteria Personnel District 11to the Minnesota School Employees Association.  Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 5510.2210 (2002), the District, alleging rules violations and claiming party status, requested a reconsideration of the order. The Bureau conducted an evidentiary hearing on June 10, 2003. MSEA and Cafeteria Personnel met the requirements of Minnesota Rules 5510.12, Subp.3-5 (2002) for Transfer of Exclusive Representative Status.       


Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, St. Paul, Minnesota
    - and -
Ramsey County, St. Paul, Minnesota
    - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 14, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCE-955  (Issued July 25, 2003)

Two issues were raised in this case:  appropriate unit description and showing of sufficient interest to warrant the conduct of an election.   The parties had many stipulations which the Bureau deemed appropriate.  The Bureau concluded that the unit of information services department professionals requested by MAPE was inappropriate and proceeded to set forth an appropriate unit for all professional employees employed by Ramsey County.  On the showing of interest issue, the Bureau granted MAPE approximately six weeks to submit authorization cards from persons in the appropriate unit defined in the order issued by the Bureau. 


Education Minnesota-Park Rapids, Park Rapids, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 309, Park Rapids, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-941 (Issued July 25, 2003)

In this case the district did not require classification of Chemical Health and Violence Prevention Coordinator to hold a Minnesota teaching license.  Education Minnesota did not provide evidence indicating that the position at issue required licensure.  The Bureau concluded that the position didn't’t require licensure, therefore it was excluded from the licensed group of teachers.


Education Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota (Ruling Upon Reconsideration)
     - and -
Hutchinson Association of Auxiliary Personnel, Hutchinson, Minnesota
     - and -
Certain Employees of Independent School District No. 423, Hutchinson, Minnesota
    - and -
Independent School District No. 423, Hutchinson, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PTR-860 (Issued July 18, 2003)

The Bureau found that an individual employee (or even a large group of public employees) does not meet the definition of “party” under Minn .R. §5510.0310, subp. 16 (2002). However, the broad discretion to regulate representation elections given to the Bureau under §179A.04 (2002) allowed the Bureau in this case to investigate allegations of election irregularities. The Bureau looked to the U.S. Supreme Court decision National Labor Relations Board v. Financial Institution Employees of America (Seattle First), 475 U.S. 192 (1986) and its underlying principles and found that the circumstances in this case raised doubts about whether or not the union enjoyed a majority of support. A representation election was ordered.

Education Minnesota Hutchinson Education Support Professionals, Hutchinson, Minnesota (Order)
     - and -
Hutchinson Association of Auxiliary Personnel, Hutchinson, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 423, Hutchinson, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PTR-860 (Issued September 16, 2003)

The Bureau issued an Amendment of Certification of Exclusive Representative order certifying Education Minnesota as the representative for the employees formerly represented by Hutchinson Association of Auxiliary Personnel. A Request for Reconsideration under Minn. Rules 5510.2210 (2002) was filed on March 7, 2003.  On April 14, 2003, the District  requested Party Status. (Re BMS case 03 PTR 942. (party status defined in MN Rules 5510.0310, subd 16 (2002)). New election held. October 23, 2003 Election results certified; Education Minnesota Hutchinson Education Support Professionals declared the exclusive representative


Independent School District No. 283, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
     - and -
Park Association of Clerical Employees, Student Support Unit, St. Louis Park, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-907  (Issued July 2, 2003)

The issue in this case was whether the position of the License Practical Nurse is appropriately included in the clerical unit of student support employees represented by the Association.  The Bureau concluded the LPN position shared a community of interest with the other employees in the unit represented by the Association.


Owatonna Education Association, Owatonna, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 761, Owatonna, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-858   (Issued May 30, 2003)

The issue in this case is the supervisory status of certain employees named in the case.  The Bureau concluded that the Assistant Principal position is supervisory, therefore excluded from the group.  The rest of the employees did not meet the Minnesota Stat. §179A.03 Subd. 17 definition of a supervisory employee, therefore they were not supervisory.


Minnesota State Employees Union, AFSCME, Council No. 6, South St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
University of Minnesota, Unit 6, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-PCL-1141   (Issued May 28, 2003)

The issue in this case was whether the Bureau has jurisdiction to make unit determination based on entire classifications or on a job, position, or working titles.  The Bureau concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to review position assignments to classifications within the University of Minnesota, absent a claim by a majority of employees within an appropriate unit that they have a stronger community of interest with employees in another bargaining unit.


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota
     - and -
City of Rochester, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-368  (Issued May 23, 2003)

The issue in this case was whether to include other accounting, technical, support and professional employees in an existing unit of clerical and secretarial employees represented by AFSCME 65.  The Bureau concluded that the position of Secretary I is excluded as supervisory and the other job classifications did not have a community of interest with the employees in the current unit represented by AFSCME 65.  These employee classifications (other accounting technical support and professional) will remain excluded from the AFSCME 65 unit.


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Local No. 1647, Nashwauk, Minnesota
     - and -
City of Hinckley, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-1119  (Issued May 22, 2003)

The issue in this case was whether the position of Accountant fits into the unit represented by AFSCME 65 or is the position confidential.   The Bureau concluded the position of  Accountant is included in the appropriate unit represented by AFSCME 65 and it was not confidential as defined in Minnesota Stat. § 179A.03 Subd. 4.


Independent School District No. 727, Big Lake, Minnesota
     - and -
School Service Employees, Local No. 284, Eden Prairie, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-813  (Issued April 21, 2003)

The issue in this case was whether the position of Technical Support Specialist is confidential, as defined in Minnesota Stat. § 179A.03 Subd. 4.  The Bureau concluded that the position was confidential and therefore excluded from the unit represented by Local 284.


Anoka-Hennepin Education Minnesota, Anoka, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 11, Anoka-Hennepin, Coon Rapids, Minnesota
     - and -
Anoka-Hennepin Program Assistant Association, Anoka, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-811   (Issued March 31, 2003)

The Bureau determined the position of Registered Nurse is not a Teacher as defined within the meaning of Minnesota Statute 189A.03, Subd. 18 (2002). The Bureau has been consistent in rejecting a non-licensed classification's placement in the licensed teachers unit given the Bureau's limited scope of review in a teacher unit clarification issue.

NOTEThis decision has been appealed to the State of Minnesota, Court of Appeals, Case No. A03-421.  On December 23, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Bureau's decision.  Click here to read the court order. 


City of Wadena, Minnesota
     - and -
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 31, Duluth, Minnesota
     - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCE-603   (Issued March 21, 2003)

Issues:  Scope of appropriate unit
               Supervisory employee definition

Petition labor organization sought determination of an appropriate unit and certification as exclusive representative for a unit of employees of electric and water utility employees of the City.  City argues that the electric and water utility employees fall within the scope of an existing wall-to-wall unit already represented by another labor organization.  BMS evaluated this issue based upon the factors at Minn. Stat. § 179A.09 and found that a separate bargaining unit for electric and water utility employees was appropriate.  City sought to exclude the Line Foreman and Water Foreman from the appropriate unit based upon supervisory status.  BMS rules that neither was supervisory within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, Subd. 17, and included them within the appropriate unit. 


United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
City of Coon Rapids, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCE-608   (Issued January 31, 2003)

The issues in this case are the scope of the appropriate unit and a showing of interest through valid authorization cards.  The Bureau concluded that the unit structure requested by the UBCJ was inappropriate.  The agency defined the appropriate unit, then ruled that UBCJ did not have a sufficient showing of interest through authorization cards.


Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota
     - and -
Todd County, Long Prairie, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-165   (Issued October 31, 2002)

The issue in this case was whether or not the Assessment Manager II/Office Manager is a confidential or supervisory employee within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subd. 4 or Minn. Stat. 179A.03, subd. 17.  The Bureau ruled that the employee was neither confidential or supervisory, and should therefore be included in the appropriate unit represented by Local 320.


Independent School District No. 622, North St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 12, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-15   (Issued October 15, 2002)

The issue in this case was to determine whether the positions of Community Education Accountant and Special Services Secretary should be excluded from the appropriate unit represented by Local 12.  The Bureau concluded that the position of Community Education Accountant was an "Accountant" and therefore excluded. The position of Special Services Secretary was a member of the Superintendent’s Executive Committee, therefore it is excluded from the appropriate unit represented by the OPEIU Local 12.


Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
City of Virginia, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-PCL-1038   (Issued October 7, 2002)

Issue:  Confidential employee definition.  Petitioner labor organization sought to include Human Resources/Safety Coordinator within a appropriate unit of supervisory employees.   City opposed asserting that the position at issue is confidential and must be excluded from the appropriate unit as such.  BMS found that the position in question is confidential and excluded from the appropriate unit represented by the Union.


State of Minnesota, Court System, Judicial Branch, St. Paul, Minnesota (Second Judicial District)
     - and -
State of Minnesota, Court System, Judicial Branch, St. Paul, Minnesota (Fourth Judicial District)
     - and -
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No.1 4, South St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCE-116   (Issued September 26, 2002)

Issues:  State Court System, unit certified based upon transition provision at Minn. Stat. § 179A.102, Subd. 2.
               Bargaining units combined in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 179A.101, Subd. 3.

Based upon agreements of the parties:

Petitioner labor organization was certified as exclusive representative for statutorily established bargaining unit of employees of State Courts System in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 179A.102, Subd. 2.

Newly certified unit of State court System employees was merged and jointly certified with other existing bargaining units already represented by affiliates of petitioning employee organization in accordance with Minn. Stat. 179A.101, Subd. 3.


Winona County Non-Union Employees Association, Winona, Minnesota
     - and -
County of Winona, Winona, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PCL-38   (Issued September 11, 2002)

The Bureau found that the newly created position of Finance Director should not be excluded from the appropriate unit, since PELRA does not recognize different categories of confidential employees. This decision is consistent with the holding in In the Matter of a Petition for Clarification of an Appropriate Unit, 555 N.W. 2d 552, (Minn. App. 1996).


City of Babbitt, Minnesota
     - and -
Loren Sampson, Babbitt, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 03-PIR-67   (Issued September 10, 2002)

NOTEThe parties in this case were provided with a list of arbitrators.  Jeffrey Jacobs was selected as the arbitrator and he issued his decision on February 26, 2003.  Click here to read the arbitrator's decision. 

NOTEThe Arbitrator's decision was appealed to the State of Minnesota, Court of Appeals, Case No. A03-380.  On February 3, 2004, the court upheld the arbitrator's decision and found:

In September 2001, respondent Loren Sampson retired from his position as a street department supervisory with the realtor City of Babbitt (the city).  Sampson requested severance benefits from the city, claiming that he was entitled to receive those benefits when he was hired in 1988 and that a 1998 personnel policy further confirmed his entitlement to those benefits.

After the city failed to act on Sampson's request, he filed a petition with respondent Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) for an independent review under Minn. Stat. § 179A.25 (2002).  The city argued that because it chose to bring a declaratory judgment action in district court to determine the parties’ rights, BMS lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

BMS initially determined that it had jurisdiction and assigned the matter to an arbitrator.  Following a hearing, the arbitrator issued a decision affirming BMS’s jurisdiction and further determining that Sampson was entitled to severance benefits from the city in the amount of $26,517.60.   Click here to read full opinion.

NOTEOn February 3, 2004, the City of Babbitt petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

NOTE:  On April 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota denied the petition for review. 


Education Minnesota - Intermediate District No. 917, Local No. 3904, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Intermediate School District No. 917, Rosemount, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-PCL-121   (Issued July 19, 2002)

The Bureau determined that "Community Experts" within the School District are not teachers under Minnesota Statutes 179A.03, Subd. 18 (2002). The position was excluded from the teacher bargaining unit pursuant to Minn. Stat. 179A.03, subd. 2 (2002), consistent with the Bureau's previous teacher unit determinations and Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 369 NW 2d 527 (1985).

NOTEThis decision has been appealed to the State of Minnesota, Court of Appeals, Case No. C7-02-1378.  On May 6, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Bureau's decision.  Click here to read the court order.  Review denied by the Minnesota Supreme Court on July 15, 2003.


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 14, South St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, Minnesota
     - and -
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers and Educational Assistants, Local No. 59, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-PCL-990   (Issued July 11, 2002)

The Bureau found that the petition met two of the exceptions to the contract bar rule set out in County of Carver and AFSCME 65, BMS Case No. 84-PR-395-A, (January 5, 1984). The Bureau does not have jurisdiction to decide disputes that concern work assignments or reassignments. The Bureau does have jurisdiction to determine unit assignments of classifications and the parameters of occupationally based bargaining units. The issues raised in the petition that were within the jurisdiction of the Bureau were not ripe for hearing.


American Federation of State, County  and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota
     - and -
County of Carver, Chaska, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-PCL-1340   (Issued July 10, 2002)

The Bureau determined that the newly created position of Payroll Technician met the requirements to be considered a confidential position under Minn. Stat. 179A.03, Subd. 4 (2002).  Although there was no incumbent in the position at the time of the hearing, the Bureau consistent with BMS Case No. 98-PCL-0394, finds that requiring an employer to permit access to sensitive labor relations information to an employee still included in the bargaining unit prior to issuing a determination is not reasonable.


American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 14, South St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
Communications Workers of America, Newspaper Guild, Local 37002, Minneapolis, Minnesota
     - and -
County of Hennepin , Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-HCL-1466   (Issued July 3, 2002)

The Bureau approved a stipulated agreement transferring Exclusive Representative status from AFSCME Council 14 to the Newspaper Guild for the job class “Interpreter” as previously certified by the Bureau under Case No. 00-HCE-1456 (June 16, 2000) for Hennepin County.  The Newspaper Guild assumes the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of the exclusive representative for the job class “Interpreter”.


Kenneth Genz, Challenger
     - and -
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
State of Minnesota, Department of Economic Security, St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-FSC-279   (Issued June 20, 2002)

The Bureau dismissed a fair share fee challenge based on issues raised under Minnesota statute 179A.06.subd. 3 (2001). The Bureau relied upon the Residuum Approach, which is a methodology approved by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Kuehn v. AFSCME Council No. 65, 435 NW 2d 130 (Minn. App. 1989) and by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986).  


Randall Sanford, Challenger
     - and -
Ronald Williams, Challenger
     - and -
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, St. Paul, Minnesota
     - and -
State of Minnesota, Department of Revenue

BMS Case Nos. 02-FSC-738 and 02-FSC-912  (Issued May 30, 2002)

Are fair share fee payers required to pay a “fair share” portion of an emergency dues assessment? Minnesota Statute 179A.06, subd.3, does not determine if emergency dues are regular dues. In Adrian Education Association and ISD No 511 Adrian and Mary Rother, Challenger, the Bureau wrote that the establishment of dues and fair shares fees is an organization’s internal operation and is not open to a challenge. The emergency dues assessment is regular dues and is therefore chargeable to full and fair share members


Education Cambridge-Isanti, Cambridge, Minnesota
     -and -
Independent School District No. 911, Cambridge-Isanti, Cambridge, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 01-PCL-953  (Issued April 19, 2002)

The Bureau determined the position of Pre-Kindergarten Teacher be excluded from the Teachers appropriate unit given they do not meet the definition of teacher under Minn. Stat. 179A.03, Subd. 18 (2002).  The Pre-Kindergarten teachers are not required to be licensed by the State or the school district.


American Federation of State, County  and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 2184, Luverne, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 01-PCL-545    (Issued April 12, 2002)

The Bureau ruled that the employees who work less than 14 hours per week are not public employees within the meaning of 179A.03, Subd. 14 (e) (2001). This was based on the clear negotiated contract language that established the “normal work week” of the unit to be 40 hours per week and is consistent with AFSME Council 65 and ISD No. 152, Moorhead, BMS Case No. 97-PCL-1357 (January 9, 1998).

NOTEThis decision has been appealed to the State of Minnesota, Court of Appeals, Case No. C1-02-758.  On October 29, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Bureau's decision.  Click here to read the court order.


Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota (Unit Determination Order)
     - and -
American Federation of State, County  and Municipal Employees, Council No. 14, St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-PCE-894   (Issued March 27, 2002)

Issues:      Scope of Appropriate Unit
                  Supervisory Definition

Petitioner Labor Organization sought determination of an appropriate unit and certification as exclusive representative for a bargaining unit of clerical/administrative and technical employees of the County’s court administration department.  County argued that the appropriate unit consisted of clerical/administrative and technical employees employed in all departments.  Based upon standards at Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, BMS found a unit of clerical/administrative and technical employees of the County’s court administration department appropriate.  BMS also found that Unit Coordinators were not supervisory employees within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 179A.03, Subd. 17.


Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota (Order Impounding Ballots)
     - and -
American Federation of State, County  and Municipal Employees, Council No. 14, Anoka, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-PCE-894   (Issued April 12, 2002)


Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota (Ruling Upon Reconsideration)
     - and -
American Federation of State, County  and Municipal Employees, Council No. 14, St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-PCE-894   (Issued May 8, 2002)

County requested reconsideration, arguing that BMS erred in its interpretation of statutory factor "history".  Ruling upon reconsideration BMS affirmed its original decision, holding that "history" means history of collective bargaining and accorded no weight to a previously certified bargaining unit that never resulted in a collective bargaining agreement. 


Education Minnesota - Chisholm, Chisholm, Minnesota
     - and -
Independent School District No. 695, Chisholm, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 01-PCL-961   (Issued February 5, 2002)

The Bureau determined the position of Pre-Kindergarten Teacher be excluded from the Teachers appropriate unit given they do not meet the definition of teacher under Minn. Stat. 179A.03, Subd. 18 (2002).  The Pre-Kindergarten teachers are not required to be licensed by the State or the school district.

NOTEThis decision has been appealed to the State of Minnesota, Court of Appeals, Case No. C1-02-291.  On August 13, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Bureau's decision.  Click here to read the court decision. 

NOTEThe Court of Appeals Decision has been appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, Case No. C1-02-291.  On June 5, 2003, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.  Click here to read the court decision.


Independent School District No. 281, Robbinsdale, Minnesota
     - and -
School Service Employees, Local No. 284, Eden Prairie, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 01-PCL-1121   (Issued November 30, 2001)

The Bureau found that the employees in question were excluded from the appropriate unit because they had been delegated the authority to perform, or effectively recommend the performance of nine (9) out of ten (10) supervisory functions as defined in Minnesota Statute 179A.03.subd.17 (2001).

NOTEThis decision was appealed to the State of Minnesota, Court of Appeals, Case No. C6-01-2219.  On May 21, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Bureau's decision.  Click here to read the court decision.


City of Eagan, Minnesota
    - and -
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota

BMS Case No.01-PCL-1116  (Issued September 10, 2001)

Issue:  Whether a long-time position of the city should be included within a bargaining unit represented by the Union.  The Union in this case has been the certified exclusive representative since 1972 and the parties, over the years, have negotiated the recognition clause of the labor agreement to cover certain employees of the City.  However, the position in question has been excluded from the unit based on initial determination of the bargaining unit and the continued bargaining history of the parties.  Finding was to continue the exclusion of the position.


Kenneth H. Genz, St. Paul, Minnesota
          - and -
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, St. Paul, Minnesota
         - and -
State of Minnesota, Department of Employee Relations, St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 02-FSC-88

The Bureau ruled that the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees did not provide the challenger with adequate notice of fair share fee assessment and ordered challenger's fair share fees refunded.


Education Minnesota, Buhl, Minnesota
     - and -
Martin Hughes School, Inc.  School District No. 4040, Buhl, Minnesota

BMS Case No.  01-PCE-1324   (Issued August 3, 2001)

Are employees that teach at a private school and serve on the Board of Directors confidential employees or should they be members of the unit?  Minnesota statute 179A.03, subd.4 defines the legal position of teachers that serve on the school’s board of directors; MN Statute 179A.06, Subd. 6 defines the issue of confidentiality; MN Statute 179A.03, subd 18 defines a teacher; Minnesota Statute 124D.10 Subd. 4 (c) defines the organizational structure (board of directors) for charter schools. Teachers that serve on the board of directors are confidential and cannot belong to the bargaining unit.


Aitkin County, Aitkin, Minnesota
    - and -
American Federation of State, County  and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 01-PCL-582  (Issued May 11, 2001)

The Bureau determined the position of Financial Assistant in Aitkin County meets the definition of confidential employee under Minn. Stat. 179A.03, Subd. 4 (2000).  The employee has access to labor relations information used by the County in collective bargaining and will be excluded from the courthouse bargaining unit.


City of Northfield, Minnesota
     - and -
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 70, St. Paul, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 01-PCL-1018  (Issued April 20, 2001)

The Bureau found that the parties had established, by contract and practice, the exclusion of all employees from the Engineering Division, including the Secretary/Receptionist classification. This decision was based in part on Harvey Patzwald vs. Public Employment Relations Board, 306 N.W.2d 118 (Minn.1981), where the court held that the Bureau must recognize the bargained outcomes of labor and management in judging the inclusion or exclusion of employees from the bargaining unit.


City of Rushford, Minnesota
     - and -
American Federation of State, County  and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwauk, Minnesota

BMS Case No. 01-PCE-660   (Issued February 20, 2001)

Upon reconsideration, BMS held that PELRA permits an exception for a labor organization that represents an appropriate unit of other-than-essential employees to also represent an appropriate unit of supervisory employees who are peace officers subject to licensure under sections 626.84 to 626.863. This decision also reaffirmed the Bureau's position that single-employee bargaining units may be certified.