Facts and Procedural History:

Scott Lepak, attorney for Itasca County, asked for an advisory opinion regarding certain data the County maintains.

The County provided a summary of the facts:

Employee X filed a complaint against Employee Y. The County hired an investigator to look [sic] allegations related to conduct of various employees, including Employee Y. As a result of this investigation, the Sheriff [disciplined] Employee Y. Employee Y appealed his [discipline] to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. The arbitration award overturned the [discipline] and discipline for certain conduct but upheld discipline at a suspension level for other conduct. The arbitrator noted a policy violation for a waste of time but did not uphold discipline for the basis of Employee X’s complaint. A transcript of the arbitration hearing was prepared as part of the proceedings. [Private data omitted.]

Issues:

Discussion:

Government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Data on individuals about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. The existence and status of a complaint against an employee are always public. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4).) 

When there is a final disposition of disciplinary action, the disciplinary action, together with the specific reason for and data documenting the basis of the action also become public. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(5).)

In circumstances where an employee is entitled to grieve initial discipline in an arbitration proceeding, “final disposition” occurs at the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. A disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action. (Section 13.43, subd. 2(b).)

Issue 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Itasca County respond appropriately to a request for the “outcome of a complaint,” when it provided only the existence and status of the complaint?

Employee X requested the outcome of the complaint that Employee X filed against Employee Y.

The County wrote:

The County position is that the outcome of Employee X’s complaint against Employee Y is that the complaint is no longer active, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.43, sub. 2(a)(4), and otherwise is private data pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.43, Subd. 4 because Employee Y was not disciplined for the specific conduct Employee X complained about.

The Commissioner agrees with the County’s position. For purposes of this situation, Employee X is a member of the public; Employee X’s status as the complainant does not entitle Employee X to additional data. Employee X complained about Employee Y and Employee Y’s conduct regarding Employee X. Ultimately, the arbitrator upheld discipline for Employee Y’s other conduct. Thus, the “outcome of the complaint,” as requested by Employee X, is that a complaint existed and it is “no longer active.” Additional data are not public because Employee X’s specific complaint did not result in discipline.

However, had Employee X asked the County for any public disciplinary data (or all public data) on Employee Y, Employee X would have been entitled to the final disposition of disciplinary action, the specific reasons for the discipline and data documenting the basis of the action, regarding the conduct for which the arbitrator did uphold discipline.

The Commissioner reminds the County that the arbitrator did not uphold all of the discipline and therefore, there are portions of the arbitrator’s award that contain private data on Employee Y. See Advisory Opinion 14-002. Additionally, personnel data about other employees, including Employee X’s identity as a complainant, are similarly private. See Advisory Opinion 93-010.

Issue 2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of data in an arbitration transcript where the arbitrator reversed discipline that was based on a complaint by the individual making the data request and upheld discipline based on other conduct?

The County wrote:

The County position is that the only portion of the transcript of the discipline proceeding discussing the matters that ultimately were determined to be policy violations resulting in discipline may be disclosed as public data. The balance of the arbitration transcript would be private data pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.43, Subd. 4 because those matters were not upheld in the arbitration award.

The Commissioner agrees. Similar to the discussion in Issue 1, the disciplinary data related to the conduct for which Employee Y was ultimately disciplined are public (i.e., final disposition of disciplinary action, data documenting the specific reasons for and basis of the action). The data about Employee Y’s other conduct, the subject of Employee X’s complaint, and data about other employees are private.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues is as follows:

1. Itasca County responded appropriately to a request for the “outcome of a complaint,” when it provided only the existence and status of the complaint.
2. The portions of the arbitration transcript that document the final disposition of disciplinary action, taken with the specific reasons for the action, and the basis of the action are public; data about conduct for which discipline was reversed and data about other employees are private, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43.

Signed:

Matthew Massman
Commissioner

Dated: October 24, 2017