To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
June 6, 1995; Metropolitan Airports Commission
6/6/1995 10:15:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.On May 23, 1995, PIPA received a request for this opinion, dated May 22, 1995, from William J. Everett, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, hereinafter MAC. In his letter, Mr. Everett described a disciplinary action taken by the MAC against an employee of the airport police department. According to Mr. Everett, the disciplinary action was a formal written reprimand. The employee was not a member of a union or bargaining unit, or covered by a collective bargaining agreement that would have allowed him the right to arbitration. In the letter of reprimand, the employee was notified of his right, under the MAC's internal grievance procedures, to challenge the disciplinary action. Mr. Everett enclosed a copy of the relevant portion of the MAC's disciplinary and grievance process for MAC employees not covered under a collective bargaining agreement. An employee subject to disciplinary action may appeal that action through a three-step process. There are specific time limits in which an employee must take action during each step in the process. According to Mr. Everett, the employee whose discipline is the subject of this opinion subsequently resigned without filing a grievance or in any way challenging the disciplinary action within the time limits provided by the MAC's grievance procedure. Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Everett asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 governs personnel data. Subdivision 2(a) provides that ...the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action.... are public data.
For public employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements, Subdivision 2(b), provides that ...a final disposition occurs when the [government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. (Emphasis added.) As the Commissioner concluded in Advisory Opinion 94-019, the key to determining when a government entity has made its final decision about a disciplinary matter is in the entity's decision-making process. In this case, the MAC's procedures allow its employees who are not subject to collective bargaining agreements to challenge disciplinary actions within specified time limits. For MAC employees who choose to exhaust all steps in the grievance process, the final decision occurs at the end of that process, when the MAC makes its final decision. At that point in the process, the disposition of the disciplinary action is also final. However, in this case, the employee did not file a grievance or in any way challenge the disciplinary action within the time limits provided by the MAC's grievance procedure. In failing to do so, the employee waived any rights to use the MAC's grievance process. Therefore, the written reprimand constitutes a final disposition of a disciplinary action for purposes of Section 13.43. Consequently, the reasons for the action and supporting documentation are public. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Everett is as follows:
Signed: Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: June 6, 1995 |
Personnel data
Final decision regarding disciplinary action
Reprimand
