Anoka County, Minnesota vs. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Minnesota Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Minnesota Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
In the case before the Supreme Court of Minnesota, clerical and technical employees of the Anoka County Sheriff's Office, represented by the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (the Union), submitted a petition to the Bureau of Mediation Services (the Bureau) to determine an appropriate collective bargaining unit. The County opposed the unit, proposing a broader, county-wide unit. The Bureau found the County's unit to be the more appropriate choice. The Union appealed this decision, arguing that the Bureau had made numerous errors of law.
The Supreme Court held that the Bureau did not improperly compare the Union's proposed unit to that of the County's. The Court determined that under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA), overfragmentation is one of the "other relevant factors" that the Bureau is allowed to consider when analyzing statutory factors for a unit determination. However, the Court found that the Bureau gave priority and effectively controlling weight to its four-unit preference and the related overfragmentation concerns over the specific factors listed in PELRA. This was deemed to be an error of law.
Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the Bureau and remanded for further proceedings, instructing that a bargaining unit determination must now be made by the Bureau giving appropriate weight and consideration to the statutory factors in PELRA.
Download PDF
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A22-0911 Court of Appeals McKeig, J. Concurring, Thissen, Procaccini, JJ. Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Filed: March 6, 2024 Office of Appellate Courts Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Appellant, Bureau of Mediation Services, Respondent. ________________________ Scott M. Lepak, Jennifer C. Moreau, Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd., Coon Rapids, Minnesota, for respondent Anoka County. Renee Zachman, Scott Higbee, Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, for appellant. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Corinne Wright, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent Bureau of Mediation Services. ________________________ SYLLABUS 1. When considering a petition to certify an appropriate bargaining unit, the Bureau of Mediation Services must first consider whether the petitioned-for unit is an appropriate unit before considering an alternative proposal. 1 2. The Bureau of Mediation Services is allowed to consider overfragmentation as a relevant factor when determining an appropriate bargaining unit. 3. When the Bureau of Mediation Services is determining an appropriate bargaining unit, a four-unit policy preference not specifically enumerated in Minnesota Statutes section 179A.09 (2022) may not control over specifically enumerated statutory factors or carry greater weight than those factors section 179A.09 requires that the Bureau must place particular importance upon. Reversed and remanded. OPINION MCKEIG, Justice. The Bureau of Mediation Services (the Bureau) is a state agency whose role is to facilitate a constructive labor-management environment. See Minn. Stat. §§ 179.02, 179A.04 (2022). One of the Bureau’s functions included in the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA), see Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.01-179A.25 (2022), is to make bargaining unit determinations for public employees. See Minn. Stat. § 179A.04, subd. 2. This appeal is from a unit determination order issued by the Bureau that found the petitioning employees’ proposed unit to be inappropriate, while finding the employer’s preferred unit to be the appropriate unit. Clerical and technical employees from the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office, through their chosen representative, Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (the Union), submitted a petition to the Bureau to determine an appropriate collective bargaining unit. Their employer, Anoka County (the County), opposed the unit, arguing for a county-wide clerical 2 and technical employee unit. The Bureau found the County’s unit to be the appropriate choice because, among other considerations, the employees’ proposed unit was not one of the four basic county units preferred by the Bureau. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Bureau had appropriately weighed the statutory factors found in PELRA, the Bureau was authorized to consider overfragmentation of bargaining units in its analysis, and the Bureau had not departed from its normal procedure in analyzing the employees’ petition. Because the Bureau gave controlling weight to a four-unit policy preference not found in PELRA, we reverse and remand. FACTS In November 2021, the Union submitted a petition to the Bureau to determine an appropriate bargaining unit for certain clerical and technical employees of the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. After two amendments to the petition, the final unit proposed by the Union was “[a]ll clerical and technical employees of the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office, Anoka County, Minnesota, who are public employees within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 179A.03, subd. 14, excluding supervisory, confidential, and all other employees.” The County notified the Bureau that it considered the Union’s proposed unit to be inappropriate and proposed that the only appropriate unit was a broader, county-wide unit of all non-exempt clerical and technical employees. Six of the position titles from the Union’s proposed unit overlapped with employees from the proposed county-wide unit, so the County expressed concerns that those employees in overlapping positions not employed by the Sheriff’s Office would be left out of the bargaining process. The County also noted 3 that it already had 11 existing bargaining units, and adding smaller units such as the one proposed by the Union would lead to the “undue proliferation” of units. A hearing was held before a Bureau hearing officer at the Sheriff’s Office in April 2022. The parties stipulated to specific questions to be answered by the hearing officer, the pertinent two of which were: 1) “Whether the petitioned for bargaining unit is an appropriate bargaining unit;” and 2) “If not, what is the appropriate bargaining unit?” Stipulated exhibits were received into evidence, each party presented witnesses, and the record was left open for the parties to submit written follow-up briefs, which both parties did. The Bureau issued its decision in June 2022, finding that: 1) “The Union’s proposed bargaining unit is not an appropriate unit;” and 2) “The appropriate bargaining unit is: ‘All clerical and technical employees of Anoka County, who are public employees within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §179A.03, Subd. 14, excluding the appraiser, senior appraiser, professional, supervisory, confidential, essential and all other employees.’ ” On certiorari appeal, the Union argued that the Bureau made numerous errors of law, including coming to arbitrary and capricious conclusions when analyzing statutory unit determination factors, inappropriately comparing the two proposed bargaining units, and improperly concluding that certification of the Union’s proposed unit would result in overfragmentation. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that “[the Bureau] properly identified and considered the statutory community-of-interest factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 179A.09 and the risk of overfragmentation” when determining the appropriate unit. Anoka Cnty. v. L. Enf't Lab. Servs., Inc., No. A22-0911, 2023 WL 2564408, at *7 (Minn. App. Mar. 20, 2023). Recognizing the deferential standard of review given to state agency 4 decisions, the court of appeals also found that the Bureau did not depart from its normal procedure when evaluating the Union’s petition. Id. Although the court did note that the Bureau “appeared” to directly compare the unit proposed by the Union to the one proposed by the County, the court ultimately concluded that the Bureau followed its normal procedure by first evaluating the Union’s proposals before examining those presented by the County. Id. We granted the Union’s petition for further review. ANALYSIS The Union makes a number of arguments that the decision of the court of appeals should be reversed, presenting three questions. The first question is whether the Bureau’s unit determination conformed with its prior norms and decisions. The second question is whether the Bureau improperly considered overfragmentation when determining an appropriate bargaining unit based on obsolete case law or an incorrect reading of PELRA. The third question is whether the Bureau gave inappropriate weight to a policy preference of only certifying four basic county bargaining units. We address each question in turn. I. We first address whether the Bureau adhered to its prior norms and decisions when analyzing the Union’s proposed bargaining unit. Mindful of the separation of powers doctrine, we have long held that “[c]onstitutional principles . . . require that the judiciary refrain from a de novo review of administrative decisions.” Dokmo v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, Anoka-Hennepin, 459 N.W.2d 671, 674 (Minn. 1990). So, “decisions of administrative agencies enjoy a presumption of correctness, and deference should be shown by courts to the agencies’ expertise and their special knowledge in the field of their technical training, 5 education, and experience.” Rsrv. Min. Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn. 1977). However, “[w]e may reverse or modify the decision of an administrative proceeding . . . if the findings, inferences, or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, or are unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, 867 N.W.2d 502, 512 (Minn. 2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, if it appears that an agency has not taken a hard look at the issue before them nor engaged in reasoned decision-making, we will intervene. Id. Nevertheless, “[t]he appellant bears the burden of establishing that the agency findings are not supported by the evidence in the record.” In re Rev. of 2005 Ann. Automatic Adjustment, 768 N.W.2d at 118. PELRA is meant to “promote orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(a). The Legislature has established, in relevant part, that this goal is best accomplished by “(1) granting public employees certain rights to organize and choose freely their representatives; [and] (2) requiring public employers to meet and negotiate with public employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(c)(1)–(2) (emphasis added). One of the Bureau’s duties is to “determine appropriate units, under the criteria of section 179A.09.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.04, subd. 2. The statute sets out the criteria in section 179A.09 as follows: In determining the appropriate unit, the commissioner shall consider the principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the employees, professions and skilled crafts, and other occupational classifications, relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority, geographical location, history, extent of organization, the 6 recommendation of the parties, and other relevant factors. The commissioner shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives. Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1 (2022). 1 The Bureau must consider these statutory factors when making an appropriate unit determination under PELRA. See id. (stating “the commissioner shall consider . . .” (emphasis added)); Minn. Stat § 645.44, subd. 16 (2022) (defining “shall” to mean mandatory). When evaluating the statutory factors, the Bureau must “conform to its prior norms and decisions” absent a rational explanation for the departure. See In re Rev. of the 2005 Ann. Automatic Adjustment of Charges for All Elec. & Gas Utilities, 768 N.W.2d 112, 120 (Minn. 2009) (“[A]n agency must generally conform to its prior norms and decisions or, to the extent that it departs from its prior norms and decisions, the agency must set forth a reasoned analysis for the departure that is not arbitrary and capricious.”). The Union argues that the Bureau improperly departed from its past norms and decisions when analyzing the employees’ proposed unit. Specifically, the Union claims that rather than considering whether the proposed unit was “an” appropriate unit, the In its briefs to this court and in many of its unit determination orders, the Bureau refers to these statutory factors as “community of interest factors.” See, e.g., Anoka Cnty. & L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS Case No. 22-PCE-0989, at 6 (June 2, 2022); City of Winona & Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, Loc. 575, BMS Case No. 07-PCL-0325, at 4 (Dec. 7, 2006). This is evidently because the Bureau applies “community of interest standards” in its analyses with the goal of “rendering unit determinations that promote effective and harmonious long-term collective bargaining relationships between union and management.” Hennepin Cnty. Econ. Assistance Supervisor’s Ass’n & Hennepin Cnty., BMS Case No. 99-PCE-1585, at 5 (Nov. 12, 1999) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). We have not adopted, nor have we endorsed, the term “community of interest factor,” and we will refer to the factors listed in PELRA simply as the statutory factors. 1 7 Bureau instead considered whether the unit was the “most” appropriate unit, directly comparing it to the County’s proposed bargaining unit. We have previously held that, consistent with customary agency practice, the Bureau must first consider the proposals of a petitioning union, stating: Because it is the union which is seeking to establish rights under the statute— and since the standard is “an” appropriate unit, rather than the “most” appropriate unit—when confronted with employer-union contentions over the boundaries of the appropriate unit, it is customary for administrative agencies to examine the proposals of the union first. It is only when the union’s proposals are rejected as “inappropriate” that it becomes necessary to examine those presented by the employer. In re Hill-Murray Fed’n of Tchrs. v. Hill-Murray High Sch., 487 N.W.2d 857, 867 (Minn. 1992). In this case, an analysis of the Bureau order reveals one instance in which the language is clearly suggestive of a direct comparison between the units proposed by the Union and the County. 2 But the Bureau analyzed all the other statutory factors by comparing each party’s position, rather than comparing the proposed units themselves. In other words, the Bureau generally followed its established practice of first examining the proposals of the Union. See L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., & City of Wabasha, BMS Case No. 18-PCE-0706, at 4–7 (June 13, 2018) (finding seven factors in favor of the union’s position The second statutory factor is “professions and skilled crafts, and other occupational classifications.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. When analyzing this factor, the Bureau stated, “The skills, crafts, and occupational classifications of the employees [the Union] proposed for inclusion into the bargaining unit are wide-ranging and diverse. The employees the County is proposing make up the bargaining unit are also wide-ranging and diverse.” Anoka Cnty. & L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS Case No. 22-PCE-0989, at 7 (June 2, 2022) (emphasis added). The Bureau ultimately determined this factor to be neutral. 2 8 and one neutral); IBEW, Loc. 160 & City of Truman, BMS Case No. 20-PCL-1339, at 3–4 (Aug. 17, 2020) (finding one factor favoring the city’s position, four favoring the union’s position, and two neutral); IUOE, Loc. No. 49 & City of Big Lake, BMS Case No. 17-PCL0678, at 3–7 (May 10, 2017) (finding three factors favoring the city’s position, four favoring the union’s position, and two neutral); City of Elk River & IUOE, Loc. No. 49, BMS Case No. 16-PCE-0323, at 3–6 (Jan. 14, 2016) (finding three factors favoring the city’s position, three favoring the union’s position, and three neutral). The Union persuasively argues that simply because a factor favors the employer, it does not necessarily mean that the factor disfavors the union. Although the point is well taken, we believe that the way the parties crafted the stipulated issues has created confusion about the Bureau’s order. In particular, the parties asked the Bureau to determine not only whether the Union’s proposed unit was appropriate, but also to determine the unit that would be appropriate if the Union’s proposed unit was inappropriate. There are areas of the Bureau’s order where an inference could be made that there was an improper head-to-head comparison between the petitioned-for bargaining unit of the Union and the alternative unit proposed by the County. But a contrary inference could also be made that the Bureau analyzed the Union’s proposed unit first, found the unit inappropriate, and then went on to analyze other potential units. Aside from the single direct unit comparison noted above concerning the second statutory factor, the record does not show with certainty that the Bureau departed from its past practices here. Though perhaps we would have come to different conclusions were we to analyze the facts within these statutory factors ourselves, it appears from the record that the Bureau 9 engaged in reasoned decision making, and we are wary of nitpicking the reasoning of state agencies. See In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, 867 N.W.2d at 512 (“We will affirm agency conclusions even if we may have reached a different conclusion if we were the factfinder.”). Here, we do not conclude that the Bureau improperly compared the Union’s proposed unit to that of the County’s. Going forward, however, we caution the Bureau against using a head-to-head comparison method absent a reasoned analysis and explanation for the departure. As we explained in Hill-Murray and as the Bureau itself has recognized, “the Bureau’s role is to determine an appropriate unit, not the most appropriate unit.” Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709 & Non-Certified Supervisory Ass’n & Educ. Dirs. Ass’n, BMS Case No. 87-PR-161, at 8 (July 22, 1987); see Hill-Murray Fed’n of Tchrs., 487 N.W.2d at 867. II. We next determine whether the Bureau may consider overfragmentation when it analyzes PELRA’s statutory factors when making a unit determination. The concept of overfragmentation, as described by the Bureau, is that “a bargaining structure of individual departments . . . would lead to fragmented bargaining disadvantageous to the employees, the union, and the employer . . . [and] there [is] a distinct balance between the narrow community of interest of some employees and the excessive fragmentation of the bargaining structure.” Anoka Cnty. & L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS Case No. 22-PCE0989, at 6 (June 2, 2022). 10 The Union claims that the Bureau has improperly extended a holding from our nearly 50-year-old decision in Minn. State Coll. Bd. v. Pub. Emp. Rels. Bd., 228 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. 1975), when considering overfragmentation in the unit determination analyses. Interpretation of case law is a legal question that we review de novo. State v. Robideau, 796 N.W.2d 147, 150 (Minn. 2011). Minnesota State College Board analyzed an appeal related to the determination “that the appropriate bargaining unit for faculty members employed at the seven state colleges [was] a single state-wide unit.” 228 N.W.2d at 553. When Minnesota State College Board was decided, PELRA contained a method of determining units for state employees distinct from other public employees. 3 See Minn. Stat. § 179.74, subd. 4 (1974) (“[T]he director of mediation services shall define appropriate units of state employees as all the employees under the same appointing authority except where professional, geographical or other considerations affecting employment relations clearly require appropriate units of some other composition.”). The Union argues that because our decision in Minnesota State College Board contemplated state employees, the court could have only been discussing state employees in the context of Minn. Stat. § 179.74, subd. 4 (1974), when discussing PELRA. We disagree. In analyzing the issue presented in Minnesota State College Board, we stated: The purpose behind the PELRA and its incidents promoting collective bargaining is that those engaged in common occupations, in the instant case PELRA was recodified in 1984. See Act of Apr. 24, 1984, ch. 462, 1984 Minn. Laws 235 (codified as Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.01–179A.25 (2022)). Through the recodification, both the purpose behind PELRA and the statutory factors remained substantively unchanged. 3 11 faculty members at the state colleges, with common goals and problems should bargain together for particular demands. Obviously, the Act and its statutory coordinates attempt to eliminate the ‘overfragmentation’ which might result from the certification of individual bargaining units. 228 N.W.2d at 561 (citation omitted). We did not limit our discussion of overfragmentation to confine the concept to state employees only. See id. In fact, when discussing the “purpose behind” PELRA, we even highlighted that the case at bar was discussing a narrower subset of state college employees rather than the many more public employees included within the full scope of PELRA. See id. (“[I]n the instant case faculty members at the state colleges . . . .”). Moreover, independent of our opinion in Minnesota State College Board, the plain language of PELRA itself provides the Bureau with authority to consider overfragmentation as part of the unit determination analysis. We review questions of law and statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Wigham, 967 N.W.2d 657, 662 (Minn. 2021). “When determining the plain and ordinary meaning of undefined words or phrases in a statute, courts should look to the dictionary definitions of those words and apply them in the context of the statute.” State v. Haywood, 886 N.W.2d 485, 488 (Minn. 2016). In addition to the specifically listed statutory criteria in section 179A.09 that must be considered when making a unit determination, that section also states that the Bureau must also consider “other relevant factors.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1 (“the commissioner shall consider . . . other relevant factors”). “Relevant” is defined as “having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1051 (11th ed. 2014). In the context of the statute, the Commissioner 12 of the Bureau is thus able to consider other factors that have significant and demonstrable bearing on whether a unit is appropriate, consistent with the stated purpose of PELRA “to promote orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(a). The Bureau is the governmental body that is best positioned to determine what “other relevant factors” may best help promote orderly and constructive employment bargaining relationships. The inference that the Legislature has entrusted the Commissioner of the Bureau to use their expertise when determining these factors is logical, especially considering the extent of the Commissioner’s other powers in the public employment arena. See Minn. Stat. § 179A.04 (including the power to investigate petitions for election procedures and arbitration, to provide mediation services, and to create grievance procedures). Had the Legislature wanted the Bureau to consider only certain factors, it would not have included the catch-all “other relevant factors” phrase; conversely, had it wanted the Bureau to consider other specific factors, it clearly knew how to do so. The only reasonable interpretation of “other relevant factors” is one that implicitly allows the Bureau to determine which factors are relevant when making a thorough unit determination analysis. “[O]ther relevant factors” traditionally considered by the Bureau include “1) Degree of functional integration; 2) Nature of the employee skills and occupational functions; 3) Interchangeability and contact among employees; 4) General working conditions; 5) Hours of work; 6) The number of employees affected; 7) Work location; 8) Nature of compensation; and 9) Common supervision.” Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, BMS Case 13 No. 87-PR-161 at 4. None of these factors are a specifically listed factor, yet the Bureau has developed them through its decades of experience making bargaining unit determinations. The same may be said for the addition of overfragmentation to the Bureau’s list of “other relevant factors.” When discussing the potential pitfalls resulting from the undue proliferation of bargaining units—another phrase for overfragmentation—the Bureau has stated that “[w]hile the number of bargaining units is not a factor listed at § 179A.09, the Bureau has traditionally considered it as an ‘other relevant factor.’ ” Minn. Ass’n of Pro. Emps. & Ramsey Cnty., BMS Case No. 03-PCE-955, at 6 (July 25, 2003). This factor has been developed and applied by the Bureau for at least 40 years. See, e.g., Minn. Sch. Emps. Ass’n & Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 690, BMS Case No. 81-PR-947-A, at 2 (May 27, 1981) (stating that its analysis “requires the balance between the community of interest of employees and excessive fragmentation”); L. Enf’t Lab. Servs. & Anoka Cnty., BMS No. 21-PCE-0336, at 4 (Feb. 24, 2021) (explaining that “over fragmentation, a consideration not identified in §179A.09 [is] however a consideration the Bureau has used for decades”). Based on our analysis, we hold that under PELRA, overfragmentation is one of the “other relevant factors” that the Bureau is allowed to consider when analyzing statutory factors for a unit determination. 14 III. With overfragmentation in mind, we now turn to the third question, which is whether the Bureau gave improper weight to overfragmentation and its four-unit policy preference when making its unit determination. As discussed above, the Bureau may consider overfragmentation in its unit analyses, but the question remains of how much weight may be given to that factor and its related consideration, the Bureau’s four-unit policy preference. When determining bargaining structures for county government employees, the Bureau has long followed a policy of forming units based on broad occupational groups to avoid excessive fragmentation of the bargaining structure. See AFSCME, Council No. 65 & Cnty. of Sibley, BMS Case No. 83-PR-48-A, at 4–5 (Sept. 10, 1982). The inclusion of a “clerical-technical-professional unit” in that structure began over 40 years ago. Id. at 5. Today, the four basic units of county government preferred by the Bureau when making unit determinations are “essential, highway maintenance and public works, social service department, and county-wide office-clerical-administrative, technical, and professional employees.” AFSCME, Council No. 65 & Cnty. of Morrison, BMS Case No. 99-PCE-402, at 2 (Jan. 4, 1998). We must determine whether the Bureau’s adherence to its four-unit policy preference when determining the appropriate unit in this case was supported by PELRA. 4 In its brief to us, the Union argued for the first time that this four-unit policy preference was an improperly promulgated administrative rule. “Generally, we do not address issues the petitioner fails to raise in a petition for further review because such a failure waives the issue on appeal.” State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 366 (Minn. 2011). 4 15 Statutory construction is a question of law that we review de novo. Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Ctr., Inc., 637 N.W.2d 270, 273 (Minn. 2002). “The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022). The factors that the Bureau must consider when making an appropriate unit determination are “the principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the employees, professions and skilled crafts, and other occupational classifications, relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority, geographical location, history, extent of organization, the recommendation of the parties, and other relevant factors.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. The “other relevant factors” phrase creates a general catch-all category, which, as discussed above, allows the Bureau to consider factors that it deems integral to the process of determining an appropriate unit. Section 179A.09 also provides that “[t]he commissioner shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives.” Id. What PELRA does not state is that the general catch-all factors may control over those factors specifically enumerated by the Legislature. If the Legislature had wanted to “An issue is not properly before this court when a party presents it for the first time in its brief, and we generally do not address issues that were not raised in a party’s petition for review.” Hennepin Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. AFSCME Minn. Council 5, Union, 990 N.W.2d 454, 468 n.5 (Minn. 2023). Because the issue of an improperly promulgated administrative rule is not properly before us, we do not address it. 16 give the Bureau such discretion, it could have. After all, the Legislature clearly knew how to give some factors more weight than others based on the instruction that “[t]he commissioner shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. By legislative directive, the Bureau is required to give these three factors greater weight. Therefore, we conclude that the catch-all factors determined to be relevant by the Bureau—including overfragmentation and the four-unit preference—cannot be given greater weight than the history and extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives. Likewise, the catch-all factors cannot be given controlling weight over the specifically listed statutory factors. After detailing its analysis of the statutory factors, the Bureau stated in the conclusion of its order: It is the Bureau's policy absent compelling reasons otherwise or stipulation by the parties to only certify four basic bargaining units in counties to prevent over-fragmentation of bargaining units. Anoka Cnty. & L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS Case No. 22-PCE-0989 at 11 (emphasis added). It is plain from this language that the Bureau considered its four-unit preference to be effectively controlling and to carry greater weight than any other factor in the unit determination analysis, including the three factors section 179A.09 requires the Bureau to “place particular importance upon.” To only certify four basic units, absent compelling reasons, is not only contrary to the plain language of PELRA, but it makes the specific statutory factors all but extraneous. 17 Further, when articulating its decision regarding the Union’s petitioned-for bargaining unit, the Bureau stated, “[n]either party presented evidence showing the Bureau has created any bargaining units of clerical/technical employees in a Sheriff’s office or other singular department without a rationale reason [sic] for such exception.” Id. Nothing in PELRA justifies the Bureau creating an evidentiary burden of this type in favor of its four-unit preference. Not only must the Bureau make its unit determination decision based upon the statutory factors, but it also may not base that determination on whether there exists evidence to show that the Bureau has previously created a similar unit. In short, the Bureau gave priority and effectively controlling weight to its four-unit preference and the related overfragmentation concerns over the specific factors listed in PELRA. “Agency decisions are reversed when they reflect an error of law.” Citizens Advocating Responsible Dev. v. Kandiyohi Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 713 N.W.2d 817, 832 (Minn. 2006). Prioritizing the four-unit policy preference over those factors upon which the Bureau must place particular importance—and giving the four-unit preference controlling weight over the specifically listed factors in Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1— was an error of law. We therefore conclude that the Bureau did not properly analyze the Union’s petitioned-for bargaining unit when it found the unit to be inappropriate because it was not one of the four preferred basic county bargaining units. Remand is appropriate here because the unit determination decision that was initially made weighted the statutory factors in PELRA improperly. A bargaining unit determination must now be made by the Bureau giving appropriate weight and consideration to those factors. 18 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the Bureau and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 19 CO N C U R R E N C E THISSEN, Justice (concurring). Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (the Union) filed a petition on behalf of all non-supervisory, non-confidential clerical and technical employees 1 of the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office to determine the appropriate bargaining unit for those employees. 2 The Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) charges the Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services (the Bureau) with determining “appropriate units, under the criteria of section 179A.09.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.04, subd. 2 (2022); see Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subd. 2 (2022) (defining “appropriate unit or unit” as “a unit of employees determined under sections 179A.09 to 179A.11”). 3 In other words, while the Bureau has authority to make unit determination decisions, its power is constrained by the framework of limitations on the Bureau’s authority set forth in PELRA. In re Qwest’s Wholesale Serv. Quality Standards, 702 N.W.2d 246, 259 (Minn. 2005) (explaining that administrative The terms confidential employees, public employees, and supervisory employees are defined in Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subds. 4, 14 and 17 (2022). 1 The job classifications of the Sheriff’s Office employees on whose behalf the Union filed the petition include Principal Administrative Secretary, Civil Specialist, Principal Accounting Clerk, Community Relations Coordinator, Crime Analyst, Gun Permit Coordinator, Assistant Gun Permit Coordinator, Administrative Supervisor, Property Technician, Records Technician, Data Practices Specialist, Technical Analyst, Training Coordinator, and Crime Watch Coordinator. 2 The task of making unit determinations is qualitatively different in nature than another task delegated to the Bureau—that of assisting in the resolution of labor disputes between employers and employees through mediation and arbitration. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 179.02, 179.06-09 (2022). The dissonance between those two roles may have contributed to some of the concerns I have about the Bureau’s decision in this case and the evolution of its approach to unit determinations described in more detail below. 3 C-1 agencies are creatures of statute, retain only those powers granted to them by statute, and must act within their statutory authority); see also In re Surveillance And Integrity Rev. (SIRS) Appeals by Trinity Home Health Care Servs. and Etyane Ayana, 996 N.W.2d 178, 188 (Minn. 2023) (observing that “[a]n agency’s authority may be stated either expressly in statute or implied from the express powers given to the [agency] by the Legislature” and “[a]ny enlargement of express powers by implication must be fairly drawn and fairly evident from the agency objectives and powers expressly given by the legislature” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Further, when the language of a statute is unambiguous, we apply the plain language of the statute. In re Denial of Contested Case Hearing Requests, 993 N.W.2d 627, 646 (Minn. 2023). It is only when the language of a statute is ambiguous that we may consider an agency’s interpretation in which case “we may, but are not required to, defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute . . . .” Id. When the agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute has been longstanding (as is this case here), it is ordinarily “entitled to weight,” Minn. Power & Light Co. v. Pers. Prop. Tax, Taxing Dist., Sch. Dist. No. 695, 182 N.W.2d 685, 689 (Minn. 1970), and may be used to help ascertain “the intention of the legislature,” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022). As a court, we owe some deference to the Bureau based on its experience and expertise. But the Bureau also must defer to the Legislature; it does not have free range to do what it wants within its area of expertise. Accordingly, we owe the Bureau no deference when their norms and practices run contrary to the Legislature’s plain statutory directives. One fundamental disagreement I have with the court is that it leapt immediately to C-2 deference to the agency without first determining if the statutory language is plain and the scope of the limits that plain language places on agency authority. Applying its own policy preferences and decision-making norms, the Bureau determined that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union was not an appropriate unit. In addition, the Bureau determined that the appropriate bargaining unit is: All clerical and technical employees of Anoka County, who are public employees within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, [s]ubd. 14, excluding the appraiser, senior appraiser, professional, supervisory, confidential, essential and all other employees. Thus, instead of organizing the clerical and technical employees in the Sheriff’s Office—the employees who have expressed an interest in organizing and the group the Union desires to organize—the Bureau’s decision requires that unless the Union organizes the currently unorganized clerical and technical employees in every department of Anoka County with the statutory exceptions noted, no clerical and technical employees may organize and receive the protections of PELRA. In this appeal, we must determine whether the Bureau properly determined that the bargaining unit proposed by the Union was not an appropriate unit. The court concludes that the Bureau’s determination was flawed because it placed undue reliance on concerns about overfragmentation. I agree with the conclusion but for different reasons. For one thing, the Bureau relied on a policy of its own invention that county employees must be organized into one of four basic bargaining units unless the employees, their representative, and the employer agree that a different unit is appropriate or if the employees and their representative offer a “compelling reason” to deviate from the C-3 four-basic-bargaining-unit structure. This four-basic-bargaining-unit-presumption policy has no basis in the language and structure of Minnesota Statutes section 179A.09, subdivision 1 (2022), for determining whether the bargaining unit proposed by the employees and their representative is an appropriate unit—indeed, the policy is contrary to the framework set forth by the Legislature in the statute. By presuming that the four-basic-bargaining-unit structure is the presumptive default structure, the Bureau flipped the statutory framework on its head. In short, the Bureau’s decision in this case is contrary to law and arbitrary. The Bureau also misapplied several of the statutory factors set forth in section 179A.09, subdivision 1. Among other things, and importantly, the Bureau placed undue weight on concerns about overfragmentation of bargaining units and failed to “place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives,” as expressly required by section 179A.09, subdivision 1. In fact, the Bureau did not consider the desires of the petitioning employee representatives at all. A. I start where I must with the language of the statute. In Minn. Stat. § 179A.01 (2022), the Legislature provided us with a clear statement of the values and purposes it had when it enacted PELRA. The Legislature observed that, in addition to public employees and public employers, the public in general had an interest in “orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(a). Indeed, the Legislature told us that the “right of the citizens of this state to C-4 keep inviolate the guarantees for their health, education, safety, and welfare” must be a “paramount right.” Id. The Legislature further recognized that the “importance or necessity of some services to the public can create imbalances in the relative bargaining power between public employees and employers” that render the bargaining power of public employees different than those of private sector employees. Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(b); see also Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.18, 179A.19 (2022) (prohibiting strikes by essential employees and making strikes by other public employees illegal unless certain protocols are followed); Minneapolis Fed’n of Tchrs. Loc. 159 v. Obermeyer, 147 N.W.2d 358, 365–67 (Minn. 1966) (discussing the history of restrictions on public employees in organizing a labor union). Finally, the Legislature stated that the balancing of the rights and interests of “the public employee, public employer, and the public at large” is best served by “granting public employees certain rights to organize and choose freely their representatives [and] requiring public employers to meet and negotiate with public employees in an appropriate bargaining unit and providing that the result of bargaining be in written agreements.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(c)(1), (2) and (3). It is also important that the question for the Bureau in unit determination cases is whether the unit proposed by the representatives of the employees who seek to organize is an appropriate unit—not necessarily the most appropriate unit. As we stated in Hill-Murray Federation of Teachers v. Hill-Murray High School, 487 N.W.2d 857, 867 (Minn. 1992): Because it is the union which is seeking to establish rights under the statute—and since the standard is “an” appropriate unit, rather than the “most” appropriate unit—when confronted with employer-union contentions C-5 over the boundaries of the appropriate unit, it is customary for administrative agencies [like the Bureau] to examine the proposals of the union first. It is only when the union’s proposals are rejected as “inappropriate” that it becomes necessary to examine those presented by the employer. In that case, we also cited with approval In re Morand Bros. Beverage Co. v. NLRB, 91 N.L.R.B. 409, 418 (1950), for the proposition that it is not necessary that the “unit for bargaining be the only appropriate unit, or the ultimate unit, or the most appropriate unit”—the unit only needs to be appropriate. Hill-Murray, 487 N.W.2d at 867; see also In re AFSCME Council No. 65 & Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 480, PERB Case No. 77-PR-802-A, at 4 (Nov. 10, 1977) (stating that the role of the Bureau “is to determine if the unit petitioned for is ‘an’ appropriate bargaining unit. No provision of [PELRA] mandates that collective bargaining in a proposed unit which is otherwise appropriate is to be denied simply because another unit may be conceptually ‘most’ appropriate”) [opinion attachment 4]. The court properly recognizes this and holds that the Bureau cannot consider bargaining unit structures other than that proposed by the organizing employees and their representative until the Bureau first determines that the bargaining unit proposed by the organizing employees and their representatives is not an appropriate unit. But this is not simply a matter of procedural process; this principle is another indication that PELRA expresses a preference for the wishes of the employees seeking to organize and their representatives. The bargaining unit proposed by the organizing Several of the decisions of the Bureau and the Public Relations Planning Board that the Bureau and the parties cited, and upon which the majority opinion and this concurrence rely, are not readily available or accessible to the public. In the interest of transparency, those decisions are attached to this opinion. 4 C-6 employees and their representatives is the starting place for the entire analysis and that unit should be approved unless there is a reason to believe that the unit is inappropriate. The fact that another unit may be more appropriate from the perspective of the employer or the Bureau is irrelevant. The Bureau’s approach (as exemplified in this case)—which starts with the Bureau’s preferred four-basic-bargaining-unit structure and insists that the employees and their representatives prove that the proposed unit is a more appropriate bargaining unit compared to the Bureau’s preferred county bargaining unit structure—ignores this fundamental design principle embedded in PELRA. This legislative inclination for the bargaining unit preferences of the organizing employees and their representative is also expressly found in Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, the language defining the scope of the Bureau’s authority to make unit determinations. Section 179A.09, subdivision 1, provides: In determining the appropriate unit, the commissioner shall consider the principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the employees, professions and skilled crafts, and other occupational classifications, relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority, geographical location, history, extent of organization, the recommendation of the parties, and other relevant factors. The commissioner shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives. (Emphasis added.) A few observations about this statutory language are in order. The list of considerations the Commissioner may consider in determining the appropriate bargaining unit is non-exclusive. In addition to the listed factors, the Commissioner may consider “other relevant factors” including the concept of overfragmentation upon which the Bureau relies so heavily in making unit determinations C-7 as it did in this case. 5 I agree with the court’s conclusion on this point. I also believe, however, that although the conclusion is implicit in its decision, the court fails to sufficiently distinguish consideration of overfragmentation as one additional factor among many (which is permissible) and the separate issue of whether the way the Bureau’s policy concern with overfragmentation has hardened into a presumptive four-basic-bargaining-unit rule is proper (it is not). The problem with the Bureau’s decision in this case is not simply that it considered its four-unit preference “to carry greater weight than any other factor in the unit determination analysis,” but rather that it applies a four-basic-bargaining-unit rule at all. That in itself is an arbitrary rule. I will address this issue in more detail below. Another aspect of section 179A.09, subdivision 1—one that is dispositive in this case—is the final phrase of the provision. The statutory text requires that the Bureau place As the court notes, the Bureau has identified a number of “other relevant factors” including “1) Degree of functional integration; 2) Nature of the employee skills and occupational functions; 3) Interchangeability and contact among employees; 4) General working conditions; 5) Hours of work; 6) The number of employees affected; 7) Work location; 8) Nature of compensation; and 9) Common supervision.” Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709 & Non-Certified Supervisory Ass’n & Educ. Dirs. Ass’n, BMS Case No. 87-PR-161, at 4 (July 22, 1987). It strikes me after reviewing past Bureau decisions that most of these factors are the same as, or included within, the factors specifically identified in section 179A.09, subdivision 1. It is not clear why the Bureau treats them as independent “other relevant factors”—perhaps it creates an appearance of extra heft to counterbalance the factors the Legislature said were to be given particular importance. In contrast, the Bureau’s decision in Anoka Cnty. & AFSCME, Council No. 14, BMS Case No. 02-PCE894, at 5–6 (Mar. 27, 2002), provides a clear example of a unique “other relevant factor.” As discussed more fully in footnote 7 below, in that case, the Bureau found that administrative staff in the Anoka County courts was an appropriate unit because, by legislation, the court administration staff would soon after organizing become statewide court employees rather than county employees. Id. 5 C-8 greater weight on the history and extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employees than it places on (1) other factors that the commission “shall consider,” (2) any “other relevant factors,” (3) the manner in which the public employer has structured its operations, or (4) the Bureau’s broad policy concerns about overfragmentation. 6 Minn. The preference to be placed on the bargaining unit proposed by the organizing employees and their representative is also shown in the evolution of section 179A.09, subdivision 1, and its predecessor statutes. The language now found in section 179A.09, subdivision 1, was first added to statute in 1965. Act of May 26, 1965, ch. 839, § 2, 1965 Minn. Laws 1554, 1555–56 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. § 179.52, subd. 4 (1966)). The amended language provided: In defining the [representation] unit, the labor conciliator shall take into consideration, along with other relevant factors, the principles of efficient administration of government, the principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans in the governmental agency, the history and extent of organization, occupational classification, administrative and supervisory levels of authority, geographical location, and the recommendations of the parties. Id. In 1971, the Legislature enacted the modern version of PELRA. Act of Nov. 3, 1971, ch. 33, 1971 Minn. Laws Extra Sess. 2709. Section 11 of the legislation provided: The director shall determine appropriate units. In determining the appropriate unit he shall take into consideration, along with other relevant factors, the principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the employees, the history and extent of organization, involvement of professions and skilled crafts and other occupational classifications, relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority, the desires of the employees and employers, geographical location, and the recommendation of the parties. Id., ch. 33, § 11, 1971 Minn. Laws Extra Sess. at 2725 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 179.71, subd. 3 (1972)). In this amendment, the Legislature affirmatively eliminated the express reference to “the efficient administration of government,” added the language “the desires of the employees and employers” and changed the plural “recommendations of the parties” to the singular “recommendation of the parties.” In 1973, the Legislature amended this provision once again to a form substantially similar to that now found in section 179A.09, subdivision 1. Act of May 24, 1973, ch. 635, § 26, 1973 Minn. Laws 1526, 1536. The amended provision provided: In determining the appropriate unit [the director] shall take into consideration, along with other relevant factors, the principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and 6 C-9 Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. And significantly, these factors upon which the Bureau must place particular importance emphasize once again the critical value that the Legislature placed on allowing the employees to organize themselves as they wish to be organized. The importance the Legislature placed on allowing the employees to organize as they wish to be organized is also clear from the phrase “extent of organization” as that term was and is understood in labor law. See generally Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2022) (“technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a special meaning . . . are construed according to such special meaning or their definition”). Extent of organization is a term of art that refers to “[t]he scope of the union’s organizing campaign, that is, the groups of employees on which the union has focused it organizing efforts.” 1 The Developing Labor Law 11-10 (John E. Higgins, Jr., ed., 7th ed. 2017). Or, as articulated by the Bureau, the phrase “measures which grouping of employees has expressed support for the union.” Cnty. of Anoka & AFSCME, Council No. 14, BMS Case No. 02-PCE-894, at 3 (May 8, 2002) (May 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County Decision). 7 compensation plans of the employees, the history and extent of organization, involvement of professions and skilled crafts and other occupational classifications, relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority, the desires of the employees and employers, geographical location, and the recommendation of the parties, and shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives. Id. In addition to adding the requirement that the Bureau place “particular importance upon the history and extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives,” the Legislature affirmatively eliminated any reference to the desires of the employers as a factor that “shall” be considered. In its decision in this case, the Bureau cited Anoka Cnty. & AFSCME, Council No. 14, BMS Case No. 02-PCE-894 (Mar. 27, 2002) (March 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County 7 C-10 The concept of extent of organization arose in response to early National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decisions that placed significant weight on the extent of organizing efforts existing at the time of the petition to determine an appropriate unit was filed. The rationale for placing weight on the extent of organization was a recognition that “it is often desirable to render collective bargaining a reasonably early possibility for the employees involved” in the organizing effort. The Developing Labor Law, supra, at 11-10. This preference served the interest of labor peace by allowing those employees interested in organizing to be recognized before they resorted to striking or other tactics to force the employer to recognize the union and also limiting the ability of other unorganized Decision), as the source of the definition. In fact, the definition is included in the May 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County Decision, the Bureau’s ruling affirming the March 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County Decision upon reconsideration. Nonetheless, the Bureau’s initial decision in the March 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County Decision is informative here. The decision arose out of AFSCME Council 14’s efforts to organize a bargaining unit much like the bargaining unit proposed by the Union in this case—a bargaining unit consisting of all non-supervisory, non-confidential office clerical/administrative and technical public employees within Anoka County court administration. March 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County Decision at 1. As in the current case, Anoka County opposed the unit determination, asserting that the appropriate unit is all non-supervisory, non-confidential office clerical/administrative and technical public employees of Anoka County. Id. The Bureau rejected the County’s position, primarily on the ground that court administration staff would soon become statewide court employees. Id. at 5–8. But in its analysis, the Bureau determined that the “extent of organization” factor favored the smaller, more focused unit proposed by AFSCME because the “[e]vidence indicates that the extent of Council [14]’s organizational activity has been limited to the court employees. This factor supports Council 14’s proposed bargaining unit,” id. at 5—the opposite of the Bureau’s decision in this case. C-11 employees or others to block collective bargaining by requiring the union to organize additional workers. 8 As described in the NLRB’s 1947 Annual Report: Another factor influencing the Board’s determination of the appropriate unit was the extent of employee self-organization. This circumstance had been effective in the past in establishing the appropriateness of a grouping of employees which was less than the optimum one but was nevertheless feasible for bargaining purposes. The theory expressed in these cases was that it is often desirable in the determination of an appropriate unit to render collective bargaining for the employees involved a reasonably early possibility, lest prolonged delay expose the organized employees to the temptation of striking to obtain recognition and permit unorganized employees engaged in other work tasks to thwart collective bargaining by those who have evinced an interest in selecting a representative. 12 NLRB Ann. Rep. 20 (1947) (emphasis added). In other words, by stating that the Bureau must place “particular importance” on extent of organization, the Legislature directed that, in determining whether the proposed unit is an appropriate unit, the Bureau must give the unit preferences of those employees who have expressed an interest in organizing more weight than the other statutory factors—even if the employees’ preferred unit is not optimal. 9 In this regard, recall the expressed purpose of the Legislature in enacting PELRA: to create “orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees” and to grant “public employees certain rights to organize and choose freely their representatives.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(a), (c)(1). 8 The “particular importance” that the Legislature instructed the Bureau to place on the preferred unit of those employees who have expressed an interest in organizing stands in contrast to federal law. In the 1947 Labor-Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act, Congress amended 29 U.S.C. § 159(c)(5)—known as Section 9(c)(5)—and told the NLRB that “[i]n determining whether a unit is appropriate . . . the extent to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling.” Taft-Hartley Act, ch. 120, sec. 101, § 9(c)(5), 61 Stat. 136, 144 (1947). In other words, when it amended PELRA in 1973, the Minnesota Legislature expressly made the choice to take a different course and place greater importance on the extent to which the employees have organized than Congress did in the 9 C-12 The Legislative intent to place “particular importance” on allowing the employees to organize themselves as they wish to be organized is also shown in the phrase “the desires of the petitioning employee representatives” in section 179A.09, subdivision 1—a factor that the Bureau failed to address in its decision in this case. In prior decisions, the Bureau has stated that this factor looks to the “desires of the . . . union organizations themselves.” May 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County Decision at 3. And we applied this preference in just this manner in Minnesota State College Board v. Public Employment Relations Board, a case in which we faced the question of whether the appropriate bargaining unit for the faculty at Minnesota’s then seven state colleges and universities was a single statewide unit or a unit for each individual college. 228 N.W.2d 551, 553 (Minn. 1975). We held that a statewide unit was appropriate. Id. at 562. Among the reasons for our decision was that section 179.71 (the 1974 provision parallel to section 179A.09, subdivision 1) provided that the Bureau “shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives” and three out of the four employee representatives agreed that the appropriate unit was the statewide unit. Id. at 561. Finally, under section 179A.09, subdivision 1, the Bureau is required to place “particular importance” on the history of organization of employees of the public employer. Taft-Hartley Act. See generally Eli Rock, The Appropriate Unit Question in the Public Service: The Problem of Proliferation, 67 Mich. L. Rev. 1001, 1004 (1969) (noting that the Minnesota Legislature’s decision to permit a government agency to rely on the “extent of employee organization” expressly moved in the direction of “further proliferation” of bargaining units). C-13 See May 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County Decision at 2 (history means “bargaining history”). This factor will be discussed in more detail below. One further comment about the structure and language of PELRA is necessary. In contrast to the multi-factor framework set forth in section 179A.09, subdivision 1, for making unit determination decisions for county or other local governments’ employee bargaining units, the Legislature adopted a different approach for statewide employees. The Legislature expressly defines in statute the appropriate units for executive branch employees of the State of Minnesota, Minn. Stat. § 179A.10, subd. 2 (2022) (establishing in statute 19 distinct bargaining units for employees of the state executive branch). The Legislature similarly defined the appropriate units for judicial branch employees, Minn. Stat. § 179A.101 (2022), employees of the State Board of Public Defense, Minn. Stat. § 179A.104 (2022), and the University of Minnesota, Minn. Stat. § 179A.11 (2022). In addition, “[f]or school districts, unit means all the teachers in the district.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subd. 2. Stated more simply, the Legislature mandated specific categorical bargaining units for certain groups of public employees, but it did not do so for county and other local employees. For county and local employees, the Legislature directed that the Bureau use a multi-factor balancing test in which particular emphasis is placed on employee autonomy, self-determination, and preferences. In summary, under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act, the preferences of the employees seeking to organize and their representatives must be afforded particular importance by the Bureau when deciding whether the unit those employees and representatives have proposed is an appropriate unit. That is shown by the expressly stated C-14 purposes of PELRA, which favor the right of employees both to organize for purposes of negotiating with public employers (it is the fact of organization and negotiation that allows for labor peace) and to choose the representative they prefer, as well as the specific language of section 179A.09, which limits the scope of the Bureau’s authority to determine whether a proposed unit is an appropriate unit. B. The Bureau’s approach to determining whether the unit proposed by the Union and the Sheriff’s Office employees it was representing was the appropriate unit was quite different from the framework set forth in PELRA and, specifically, section 179A.09, subdivision 1. The Bureau’s approach is best summarized in its own words in the decision: It is the Bureau’s policy absent compelling reasons otherwise or stipulation by the parties to only certify four basic bargaining units in counties to prevent over-fragmentation of bargaining units. Anoka Cnty. & L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS Case No. 22-PCE-0989, at 11 (June 2, 2022). Although the Bureau now seeks to disavow the statement as loose language, I see no reason not to take the hearing officer at her word. The decision in this case as a whole is permeated with an overriding concern about overfragmentation and a preference for “four basic bargaining units.” 10 In fact, the hearing officer was being admirably honest about the Bureau’s policy and practice. The hearing officer explained in great detail that The four basic bargaining units for counties identified by the Bureau in its decision are units of essential employees, highway maintenance and public works employees, social service department employees, and county-wide office-clerical-administrative, technical, and professional employees. Anoka Cnty. & L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS Case No. 22-PCE-0989 at 5 (citing AFSCME Council No. 65 & Cnty. of Morrison, BMS Case No. 99-PCE-402, at 2 (Jan. 4, 1998) [opinion attachment]). 10 C-15 the Bureau has applied a presumption against any proposed bargaining unit that does not fall within one of the four basic bargaining units for several decades. Id. at 5–6 (citing AFSCME Council No. 65 & Cnty. of Morrison, BMS Case No. 99-PCE-402, at 2 (Jan. 4, 1998) [opinion attachment]; AFSCME Council No. 65 & Cnty. of Redwood, BMS Case No. 90-PCE-2003, at 3 (Sept. 12, 1989) [opinion attachment]; AFSCME Council No. 65 and Cnty. of Sibley, BMS Case No. 83-PR-48-A, at 4–5 (Sept. 10, 1982) [opinion attachment]). I agree with the court that the Bureau’s stated and applied policy—that absent compelling reasons otherwise or stipulation by the parties, it will refuse to certify a county employee bargaining unit that deviates from the four-basic-bargaining-unit structure—is inconsistent and in conflict with section 179A.09, subdivision 1. Indeed, the presumption in favor of the four-basic-bargaining-unit structure turns on its head the analysis mandated by the Legislature that gives a preference to the wishes of the organizing employees and their chosen representative. I conclude, however, that the problem with the decision in this case is not only that the Bureau gave undue weight to overfragmentation concerns and the Bureau’s own policy preference for four basic bargaining units. I would go further: the four-basic-bargainingunit structure should not be considered at all. Notably, while not expressly stated, the court does not express disagreement with this broader conclusion. The Bureau’s policy of requiring every group of county employees who wish to organize a union to organize all the employees in a unit that conforms to one of the Bureau’s preordained boxes unless they can get the county employer to agree to their unit or show some other compelling circumstance is wholly arbitrary. In sum, under the Bureau’s approach, the legislative C-16 emphasis on employee self-determination turns into a “state-agency-knows-best” process which often may be (as in this case) a roadblock to employee self-determination and, indeed, shifts power away from the employees the statute is designed to empower and instead defers to the wishes of the employer by requiring, in all but the most compelling cases, that the employer sign-off before departing from the four-basic-bargaining-unit presumption. 1. Nothing in section 179A.09, subdivision 1, suggests that county and other local government bargaining units must presumptively fall within very specific defined occupational groups—essential employees, highway maintenance and public works employees, social service department employees, and county-wide office-clerical-administrative, technical, and professional employees. The statute makes no mention of four basic bargaining units. The Bureau’s approach is contrary to the multi-factor balancing approach set forth in the statute. Further, the Legislature did adopt in statute the approach of establishing preordained occupational bargaining groups for employees of the state executive branch, the court system, the State Board of Public Defense, the University of Minnesota, and for teachers in school districts. Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.10, subd. 2, 179A.101, 179A.104, 179A.11, and 179A.03, subd. 2. If the Legislature had intended that the Bureau determine whether a bargaining unit of county or other local government employees is appropriate based on a preordained occupational or departmental structure—if it had intended that the Bureau adopt something like the four-basic-bargaining-unit structure it uses as a matter of Bureau policy—it would have C-17 done so because it plainly knows how to do so. Firefighters Union Loc. 4725 v. City of Brainerd, 934 N.W.2d 101, 110 (Minn. 2019) (refusing to read a motive element into one part of a statute where the Legislature expressly included a motive element in another related part of the statute). And, most fundamentally, the Bureau’s presumption that its four-basic-bargaining-unit will apply absent compelling reasons otherwise is directly contrary to the Legislature’s directive that the Bureau “place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. 2. The conclusion that the Bureau’s policy is inconsistent with the statute and that the presumptive four-basic-bargaining-unit structure is arbitrary also becomes evident when one considers the evolution of the Bureau’s approach to unit determination decisions. A review of these cases demonstrates that the Bureau adopted its policy by ignoring the statutory language in section 179A.09, subdivision 1, and imposing instead its conception of what an appropriate unit is. In particular, the history of the Bureau’s determination decisions shows that it started off by affording great deference to the bargaining unit proposed by the organizing employees and their representative. In the 1980s, however, the Bureau’s rationale and approach changed with decisions focused on an overriding concern about fragmentation and no mention of the particular importance to be placed on the history and extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employee representative. By the late 1980s, this focus on fragmentation had hardened into the Bureau’s rigid four-basic-bargaining-unit rule. C-18 Early unit determination decisions of the Bureau and the Public Employment Relations Board focused on the statutory language in what is now section 179A.09, subdivision 1, and appropriately placed heavy weight on the desires of the organizing employees and their representative. For instance, in 1977, AFSCME Council 65 sought to organize all non-teaching employees of Independent School District 480 excluding employees who work less than 14 hours per week or 100 days per year. In re AFSCME Council No. 65 & Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 480, PERB Case No. 77-PR-802-A, at 2 (Nov. 10, 1977) [opinion attachment]. At the urging of the school district, the Bureau determined that the employees should be separated into six distinct bargaining units. Id. at 1–2. The Bureau further determined that employees in four of the six units demonstrated sufficient interest in organizing and ordered a representation election for those units, but employees in two of the six units did not demonstrate sufficient interest in organizing and did not order an election. Id. at 2. The Public Employment Relations Board reversed the Bureau’s decision and ordered that one general unit of employees, rather than four separate units of employees, was the appropriate unit. Id. at 3. The Public Employment Relations Board reasoned that section 179.71, subdivision 3 (1976)—the earlier version of section 179A.09, subdivision 1—governed. Id. The Public Employment Relations Board explained that AFSCME 65 desired a single unit of employees and “[s]ection 179.71, subd. 3, makes it clear that the desires of the petitioning employee representative shall be given particular importance.” Id. at 4. The Public Employment Relations Board also observed: C-19 [T]he role of the . . . Director is to determine if the unit petitioned for is “an” appropriate bargaining unit. No provision of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act mandates that collective bargaining in a proposed unit which is otherwise appropriate is to be denied simply because another unit may be conceptually “most” appropriate. Id. In other words, the Public Employment Relations Board determined that one broader unit of employees (although not all employees) was appropriate—even if some other unit would be more appropriate—because that was the petitioning employee representative’s desire. The Bureau amended its order accordingly. AFSCME Council No. 65 & Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 480, BMS Case No. 77-PR-802-A (Dec. 5, 1977) [opinion attachment]. In 1981, the Minnesota School Employees Association sought to organize a unit of employees of Independent School District 690, consisting of cooks, custodians, secretarial/clerical, and teacher aids. Minn. Sch. Emps. Ass’n & Indep. Sch. Dist. 690, BMS Case No. 81-PR-947-A, at 1 (May 27, 1981) [opinion attachment]. The school district argued that there should be separate bargaining groups for each occupation as well as for bus drivers. Id. at 2. The Bureau agreed with the Minnesota School Employees Association (it excluded five employees because they were supervisory employees or confidential employees) and certified a unit of all non-teacher employees of the school district. Id. at 3. The Bureau explained: In determining appropriate units, the Bureau is directed by the statutory criteria established by Minn. St. 179.71, subd. 3. The application of these criteria to the employment relationship existing in school districts requires the balance between the community of interest of employees and excessive fragmentation of bargaining structure. At some point the Bureau’s general policy of separate units for office, food service, maintenance, and C-20 transportation employees conflicts with unit fragmentation because of the number of employees involved. Minn. St. 179.71, subd. 3, emphasizes that in determining appropriate units the [Bureau] “shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives.” Id. at 2 (emphasis added) (citing AFSCME Council No. 65 & Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 480, PERB Case No. 77-PR-802-A at 2). Once again, the Bureau settled on a broader unit covering more employees (even though its then-preference was separate units for different occupational groups) because that was the petitioning employee representative’s desire. In 1982, the Bureau made the first turn toward its current policy, absent compelling reasons otherwise or stipulation by the parties, to only certify four basic bargaining units in counties to prevent overfragmentation of bargaining units. That year, AFSCME Council 65 sought to organize a bargaining unit of all full-time clerical, technical, and professional employees of Sibley County, except that the union did not want to include employees in the county’s Public Health Nursing Department. AFSCME Council No. 65 & Cnty. of Sibley, BMS Case No. 83-PR-48-A at 5. Sibley County argued that the employees in the Public Health Nursing Department should be included. Id. The Bureau determined that the Public Health Nursing Department employees should be included in the unit. Id. The Bureau quoted Minnesota Statutes section 179.71, subdivision 3 (1982), but unlike its prior decisions, the Bureau made no mention whatsoever in its analysis of the statutory requirement that it must “place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives.” Minn. Stat. C-21 § 179.71, subd. 3 (1982). Rather, the Bureau for the first time and without citation to authority asserted that it had a “policy of determining separate bargaining units for certain employee categories.” AFSCME Council No. 65 & Cnty. of Sibley, BMS Case No. 83-PR-48-A at 4–5. Citing the Minnesota School Employees Ass’n decision discussed above (but without reference to its reliance on the preferences of the organizing employees and their representative) the Bureau went on: Law enforcement (or essential employees), public works, and employees subject to the Minnesota Merit System are traditionally assigned to different units. The establishment of a clerical-technical-professional unit or “courthouse” unit versus departmental units is at the center of the dispute in this case. AFSCME Council No. 65 argues for the exclusion of the Public Health Nursing Department from a base clerical-technical-professional unit of other county employees. The Bureau finds that there is a definite community of interest between the Public Health Nursing Department and other county employees. This community of interest is reflected by common systems of compensation and job classification, occupational titles, supervisory structure, and a single personnel policy. Acceptance of the AFSCME Council No. 65 argument could result in a bargaining structure of individual departments. Such a structure, in the Bureau’s opinion, would lead to fragmented bargaining disadvantageous to the employees, the union, and the employer. As we found in Minnesota School Employees Association v. Independent School Dist. No. 690 . . . there is a distinct balance between the narrow community of interest of some employees and the excessive fragmentation of the bargaining structure. Id. at 5. Here we see the emergence of the Bureau’s four-basic-bargaining-unit structure policy and its overriding concern about fragmentation. The Bureau justified its new policy of “determining separate bargaining units for certain employee categories” as opposed to department-based bargaining units by focusing on some of the factors included in the statute—common systems of compensation and job classification, occupational titles, C-22 supervisory structure, and a single personnel policy 11—as part of its “community of interest” analysis. But as noted above, in justifying this policy, the Bureau entirely ignored consideration of other factors—those factors upon which the Legislature directed the Bureau to place “particular importance.” More critically, the Bureau also imposed its own policy preference against “excessive fragmentation” based on “the Bureau’s opinion” about what is best for the employees, the union, and the employer. By insisting that it knows best what’s good for the employees and the union, the Bureau fundamentally shifted its role in unit determination proceedings. To put a finer point on it: rather than doing as the Legislature directed and giving particular deference to the choices made by the organizing employees and their representatives, the Bureau agglomerated to itself the power to decide what’s best while entirely ignoring the “extent of organization” and “the desires of the petitioning employee representatives.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. By 1989, the Bureau’s approach to unit determination decisions hardened into its current policy approach. In AFSCME Council No. 65 & County of Redwood & Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., BMS Case No. 90-PCE-2003 at 6, the Bureau determined that all office, clerical, technical, and professional employees of Redwood County, except for maintenance employees in the Highway Department, Social Services The statutory language described these factors as “the principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the employees, involvement of professions and skilled crafts and other occupational classifications [and] relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority.” Minn. Stat. § 179.71, subd. 3 (1982). 11 C-23 Department employees, supervisory, confidential, and essential employees constituted a proper bargaining unit. The Bureau rejected AFSCME Council 65’s attempt to exclude Public Health Nursing Service employees from the unit. Id. at 3–4. What is more important for our purposes is how the Bureau described its approach to unit determination: In establishing the bargaining structure for county government the Bureau has followed a general policy favoring four separate appropriate units. Absent compelling reasons, units of broad occupational groups composed of essential, highway maintenance, social service department, and officeclerical-technical-professional employees are determined appropriate. . . . Such a bargaining structure weighs the unit determination criteria of [PELRA], the organizational structure of county government, and the community of interest of the employees involved. The record in this case supports a . . . finding that a unit of office-clerical-technical-professional employees is appropriate. Id. at 3 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). By the late-1980s, then, the Bureau’s rule that, absent compelling circumstances, the only appropriate bargaining unit for county employees is one of the four “broad occupational groups” was fully formed. The Bureau also plainly stated that this rule is based not only on the legislative directive in section 179A.09, subdivision 1, but also on “the organizational structure of county government”—an amorphous concept nowhere mentioned in statute—and the community of interest of the employees involved. 12 Moreover, as we saw in the discussion of AFSCME Council No. 65 & County of Sibley, BMS Case No. 83-PR-48-A, the Bureau made In AFSCME Council No. 65 and County of Morrison, BMS Case No. 99-PCE-402 at 3, the Bureau made clear that the “ ‘community of interest’ of all County employees” is a concept distinct from the factors set forth in section 179A.09, subdivision 1. 12 C-24 absolutely no reference to the statutory directive that it “shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1 (emphasis added). Rather, in contravention of the statutory directive that the Bureau “shall consider” all the factors explicitly listed in section 179A.09, subdivision 1, the Bureau considered in passing only a subset of the statutory factors: a common system of compensation, a common organizational and supervisory structure, and a common personnel policy. AFSCME Council No. 65 & Cnty. of Redwood & L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS Case No. 90-PCE-2003 at 4. In summary, the Bureau has adopted and applies a policy to only certify four basic bargaining units in counties to prevent overfragmentation of bargaining units, absent compelling reasons otherwise or stipulation by the parties. That policy, however, is wholly unmoored from the statutory language of PELRA and, in particular, section 179A.09, subdivision 1, and, as such, exceeds the Bureau’s authority. In developing the policy, to the extent the Bureau considered the statute, it focused solely on a subset of the factors identified in the statute and ignored other statutory factors that the Legislature told the Bureau it “shall” consider: geographical location, the recommendation of the parties, and—above all—the “particularly importan[t]” factors of history and extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives. Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. It relied on earlier decisions where it approved broader units over narrow units which were expressly based on the employees’ unit preferences and turned that into a principle that applies even in direct contravention of (and without even C-25 mentioning) the employees’ preferences. More critically, this history makes clear that the Bureau imposed its own policy opinions and preferences about what is the best bargaining unit for the employees, the union, and the employer instead of abiding by the limits on the scope of its authority in unit determination decisions imposed by the Legislature, which directed it to give preference to the bargaining unit proposed by the organizing employees and their representatives. 3. The hearing officer in this case—and the County in its argument to us—also relied on our decision in Minnesota State College Board v. Public Employment Relations Board, 228 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. 1975), to support the Bureau’s four-basic-bargaining-unit policy and its strong preference against overfragmentation. The case does not support the policy. In Minnesota State College Board, we faced the question whether the appropriate bargaining unit for Minnesota’s then seven state colleges and universities was a single state unit or each individual college. 228 N.W.2d at 553. We considered the question under the statutory framework in place at the time. Id. At the time, PELRA authorized the Bureau to determine an appropriate unit for public employees generally using criteria substantially similar to the criteria set forth in current section 179A.09, subdivision 1. See Minn. Stat. § 179.71, subd. 3 (1974). In a separate section, the statute also included specific provisions related to state employees (as opposed to employees of county and other local governments); a category which included employees of the state colleges and universities. In particular, Minn. Stat. § 179.74 provided that “the director of mediation services shall define appropriate units of state C-26 employees as all the employees under the same appointing authority [as defined in section 43.01, subdivision 11] except where professional, geographical or other considerations affecting employment relations clearly require appropriate units of some other composition.” Minn. Stat. § 179.74, subd. 4 (1974). In other words, PELRA constrained the Bureau’s authority to determine appropriate units for state employees by creating a strong presumption that the appropriate unit should include all employees under the same appointing authority. No such language existed then or now for county and other local governments. We determined that the appointing authority for employees of the state college and university system was the State College Board and not the presidents of the individual colleges and universities. Minn. State Coll. Bd., 228 N.W.2d at 560. Consequently, under section 179.74, subdivision 4, the critical question was whether professional, geographical, or other considerations affecting employment relations clearly required that the appropriate units were each individual college or university. Id. We concluded that other considerations did not clearly require that the individual colleges and universities were the appropriate units. Among other things, we made several specific observations about the state college and university system: (1) The legislature has moved to coordinate the entire state-wide college system under the auspices of the State College Board and has therefore indicated an intent that uniformity be established. (2) The SCB has implemented this intention and has promulgated rules which govern each institution on a state-wide, rather than individual, basis. (3) The system-wide unit, in all aspects, has proved to be a more efficient and economical method of administering the state college system. C-27 (4) Competition between college units, both in the physical plants and in employer-employee benefits is reduced upon utilization of the state-wide system, because it reduces the possibility of varying benefits. (5) Past utilization of the state-wide approach indicates that it has not stifled individualized interests at each of the colleges; that distances and locations have not prevented effective coordination between the faculty and the [State College Board]; that a substantial majority of the state college system faculty favors a state-wide unit; and that a state-wide unit has been established for the 18 junior colleges incorporating a master contract with flexible provisions for each campus. Id. at 562. Quite pertinent to this case, citing the language in PELRA that the Bureau “shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives,” we found it significant that three out of the four employee representatives agreed that the appropriate unit was the statewide unit. Id. at 561. We quoted with approval the opinion of the members of the Public Employment Relations Board who stated that “[s]ince [the employer and employee representatives] are the parties who may in the future have to agree upon a compact on which their relationship will be governed . . . great weight must be given to their wishes.” Id. In summary, in Minnesota State College Board, we determined that the appropriate bargaining unit for faculty member employees of the state colleges and universities was a statewide unit. In reaching that conclusion, we reasoned that (1) for statewide employees, PELRA expressed a strong preference for a unit that included all employees under the same appointing authority—in the case of state college and university faculty, the State College Board, (2) in establishing the state college and university system, the Legislature demonstrated a preference for uniformity, and (3) in accordance with the 1974 version of C-28 current section 179A.09, subdivision 1, great weight should be given to the preference of the representatives of the employees seeking to organize that the unit be the statewide unit. And it is in that context that our statement that PELRA “and its statutory coordinates attempt to eliminate the ‘overfragmentation’ which might result from the certification of individual bargaining units” must be read. Minn. State Coll. Bd., 228 N.W.2d at 561 (emphasis added). This is not a statement about PELRA generally. For statewide employees, the Legislature itself expressed in the text of the statute a preference against overfragmentation by defining the units in statute: unless clearly required by other considerations, the appropriate bargaining units included all employees under a single appointing authority—in the case of state college and university faculty, the State College Board. See Minn. Stat. § 179.74 (1974). We reviewed the record and determined that there was “little direct testimony in favor of individual campus units.” Minn. State Coll. Bd., 228 N.W.2d at 561–62. We further concluded that there was not enough evidence to clearly overcome the strong presumption that the appropriate unit for faculty at state colleges and universities should include all faculty members in the system because they were all appointed by the State College Board. None of those considerations apply in unit determination decisions involving county and other local government employees. The Legislature did not statutorily define the appropriate unit for local government employees as it did for state employees. Rather, for local government employees, the limitations on the Bureau in making unit determination decisions are set forth exclusively in section 179A.09, subdivision 1, which identifies a number of factors the Bureau “shall consider,” including three factors the Bureau must C-29 “place particular importance upon.” Further, while it is true that the list of factors is non-exclusive and allows the Bureau to consider “other relevant factors” like concerns about overfragmentation, those concerns must be subordinated to the preferences of the employees being organized and their representative. Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. Indeed, that is precisely what we did in our decision in Minnesota State College Board, 228 N.W.2d at 561. That is not to say that the preferences of the employees being organized and their representative always prevail, but it certainly means that the Bureau cannot impose the opposite presumption that the preferences of the employees being organized and their representative should be ignored if they request a unit other than one of the four basic bargaining units because of the Bureau’s strong policy preference against overfragmentation. Our decision in Minnesota State College Board does not support the Bureau’s position in this case. C. With all this background in mind, I turn to how I would resolve this appeal. 1. First, I conclude that we should reverse the decision of the Bureau on the ground its decision is arbitrary and contrary to law. The Bureau premised its decision on the ground that the unit proposed by the Union and the employees it represents does not match one of the four basic bargaining groups and the Union did not present compelling reasons that a different unit should be authorized. The concept of four basic bargaining groups itself is an arbitrary construct of the Bureau. PELRA says nothing of the sort when it comes to local government employees. In contrast to a set of preordained categories of C-30 presumptively appropriate bargaining units—or even to the notion that occupational groups are favored over departmental or other groups—section 179A.09, subdivision 1, requires consideration of several distinct factors on a case-by-case basis. And the fact that the statute provides for legislatively mandated categories of presumptively appropriate bargaining groups for employees of the state executive branch and other groups of public employees but not for employees of counties and other local governments only makes that conclusion clearer. In short, the Bureau’s policy for county unit determination decisions is arbitrary and directly contrary to section 179A.09, subdivision 1. 13 Because the Bureau’s decision in this case was expressly driven by that policy—not only did the Bureau expressly say as much, but the policy permeates the decision—I agree with the court’s decision to reverse and remand to the Bureau to properly apply the factors set forth in section 179A.09, subdivision 1. The conclusion that the Bureau’s decision was arbitrary and contrary to the statute is also shown when compared to another recent Bureau unit determination decision. In Law Enforcement Labor Services & Anoka County, BMS Case No. 21-PCE-0336, at 2, 5 (Feb. 24. 2021), the Bureau found appropriate a unit of office investigators within the Midwest Medical Examiner’s Office (an agency within the County Administration Department of Anoka County). The Bureau reasoned: Having established multiple essential units with the County diminishes the argument against fragmentation. The particular importance on desires of the petitioning employee representative, and history and extent of organization strongly favor the determination of an appropriate unit of Office Investigators. The principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the employees, professions and skilled crafts, relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority, and geographical location all favor and disfavor the Employer’s arguments given some employees share interest while others do not. Id. at 6. 13 C-31 2. In its decision, the Bureau also misapplied several of the statutory factors and improperly balanced the statutory factors. As a preliminary matter, the balancing under section 179A.09, subdivision 1, is not a list of items that can be assigned to the employee or the employer and the side with the most boxes checked prevails; it requires active balancing on a case-by-case basis in service of answering the essential question of whether the bargaining unit proposed by the organizing employees and their representative is an appropriate unit (again, not the most appropriate unit or the Bureau’s preferred unit). Cf. State v. Mikell, 960 N.W.2d 230, 245 (Minn. 2021) (discussing the multi-factor balancing test in speedy-trial cases); see also Olson v. One 1999 Lexus, 924 N.W.2d 594, 606 (Minn. 2019) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)) (observing that the Mathews factors applied in procedural due process cases “are more than a checklist of items to be ticked through selectively or by rote”). In addition, I also observe that it is more useful and consistent with the statute to ask whether a factor suggests that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate or inappropriate; not whether the factor favors the employees and their representative or the employer. Further, the Bureau applied the statutory criteria set forth in section 179A.09, subdivision 1, to answer the wrong question. Instead of applying those criteria to answer the question of whether the bargaining unit proposed by the Union was an appropriate unit (the proper question), it instead applied the statutory criteria to answer the question of whether there was a reason to depart from the Bureau’s preferred four-basic-bargaining-unit structure. Indeed, the Bureau said so explicitly: “The Bureau’s C-32 view in favor of four broad occupationally based bargaining units in county government is a general preference and subject to examination considering the statutory criteria outlined in Minn. Stat. § 179A.09 and the facts of the particular case.” Anoka Cnty., BMS Case No. 22-PCE-0989 at 6. The fact that the Bureau was asking and answering the wrong question informed how it applied the statutory factors and that led to several of its legal errors in doing so. And for this reason, my analysis of the legal errors in the Bureau’s consideration of the statutory factors flows directly from the court’s holding in this case that the Bureau started its analysis in the wrong place. The court simply did not follow through on the implications of its holding, but rather left it to the Bureau to reconsider its decision of the factors in light of that holding. With that background in mind, I now consider the individual factors set forth in section 179A.09, subdivision 1. The principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive classification and compensation plans suggest that the proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate. I disagree with the Union that the Bureau cannot consider how employees within the proposed bargaining unit compare with other county employees who would not be part of the bargaining unit with regard to classification and compensation. Such a comparison is inherent in assessing this factor. The focus is on the existence of a “uniform” and “comprehensive” classification and compensation plan that treats employees in similar roles in diverse county departments the same. Setting up a bargaining unit structure that allows a group of employees in one department to negotiate pay and other conditions of employment separate from similarly situated employees in other departments possibly C-33 limits the effectiveness, comprehensiveness, and uniformity of the wage scales and other conditions of employment in a county-wide plan. The fact, however, that the employer previously chose to impose a uniform and comprehensive classification and compensation plan county-wide cannot be the tail that wags the unit determination dog. Otherwise, there would be no reason to consider any other factors. For the reasons stated in the Bureau’s decision, I agree that the “professions and skilled crafts and other occupational classifications” factor is neutral in this case. I disagree with the Bureau that the “relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority” indicates that the proposed bargaining unit is not appropriate. The Bureau’s analysis of this factor was contrary to law. The Bureau reasons that because employees within the unit report to different supervisors—although there is no dispute that the chain of command ultimately runs to a single person (the elected Sheriff)—the administrative and supervisory structure does not create a sufficient community of interest among the clerical and technical employees within the Sheriff’s Office. The phrase “community of interest” captures the concept that the employees in a bargaining unit should have a sufficient “mutuality of interest . . . to assure the coherence among employees necessary for efficient collective bargaining and at the same time to prevent a functionally distinct minority group of employees from being submerged in an overly large unit.” Allied Chem. & Alkali Workers, Loc. Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., Chem. Div., 404 U.S. 157, 172–73 (1971). “A cohesive unit—one relatively free of conflicts of interest—serves the Act’s purpose of effective collective bargaining.” NLRB v. Action Auto., Inc., 469 U.S. 490, 494 (1985). Here, the Bureau made no finding and offered no explanation as to how C-34 the administrative and supervisory structure for employees in the proposed bargaining unit creates such incoherence so as to prevent the clerical and technical employees in the Sheriff’s Office and the employer to effectively negotiate. Just saying or implying so is not enough. Further, it is hard to see how that would be the case, particularly since the “dissimilarity of supervisory levels” is even greater under the unit the Bureau ultimately concluded is appropriate. Anoka Cnty. & L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS Case No. 22-PCE-0989 at 8. If a bargaining unit that includes all clerical and technical workers in almost every department within the County is appropriate despite the inherent dissimilarity of supervisory levels in such a unit, the dissimilarity of supervisory levels within the Sheriff’s Office should not render the proposed unit inappropriate. The flaw in the Bureau’s reasoning arises from the fact that it improperly started its analysis of this factor against the backdrop of its “general preference” for four basic bargaining groups. Id. at 6 (“The Bureau’s view in favor of four broad occupationally based bargaining units in county government is a general preference and subject to examination considering the statutory criteria outlined in Minn. Stat. § 179A.09 and the facts of the particular case.”). In other words, the Bureau’s reasoning demonstrates that it impermissibly approached this factor from the position that the appropriate group for the employees seeking to organize in this case is a broad group of all clerical and technical employees in Anoka County and then assessed whether the factor suggested that the narrower proposed bargaining unit was better than the Bureau’s preference. C-35 At best, this factor is neutral. The better position may be that because the employees in the Sheriff’s Office all ultimately report to one individual who is independently elected by, and independently accountable to, the voters of Anoka County, the factor supports a determination that the proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit. But the Bureau can resolve that issue applying the proper inquiry. For similar reasons, I find the Bureau’s somewhat myopic assessment of geographic location to be contrary to law. The record shows that the employees seeking to organize work in two locations (the jail in downtown Anoka and the Sheriff’s Office in Andover) and also that most of the employees only interact with other Sheriff’s Office employees, and not other county employees, on a daily basis, presumably because other county employees do not generally work in the jail or the Sheriff’s Office locations. Thus, within each of the two geographic locations of the Sheriff’s Office, there is significant commonality among the employees. That suggests that the proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit. And as with the administrative and supervisory levels of authority, it defies common sense to conclude that a bargaining unit that includes all clerical and technical workers in almost every department who work in even more locations is appropriate despite the geographic diversity, but that a bargaining unit that includes employees seeking to organize within the Sheriff’s Office who work at two locations where the vast majority of employees work for the Sheriff’s Office is inappropriate. The “recommendation of the parties” factor focuses on whether the parties have agreed on a proposed bargaining unit. See Minn. R. 5510.0410, subp. 3; Minn. R. C-36 5510.1810, subp. 2 (2023) (stating requirements for a joint-party petition for unit clarification). It is important to note for consideration on remand that the word “recommendation” is singular—it refers to a joint recommendation of the parties; it does not suggest that the “positions” of the employees seeking to organize and the employer are entitled to equal weight in the analysis of an appropriate unit. Indeed, the statutory history shows that the Legislature affirmatively eliminated any independent consideration of the desires of the employer from the list of factors that “shall” be taken into account in the unit determination decision. See supra n.6. Because the Union and Anoka County made no joint recommendation, the factor is irrelevant in this case. I agree with the Bureau that the relevant history of organizing supports a conclusion that the proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit, although it is not clear the Bureau gave the extra weight to this factor that the statute requires. There is no dispute that the Union already is the exclusive representative for the majority of employees in the Sheriff’s Office. In addition, previous efforts to organize all of the clerical and technical employees of Anoka County failed. See Minn. Teamsters Pub. & L. Enf’t Emps. Union, Loc. No. 320 & Cnty. of Anoka, BMS Case No. 90-PCE-3223 (Oct. 16, 1990) (noting that Teamsters 320 did not prevail in an election to be certified as exclusive representative for a unit of all clerical and technical employees of Anoka County) [opinion attachment]; see also Anoka Cnty. & AFSCME Council 5, BMS Case No. 22-PCE-1956, at 2–5 (Aug. 4, 2022) (setting forth the history of efforts to organize all clerical and technical employees of Anoka County). The Bureau correctly explained in its decision: C-37 We . . . find persuasive the fact that an appropriate unit consisting of the entire clerical/technical employee class was certified and the parties never reached a collective bargaining unit. We take this as strong evidence that a broad bargaining unit would not lead to stable and constructive labor relations. Anoka Cnty. & L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS Case No. 22-PCE-0989 at 9 (quoting L. Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc. & Anoka Cnty., BMS Case No. 21-PCE-0336, at 5 (Feb. 24, 2021) [opinion attachment]); see also L. Enf’t Lab. Servs. and Anoka Cnty., BMS Case No. 21-PCE-0336 at 5 (stating that “[w]e also find persuasive the fact that an appropriate unit consisting of the entire clerical/technical employee class was certified and the parties never reached a collective bargaining unit. We take this as strong evidence that a broad bargaining unit would not lead to stable and constructive labor relations”). On remand, the Bureau should place particular importance on this factor as required by the statute. The Bureau committed legal error in its assessment of the extent of organization, another factor upon which the Bureau must place extra emphasis. As discussed above, extent of organization refers to “[t]he scope of the union’s organizing campaign, that is, the groups of employees on which the union has focused its organizing efforts,” The Developing Labor Law, supra, at 11-10, which is assessed by considering the “grouping of employees [that] has expressed support for the union.” May 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County Decision at 3. The employees who have expressed support for the union are the clerical and technical employees in the Sheriff’s Office. That indisputably supports a conclusion that the proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit. See L. Enf’t Lab. Servs. & Anoka Cnty., BMS Case No. 21-PCE-0336 at 4 (“In the instant case the Union has support from the [group of employees seeking to be organized as a unit]. This factor C-38 supports the Union’s position [that] there is a community of interest.”); see also Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(c)(1) (providing that the balancing of the interests of public employees, public employers and the public is best served by “granting public employees certain rights to organize and choose freely their representatives” (emphasis added)). The Bureau disagreed for two reasons. First, it placed the burden on the Union to prove that no other clerical and technical employees in Anoka County wanted to organize and be represented by the Union. But nothing in the statute requires the Union to carry that burden and the Bureau cites no authority to support that proposition. 14 Second, the Bureau noted that another group of Anoka County clerical and technical employees—those that work in the Anoka County libraries—are also seeking to organize under a different union. But all that tells us is that a different subset of clerical and technical employees of Anoka County (a department quite distinct from the Sheriff’s Office) also want to organize and choose a representative of their choice (a different representative) to represent their collective interests. At most, the independent organizing efforts of the Sheriff’s Office employees and the Anoka County library employees suggests that, under an alternative set of historical and procedural facts, a unit consisting of clerical and technical employees of the Sheriff’s Office and the Anoka County library system may also be an appropriate union (although the purposes of the two departments are unique and the union each group seeks to represent them is different). But the possibility that a single unit In Anoka County and AFSCME Council 5, BMS Case No. 22-PCE-1956 at 11, the Bureau noted that another union seeking approval of a bargaining unit of clerical, technical and professional employees of the Anoka County library system reached out to other Anoka County departments about organizing and received no response. 14 C-39 consisting of library and Sheriff’s Office employees may be appropriate does not mean that the proposed bargaining unit limited to Sheriff’s Office employees is not “an” appropriate unit—and that is the statutory question the Bureau is directed by the Legislature to answer. More pertinent to this appeal, the existence of independent organizing efforts of two subsets of Anoka County employees does not mean that a unit consisting of all currently unorganized clerical and technical employees in the entire county is an appropriate unit. In short, the extent of organization factor—that this group of employees from the Sheriff’s Office has expressed an interest in organizing a bargaining unit consisting of the clerical and technical employees in the Sheriff’s Office; not a bargaining unit that includes employees of the Sheriff’s Office and employees of the Anoka County library system (let alone all unorganized clerical and technical employees in the entire county)—supports the conclusion that the Union’s proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit. Even more damning to the Bureau’s conclusion in this case is that the Bureau entirely disregarded one factor. Section 179A.09, subdivision 1, expressly states that it “shall consider . . . the desires of the petitioning employee representatives”—the desires of the Union. See May 2002 AFSCME-Anoka County Decision at 3 ; Minn. State Coll. Bd., 228 N.W.2d at 561 (concluding that the fact that three of four employee representatives supported a statewide unit supported the conclusion that a statewide unit was an appropriate unit in light of the statutory language that the Bureau must “place particular importance” on the desires of the petitioning employee representatives). The court and I can speculate about why the Bureau failed to mention the factor, but it is undisputed that the Bureau performed no analysis of the factor. And here, this factor strongly and unequivocally C-40 supports the conclusion that the proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit. Not only does the Union support the proposed unit, but LELS is an organization with a special expertise in organizing and representing public employees in law enforcement departments. The Bureau needs to give due weight to this factor. Perhaps the most fundamental legal error made by the Bureau in this case is that it flipped the statutory presumption on its head. The statute plainly states that the preferences of the employees seeking to organize and their representatives as to the bargaining unit is the paramount consideration in determining whether a proposed unit is an appropriate unit. Here, the extent of organization and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives support the conclusion that the proposed unit is an appropriate unit. As the Bureau acknowledged in its decision, that conclusion is also supported by the other factor upon which the Bureau must place particular importance—the organizing history among clerical and technical workers in Anoka County. Moreover, each of these factors properly considered tells us the larger, underlying narrative that the Bureau’s rejection of the proposed unit and practical mandate that clerical and technical employees must organize another, and likely larger, bargaining unit means that the employees’ “rights to organize and choose freely their representatives” are essentially denied. Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(c)(1). And that is not a surprise. The result is built into and inherent in the Bureau’s presumptive four-basic-bargaining-unit policy. That result is also directly contrary to what the Legislature said in PELRA. The fact that the three paramount factors favor a determination that the proposed unit is an appropriate unit C-41 must be the starting point for the Bureau when it considers whether the proposed unit is an appropriate unit on remand. For these reasons, I concur in the court’s decision to reverse the court of appeals and remand the case to the Bureau to reconsider whether the bargaining unit of all clerical and technical employees in the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office is an appropriate unit under section 179A.09, subdivision 1. PROCACCINI, Justice (concurring). I agree with the court’s decision to reverse and remand this unit determination proceeding to the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services (the Bureau). For the reasons provided in parts A and B of his concurrence, I agree with Justice Thissen’s conclusion that the Bureau’s stated four-unit policy presumption for county unit determinations is arbitrary and contrary to law. I otherwise agree with the court that we should be wary of second-guessing the Bureau’s fact-intensive and reasoned analysis of the factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1, even if we may have come to different conclusions ourselves. Accordingly, I join parts A, B, and C.1 of Justice Thissen’s concurrence, but I do not join part C.2. C-42 STATE OF MINNESOTA 1 , PUBL:C EMPLOYME T RELAT:ONS BOARD Room.5981SpaCe om_598,space Center center Bulldinp Bullding 510: :ξ é IN THE MATTER O[': Anerlcan Federatlon of State, County ana Uuntcfpal Employees Councll No. 6!, Hlbblng, Mlnnesota and Independent School Distrlct No. 480, Onamla, Mlnnesota cAsE NO. 77-PR-802-A I. Procedural Hl s tory of State, County and Munlclpal Councll No. 65, Hlbblng, Mlnnesota (her.elnafter' rroouncll No. 65tt) appeals from a-decisLon of the Dlrector of the Bureau of Mediatlon Servlces (herelnafter trDlrectortt) establlshlng approprlate bargalnlng unlts for certaln employees of Independent School Dlstrlct wo. 480, Onamla, Ivllnnesota. The Dlrector determlned the foI1or"r1ng bargaj.nlng units to be approprlate: The Amerlcan Federatlon Emp).oyees : u ecretar s W more s per e oyees. 1:9 ° 31:tri ed for mo ours per we ears exc u S lnesota. who are re than ent1a1, and aI1 other employees. UNIT NO 3: Al Ind endent Schoo 0 more COn chool strlct nurses o nnes o ta urs ear other s ¨ 0. an “ UNIT NO. aides and are odial and maln stric or more 0. : " UNIT NO. 4: ota. We A nde 0 WO ther S ool Dis We COn All su ervlsor 0 0 No. rlct nore t UNIT NO. 6: Schoo Dis an r er em a All confidenti ct No. emDloriees of Inde endent Mlnnesota, are no w r mo er vear ees. Loyees o Indep endent o are not Ota hours o are wee S 0. On oyed for who more UNIT NO. 5: tlon ees of e n other e Thls matter wis lnttlated by a petltlon f1led with the Dlrector on May'l.O, L977, ly whlch Councll No' 55 requested detenmlnatlon of aipropriatL bargalnlng unlts and certiflcatlon as requested the_Director the excluslve representatlve. The petltlon ttAll employees non-teachlng to deslgnate as an approprlate unlt who work employees 480 exctudlng irAei"raent Schooi'Dlitrlet year'" per "i i""r inin 14 hours per week or 100 days On June 2, )977, a hearlng on the petltlon was conducted by the a hearlng offl6er of-the Bureau of Medlatlon Services. At of a unlt i,ui"i"g,"Counc11 No. 65 amended its petitlon to request ln employees ind a unlt of confldentlal empl'oyees "rp""rl6oty tL a unlt of all. other non- certl fl cated employees. of the aabftlon scnoof distrlct. The schooL dlstrict requested the slx units ultlmately determl-ned by the Dlrector. In his decislon, dated June 15,. 1977, the Dlrector-found 1n Ullit that a sufflclent sh6wing of interest had been submitted parties' of agreement an N;;: 3, 4,:, ana 6 and,lpursuant -electlon to -the unit to As unlts. for those ne ora6reo a'malI ba110i submltted not was flo.. i and 2, a sufflcLent showing of lnterest and no election was ordered ln those two unlts ' f11ed -by Councll No' 65' After receivlng notlce of thls appeatlmpounded before the Dlrecton ordereE the eLectlon ballots .tabuLatlon pending the declslon of the Priblie EmpLoyment Relations ; Board. r -2- : Pursuant to Mlnn. ls before the Board on Stat. s 179 72,.subd. the record estab ished II. 4 (!976), thls appeal by the Dlrector. Issue Based on tie record, llas the Dl-rector correct ln deslgnating a unlt of secretarlal/c 1e rl cal employees, school aldes, and school nurses; a unlt of food servlce enployees; a unlt of custodlal and malntenance employees; and a rather than a slngle unlt of empl-oyees as requested? I/ unlt bf transportatlon employees, , non-confldentlal non-sup ervlsory . III. Decis ioh ' Ehe Board, after consideratlon of the record, determlnes thls appeal as follows: One generral unlt of non-certlflcated employees, excludlng supervlsory and confldentlal employees, ls found to be approprlate. Unlt Nos. 1r 2,3, and 4, as found by the Dlrector, should be merged l-nto one unlt. . Accordtngly, the unlt determlnatlon of the Dlrector 1s reversed as to Unlt Nos. 1, 2, l, and 4. Ihe matter 1s remanded to the Dlrector for further proceedlngs not lnconsistent with thls declslon. ]/ IV. Discussion Appropriate bargaining units for pub ic employees are to be designated in accordance with the criteria set Forth in Minn. Stat. s 79 71, Subd. 3 ( 976), which prOVides: τ ie DI e:::3 11 ::ie l:I:p::1:id:]:ti:R, ong with oth r relevant factors, the m 1 ]/ The parties agree that Unit Nos. 5 and 5 are approprlate. Sl-nce the lssue ls not presented, the Board takes no posltlon as to the appropriateness of these unl.ts.. In vlew of the disposltlon of thls matter, the Board need riot _A . express any oplnlon as to whether the school nurse was properly placed ln Unlt No. 1 wlth clerlcal'and secretarlal ; . personnel. -- -3- principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive pOsition c assification and compensation plans of the emp oyees, involvement of proressions and ski led craFts and other occupationa classiricatiOns, relevant administrative and supervisory levels f authority, geographical location, and the ecommendation of the parties, and shall place particular impOrtance upon the history and extent of organiZatiOn and the desires of the petitioning emp oyee representatives. eli:l :le ::a:l ° 1: ve Councll N8::u::Sc:RIeI: y appl ed and that the Director's decision ls were not proper without ractual support in No. 65 alleges that proper of the petitioning employee criterion supported by the : ;° Ilit::I:rTl:3: the record. In particular, Council weight was not accorded to the desires 2Pepresentative, the on y statutory record. Section 179,7 , Subd. 3, makes it clear that the desires of the petitioning employee representative shall be given particular import ance. In the instant case, the record aFrords little basis for the Directoris decision and makes no rererence to the specified statutory criteria. The only factor cited by the Director to support hiS determination is the varying work years or the employees. The record indicates that the work years range from nine to twe vÑ month s. Work year ength has ittle bearing on any other term Or condition of employment. In any event, the Directoris re iance on this factor is seriously undermined by the fact that his dOes 131:te:in:fe :Fi::: ::ilfi:]iivi:31:ieii! not warrant re ection of the reql particu ar importance placed by the Statute on the desires of the ::I l11ln:131::. petitioning employee representatives. Pursuant to Minn. Stat, s 79.71, Subd. 3 ( 976), the role Or the BOard as we as that or the Director is to determine if the unit petit,oned fOr is ''an:' appropriate bargaining unit. No provision of the Public Employment Labor Re ations Act mandates that co ective bargaining in a proposed unit which is otherWiSe appropriate is to be denied simp y because another unit may be conceptually ':most" appropriate. See university of Minnesota _ 1 - et aI., Board PERB Case Nos.. 73-PR-571-A, 74-PR-59-A, A (November 2 6, L975), aff rd. gub nom. Employment sota v. Pub11c EmPlo_ymgnQ Regents of ttlg.Unlvergl9u of Mlnnesota September 26, 1977) flnds that the requested general unlt ls approprlate. basls for the Dlrectorrs declslon to reJect the proposed unlt. That part of h1s deelsJ-on, accordlnglY, ls reversed and..the matter remanded for further proceedlngs. not lnconslstent wlth thls oplnlon The Board The record provldes no Peter 0bermeyer el-tzer Dated at Saint Paul, Mi-nnesota, 10, l-977 Nbvember ″ ´ BtlREAL10F MDIA10N SERVICES State of M esclta Jannary 4, 1998 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council No. 65, Nashwac Mh“ sOta and County ofMonison,Lide Falis,Mimesota BMS CaseNo 99 PCE 402 . Before: Peter Obenneyer Hé 0 ter CERTIFICAT10N IJNIT DETERMINAT10N MRODUCT10N ofMinncsota curCau) On Monday,Deccmber 14,1998,the Bureau of Mcdhion Senices,St' conducted a hearing pursuantto a petton received from ttc Amencan Feé lon ofState,County and Municiptt Employecs,Counci1 65,NashwaOL MinnesOta(CounCi1 65).Thc petition requested detettdon of an appropnate urut and ca icatlon of Coulc 65 as the exclusive nttdVC Ofcem n emp10yees ofthe County ofMonison,Litle Falls,Minnesota(COunty) “ PttR ES At tt hearing NIr.Stcvc P“ blc,StaffReprcsentative,“ pCared on beb fofCounci1 6é and NIr. Bemie Steffen,Labor Counsel,represcnted the County. ISStlE What h the appropntte mt fOF emp10yees ofthc Com Administrators'Deparme (612)649 5421 FAX:(6121n3-"13 1380 Enc Lalle o Sui 12 S ofie Com 11υ :18006273529 Paul,MN 5510 5é An Equa1 0PPom ty Entployer Resp Add 008 Certificatio Urit Determination BMS Case No. 99-PCE-402 Page 2 anuary 4, 1998 DISCUSS10N é vξé é approp eMé Servlces I ment and e Highway Dcp ent Law Enforccment Labor SeMces,represents csscntid employccs of the Sh“ frs Dcp ent.All other cmployces of the County are not n was iled th the Bureau. represented by a labor c a on atthctime tts p“ “ At issue is wheuler non supervisow and non co mmual employees of lé é ilF Ψ C 7 é [ ¶ é adminism ney concluded t all oFlcetlcrical .CTé é ¶ : i nam ofits operaticlns and personnel system,argued thc Comty. : 2 é iWé é ls d"armtt md county widc Omc← di é T l‰ s employees 1l genmlly be detemned as appropnate This pdicy favors e enbl he of dateé whch Occupational groups esseé ,public works,and oé ‰ λ é é Ce cle are based on broad cd admintsmtM, chical,and senttce emplo :s appropnate because ofuntql llis personDel Systcni dlrecuy impacts ccnin`tenns and Conditions ofemplo nenf'ofcounty ‘ [ American Federation of Sta un erv ` ⊆ u2=x a and MIn C w Enforcement .ces, BMS Case NO. vt that under certain oonditiOns iCensed and non-licensedto essential -e employees of a sheriffs department have the right vote for separation intso an appropriate unj-t of licensed and\. non}1 lo ξ fξttfttfon of State, county and Munici Coun ountv tearns′ BMS Case NO. UO P Resp Add 009 Certification on t Determ nation BMS Case No. 99-PCE-402 Page 3 anuary 4′ 1998 soda services employces.Accordingly,such employees have been dlocated a sepmtc barga g utt om other ottce b cal adminis 11ve9 teché cal,and professional employees ofa county This bargainmg smcm“ preference of ie Burcau accurately applLs the uni d“ é nlion cntena of the PELRA.4 1n additioL such a barg tt smcmre collsiders the general“ co unlty of intcresr'ofau comty Cmployees and is supportivc ofereclivc collcctivc bargal é for bo laborand mmgement 3. Fact ofthL Case T record in dis case estabU a disttct“ co uruty of htre "among l employecs of“ County.k é ve of ms“ commmty ofinte 'are thc folo ng: * * similar geographic work location; * trarsfer and promotiotr opportunities among departnents; and ctntalized administration through a County Coordinator reporting to the County Board of Commissioners. Notwithstanding the desires of the Court Administator's Deparfiient employees, the support of Council 65, and the close working relationship of the employees to the judicial system, we oonclude that a separate departrnental rnit of Court Adminishators smployees is not an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. 4. \- salary, insurance, and fiinge benefit compensation package which is common to all non-represented employees; * * . county-widecomprehensivepersonnelsystem; case supports the County's and professional unit is technical, position that a county-wide office-clerical-administrative, appropriate for collective bargaining. Thereforq Council 65's petition will be dismissed. a Minn. Conclusion. We conclude that the record in this Stat. 1?9A.09, Subd. 1. Resp Add 010 Certification Unit Determination Case No. 99-PCE-402 Page 4,..January 4, 1998 BMS FINDINGSANI' ORDERS l. A county-widc unit of office+lerical-administative, technical, and professional employees is appropriate for collective bargaining. 2. A departnrental unit ofCor"nt Administrators' employees is not appropriate for ∼ collective bargaining. 3. The unit deterrrjnetion and certification as exclusive representative petition of council 55 is dismissed for lack ofa "showing of interest" in the unit determined appropriate. 4. This Order shall be posted in the work locations ofthe employees involved' STATE OF NIllNNESOTA Bureau ofMcdi“ on Sowi∝ s LANCE TEACHWORTH _ Co issioneF _ OK é ' Peter E. Obenneyer Hearing Officer cc: Steve Preble Tim Houle (2 copies - including Posting Copy) Bemie Steffen Resp.Add.011 BUREAUOFttDIARON SERVICES State of MinnesOta SEPTEIBER IN THE MATTER OF A PETIT ON FOR IIIVESTIGAT10N AND DETERMINAT ON OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; APPROPRIATE W T AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE: 2′ 1989 Anerican Federation of statb, county and [uriicipal Ehployees, council No. 65, Hibbing, lllnnesota -andcounty of Redrrood, Redwood Faf1s, l,tinnesota -and- Law Enforcenent Labor BMS CASE NO. services, Inc., Bloomington, l{innesota 9o-PCE-2 oO3 CERrIFICAIIION'I'NIT DETERHIITAITION fptroductlon on wednesday, August 9, L989, a hearing was conducted by the state of Minnesota, Bureau of l{ediation Servj,ces (Bu!eau), pursuant to a petition filed by the American Federation of state, County and uunicipal Employees, councll No' 65, Hibbing, Hinnesota. (council 65). ihe peiition requested deternination of an aPProPriate unit and certification as exclusive representative for certain employees of tbe County.of Redwood, Redwood Falls, }linnesota (county). Law EnforceBent Labor Services, Inc., Bloooington, Minnesota (LELS), was nade a party to this case. Part iea At the hearing Mr. Steve Giorgi, Staff Representative, appeared on behalf of Council 55; lfr. Howard Hoy, Consultant, appeared on behalf of the County; and t[r. Thomas skelly, Staff RePresentative, appeared on behalf of LELS. At the hearing the Parties agreed to the following: the foltowing employees are essential 'nithin the neaning of Minn. stat. 179A.03, . subd. 7: Brian Berg, Jailer Dispatcher DaIe Davis, Jailer Dispatcher 1612)64,54 1380 Ene v he Sulte F2 St PauL NtN 55108 5253 An Equa1 0PPornH E“ PI /er -30 Resp.Add.001 Certification Unit DeteruLnation BI,IS Case No. 90-PCE-2 003 Page 2 2. ´ 3. All Departuent Heads are excluded from the appropriate unit. The follolrinq enployees are suPervisory uithin the neanlng of uinn. stat.' 179A.03, subd. 17: Ernest Fiala, AssiEtant county Engineer Fred gent(el, Jr., titaintenance SuPerlntendent Edrund Plaetz, Highray Shop Superintendent Richard lakre, soaial Services supervisor I Doris llccorquoda 1e, Financlal supervisor I L,yn Rayburn, Fiscal suPervlsor I ' 4. Patricia Burgeneister, Personnel Assistant, Personnel office, is a confidential enPloyee within the neaning of Mlnn. stat. 179A.03, subd - 4. Isauog is the description of the appropriate 1. What 2. The list of ernployees fall,ing lrithin the 3. Are the following emPloyees confidential nlthin the neaning of Hinn. stat. 1?9A.03, subd. 4: unit? appropriate unlt. Ar1ene IIeIwig, Junior Office titanager/ Lega I secretary (office of the county Attorney) Rita Wienke, Account officer/Board seeretary (office of the Auditor/Treasurer) Paula oIson, Assistant Accountant (Highway Departnent) 4. Is Nancy Schnidt, Accountant ( Highrray Departnent), a confidential enployee within the neaning of uinn. stat. 179A.03, subd. 4; or a supervisory employee wlthin the Deaning of I'linn. Stat. 179A.03, subd ' 17? Resp Add 002 certification Unit Determination BMS Case NO. 90-PCE-2003 Page 3 Has council 65 subnitted ttre required ehoring of interest through valid authorization cards 5. to sarrant the coicluct of an electlon? Discuaalop the bargaining structure 1. Baraalphc 8tluctur6. In establishing rtLlowed Bureau has i.r @e-1 -9:ltt-11-!?]1:v iavoring iori separate appropriate- units' +{---ry-=-"1t::i!:ll1ls oiiupitional srouPs colrPgsitd tl-:t":*i11' ;;;;;;;; untit or- lroaa social service dePartnent ' t"l--:tt]::t ign*iv' maintenance, JrEii.ir-t""rrnicar-piofessional etuPloyees are deternined appropriate. noccupationa.L group,rr emPloyees- of the their because of-social h"p.rtnent frav"-l"tn give-n a i6pa-raCe unit svstem ueri^t, """ri"E t;1-"iro"it ip with the- I{innesoti ;;il;;Pi:!-:?:?tt a bargarnlng ' 2l such cei€ain personnel policies and practicescriteria Public of the u-nit deternination ;4il;ilr; welgns Uien"r-"ti"r,= organizational t!" (PEr'BA), Act rrpi"Vn""t iiuot governnent, and- 'the community of.interest.of itir"tr". of county . [h.-"rpi"V."s invofve-d. The record in this case supports a s:-n1-Lar Although not an -i u"if office-clericar-rechnical-professional "i aPProPriate. enployees is ;i;dff;-il;[ of the Public gea1th Council 65 argues, hoYrever ' that enployees fron thls base unit il;il; slr"i6" t'pro{ii--JJura_ ue e-xcliraed of inter-est".uith connunity a ;;;;;; PHNs ernpldyee='ao not share 'r The Bureau faced this issue in. base unlr. Bureau iil-Jrr"ii-"ipi"i""'" in found that a distinct gl i" tir" SIEEi-geuEly Jl". therg lbq public. health nursing between ;".il""F6F-i"t&est,i txisted enproyees' essional' p;;;;;;i' "na "iei."-clerica1-technicar-prof BMs Case 87-PR-4 8-A′ BMs Case 2/ 33-PR-48 A. i:1 é gy=EE′ AmeriCan FederatiOn of State. COuntv and. Counc No `5 and Countv Of Stearns, BMS Case No. 85-PR 5 A. ′ ′ supra.′ Countv of Sib ev. Resp.Add.003 Certification Un t Dete μination BMs case NO 90-PCE-2003 Page 4 ″ S é aiξ C r :é : record and.Bllreau case precedents 1: unti such time that propoSa t: ,`_ é é é … … s a F= 1 me é 1: cause emp oyees found ollective lbargaining rights′ the Lé imp10yer. I:t∫ rl status and rejected Bureau has llnarrowly" defined confidentia administrative convenience as a ustification for dete ining an EE Lξ lwé t :: of the PELRA. The County contends that four employees lneet the confidential test of the PELRA. `Mrs. Ar ene Helwig′ unior Office Manager Legal n::: Fttjttll ::i::i:1liri :I[:] é Helwttg ay″ in the future′ have labor contracts to be reviewed by the county AttOrney. Such duties :ld ]tit ,S SuCh are not 47 Minn: Stat: 79A:03′ subd. 4 / a Emp Ovees′ American FeaeratiOn Of Statea Countv and Munici 76 . BMS District No un II 6. 6S and lndeDendent Scho Case No. 86-PR-4 4. Countv of Ramsev and AmeriCan FederatiOn Of State. Countv No. 4′ BMS CaSe No. d Municipal Em01ovees, Counci 82-PR-67-A. ′ ′ ′ BMS CaSe No. 84-PR-778-AF and and Municioa Emo ovees, Council No. 65″ BIS Case No. 84-PR 076-A. Resp.Add.004 certifiCation Unit Dete uination BMS Case No. 90-PR-2003 Page 5 AS the .lsecretary to the Count: r when necessary _ n her r e I: lttly lt :: lmttilttl :::::Ié é Lξ ::Ii:: l[:3ie:ucls ref.ective of a COnfidentia :11:I:: 1 lndai:ra[ elnp oyee n u é é ::E clerica ′ and payroll ′ financia the County Highway Department :i::::::sii illl ilIIIlily:l!:il:I[[e3:1 ::::::i:i[itl bas.S ]::: TheSe duties are il!I:]!:IEl:1:3 EIiE [i L leX:1111 olson's irregular ttnvolvement lli:1 11 nξ indpi:: sufficient basis tO exc ude her a lijili i]lli: 111] :111lFttV: ic:ul∫ 11 lis=:[itt° é l:nttittFaté status by bOth the Bureau and valid basis for finding confidentia the pub ic Emp oyment Re ations Board. 2 Flndino3 1. 2. of agreement is appropriate' The unit sha1l consist of office-clericaItechnical-professional employees of the The rnotion CountY. s :iSSue é é : BMs Case No. 82-PR-6?-A, October 12, 1981. Resp.Add.005 cert ification unit Dst€rElnation BMS Caae No. Page 6 3. 90-PR-2 003 The clerical and technical eroployees of the Highway DepartEent and the eDpLoyees of the Publlc Eealth Nurs ing service Department are included vithin the appropriate unit. 4. The follosing eDployees are not confidential within the ueaning of Uinn. Stat. 1794.03' Bubd. 4: Arlene Hell{ig, JunLor Office Hanager/ Lega} Secretary (Office of the county Attorney) Paula o1son, Assistant Accountant (Highway Departnent) 5. The follouing enployees are confidential uithin the neaning of uinn. Stat. 179A.O3, suM. 4: Rita Wlenke, Account Officer/Board secretary (office of the Auditor/Treasurer) Nancy Schuidt, Accountant (Ilighway Departnent) 6. council 65 has eubnitted the reguired shorring of interest through valid authorization cards to warrant the conduct of an election. o!al€8g 1. The appropriate unit is described as: AI1 off ice-clerical-technical-professional 2. A nail-ballot election shall be conductecl a[ong the employees falling rithin tho approprLate unit in accordance with the attacbed uail Ballot Election order. Resp.Add.006 certi fication unit Detenoination 90-PCE-2003 BltS Case }{o. Page 7 3. The county shall post this order at the wolk locations of all employees lnvo1ved. reconsideratlon of, this order Py tUe file a request for request is received vithin ten Uri6en pi"ritda such E lriil"i.rlr, the basis for Buctr forlh sets and iior- cirenaii davs -Eni, ro the_rrubllc be appealed arso n"y oia"r lill"=i-&?-jii"". sslo'2210 and Parts nul-e€ lllinesota Foard. il;i;;;t-iaiition. -ozoo ir'oo . , govern such request and appeals ' A Dartv nav STATE OT UINNESOTA Bureau of Mediation services PAI'I, W. GOIDBERG, Connissioner JLK:PEo:JLT: jj cc: Steve Giorgi Hosard HoY ThoDas ske11y County Auditor (2) (Inc1udes Posting) Resp.Add.007 ′ STATE OF MINNESOTA BUREAU OF lMEDIAT10N SERViCES 20S AURORA AVENUE SA!NT PAUL 55103 PHONξ 6:2 296 2525 1N THE hlATTER OF A PETIT10N FOR INVESTIGAT10N AND CERTIFICAT10N :[I;UitiCEil[i:I;ISIElil:: illliE: eζ l :[ll:l illi[::l:n of State, County & Murlicipal EmployÑ , Counci,l No, 65, and County of Sibley,G lord, innesota ′ PR“ 48 A CASE NO. 83 UNIT DETER 1lNAT10N IntroductiOn 0n Friday, August 27, I982, a hearing vlas held by the Bureau of lv]ediation Serv'ices, State of I{innesot0, at the Sibley County Courthouse, Gayiord, Minnesota, pursuant to a petition fj'led tiy the Amerjcan Federation of State, County & l4unicjpal Emp'loyees, Council No., 65, H'ibbi'ng, Mi'nnesota, The petft'ion determjnation of approprj'atei unit and certificati0n as' 'exclusjverequested representat'ive for certajn employees of the County of S'i'hiey, Gaylord, Minnesota, ail lnterested parties were provided an opportunity to present testlmony and evidence pert'inent to the questions rajsed by the filing of the petition, At the hearjng Pa.rtJ,es l,lr.,-Peter E. Bergstrgm, Attorney at Law, appeared on beha]f of the County of Sibleyt and Mr. 1,,'ll'liam l'loore,,Staff Representative, appeared on behalf bf AFSCI,IE Council No. 65, Iss ues I, hlhat js the appropriate unit? 2, ,Are certain emp'loyees superv'isory? 3. 4. Are certain ernployees confidential? the petitioner subm'itted the requi red showing of "interest through signed authorjzation cards to warrant the,conduct of an elect'ion? Has 5, 'lf an election AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 'is ordered, how > should Jt be conducted? Add.38 Page 2 Case No, 83-PR 48 A Unit Determinatlon Pos'i tjons of the Parti es Bergstrom took the position that the fol'lowjng employees are supervisory accordance wjth the statutory definition and should,be qxcluded from the approprlate unit: Gary C. Kloempken, Assjstant Auditor; Pat Zaska, Assistant Treasureri Helen Ingvalson, Assistarrt'Assessor; E'ldr,ene Ebert, Ass'istant Recorderi Borrnje Paulsenr Office llanager; and Larry Gasow, Zoning Adm'in'istrator, He further contended.that Bernette Zumhoffe, Accountant, 'is confidential in accordance with the statutory defjnit'lon and should be 'excl uded from the appropriate unit, |'lr. jn , ' all employees Department should be i'ncluded 1n the unit, |4r, Bergstrom also stated that of the Publ'ic Hea'lth Nursing l4oore lpok the posi t jon that none of the . above-l isted empl oyees .are .l,lr, 'supervi sory' 0r conti dentj al and shoul O be i'nil uded' i n ttre apbropri ate uni t and that all employees of the Public Health Nurs'ing Department shou'ld be excl uded, Stj Pul ati ons At ,the hearj ng the parti es stipul ated conducted by the Bureau that an on-s'ite el ectl on shal J be Supefyi sory jS.tatus A. Applicable Statutes. I,linn. Stat, ffie,,-ET*foTTofis: 17g,63, subd, 9, defines a "ISuperv'isory employee', when the reference is to other than essential employees as defined in subdivislon ll, means any person having authonlty in the jnterests of the emp'loyer to h'ire, discharge, assign, reward or discitransfer, suspend, promote, p'li ne other employees or 'responsi bly 'to d'irect them or adi ust ' their grievances on behalf of the employer, or to effectively recornmend any.of the aforesaid actjons, if jn connectjon wjth the forego'ing the exercise of such authority is not merely routine or ilerical in nature but requires the use of independent iudgment. Any determination of 'supervisory ernployee' may'be appealed to the public emp'loyment relatjons board. In conJunction wjth the above, J,linn, Itd.t, 179.71, subd. 3,, . 3, states 'ln part : subd , 'rln addition, wjth regard to the inclusion or exclusjon of supbrv"isory employees , the di rector must fJ nd that an emplo.vee may perforin or' effect'i ve'l.y recommend a maiori ty oT-TI-ose TuncT'ions ga, before an :employee may'be excluded as supervisory, " , (Emphasis added, ) Add.39 Page 3 Case No. 83-PR-48-A Determi'natlon Unl t B. scusslon` latiOhS Vo Minhe3ota ' luli nnes artment of ota b/4*A an fol I ows : une 29, 1982 the Bureau 82 'rAn emp'loyee who has not been gi ven the 'adthority' to perfoFm supervisory functions must then be able to demonstrate an abllity to effectively recommend the supervjsory functions, This may be accomp'lj shed 1. . , by: Presentation of testimony and evjdence whjch estab'l i shes that the employee's recornmendations have been fol I owed by the employer in the majority of casos; or Lacking 2, ' a record of experience; verificatjon that the -f i ri act be "fo'l'l bfr6 d' emp1 oyEe'''ii'-re'comrhe n dat1 on .'wo u l'd^ by the employer in the majority of cases, Verification of the prospective reffectiveness' of an employee's recommndation would be confjrrned by establishing the following: ' ,1 ,' , Aff i rmat'ion by the i ndi v j dual empl oyee i nvol ved of the abi I i ty to ef?ecti vely recommend' thi: s upervi sory functi ons and 2, Explanation by the employee Ofi how thiS authority would be exercised; and either 3'Ifil, 3J. lf i :t[]fi{:: visory authorjty; or ;i?f; lfl 'til ;;,t'fil ifi i,,?x.i. l'fi ;!. - 4,. Wrjtten proof. of the delegation of the authority to the employee, i,e.., job descriptjon, personnel documents, etc. " 'Confi denti A. - al Status Applicab'le @eeTlf Statgtes, [irU.!!{L: ]79,63., s'ubd.. B, defines foTlo-ws': a . rrl;Confidentjal emp'loyee, means any en1ployee who works 1n the' personnel offices of a pubfic employer or who has access to 'lnformatjon subject to use by,the public employer in meetjirg and negoti ating or who acti ve'ly part j ci pates i n the nreeti ng and negot'iati ng on behal f of the publ i c emp'loyer. ,, Add.40 Page 4 Case No, .,83-PR-48-A Unit Determ'ination B. , Di scussi on , The contenti on i n thi s case i s that Bernette Zumhoffe , Accountm[', has access to personnel fi I es and has "access to i nformation subJect to use by the pub'l'ic employer in meeting and negotlating". In determining lvhether an employee meets this ltandard of the definition of a confidentia'l emp'loyee, the.Bureau will. consjder the 'following: Does 2, Does the employee have access to inforrratf on which, 'is conf identi a'l to the empl oyer ,only? the employoe ,have access the form of |1 to inforrnat'ion which in an employer's proposa'l? ?i,llfl ,rTBl?/i: B:'tl: losni yl ; l,!!i ![ !liit]Fj,ill",! " -'' -qld,cptrtt!e'i^p'rqpo'9q-ls?,ae.vg]_gp-r!g ptgpol'll.s . is 1. " ... An employee who works with financjal and budqetary 'information does not mbet the definit'lon of a confi dentia'l efnployee based on that fact alone, In the State of l4innesota, a substantial arnount of employer information is avajlable to the pubfic'as a matter of 1aw, 'Therefore, the Bureau must analyze the statutory definition of a confident'ia1 emp'loyee particu'larly when dealing vlith "hav'ing access to infonmation subject to use by the public employerin rneeting and reach negotiating", The determination of confidential'ity must 'sumoundi ng gate .the ci rcumstances and i,nvesti beyond mere access this access as indicated 'in the above standards, I,ls. Zumhoffe has access to the personnel flles and to informat'ion subiect to use by the public employer in meeting and negot'iating, Apiropriate' Un'it A, Appljsable.Statute. l'tinn., Stat. 17g,71,'subd. 3, statei'in part: ,,The - ' , djrector shall determine approprjate unjts, except where appropriate units are defined by section 40, In determining. the abbrobriate unjt he shalj take into consideraljor, diong with other'relevant factors, the princjp1es ,and the,coverage of unifornt comprehensive pos'ition classification and compens.ation.plans of the ernpioyees, invblvement of professions and sk{l'Jed crafts and other 'ocbupitional classificatiohs , re1 evant admJnistrative and supervisonY leveis of authority, geogfaphjcal locat'ion, and the recommendation of the parties, and shall piace particularimportance upon.the h'istory and bxtent of organizat'ion and the destres of the pet'ltioning empl B, oyee rePresentati ves . " Discussion.., . In determlning the bargaining structure gf,county . li L191 lFrSe2attte 11 119 ″ … ,110119 90 11"… . ] =1 '11° _r 1.L ″ …1'L . ___ a. .__ ' . Add.41 Page 5 Case No. 83-PR 48 A Uni t Determinatlon bargaining units 'for certa'in empjoyee categories. Law enforcement ( or essentJ a'l 'empl oyees ) , pubf i c works , and empioyees subJect to the I4innesota Merit Systenr are traditjona'lly assigned to separate units The estab'ljshment of a cJerical-technical-professional unit br "courthouse" unit versus departmental units is the center of dispute in th js case. AFSCi4E Counc'il No, 65 argues for the exc'lusi on of the Publ i c Hea'lth Nursi ng Department f rom a base clerl cal *techni ca1-professi ona'l uni t of other county emp'loyees , The Bureau finds.that there is,a definite community of interest between the Publjc Health Nursing Department' and. othei county employees, This cotnmunity of interest is ref1ected by conrnon systems of compensat'ion and job c'lassifjcation, occupational titles, supervisory structurei and a sing1e personnel'po1icy, A'cceptahce of the'AFSCME 'CoUnc'i'l' llo. 65 'argument' coul d result'in a bargaining structure of indJvidual departments. Such a structure, in the Bureaurs opinion, ,would lead to fragmented bargaining disadvantageous to the employees, the union, and tlie enployer. As we found in'l4jnnesota School Errployees Assoc'lation v. independent School Dist Uatance between the narrow community of interest of sone employees an( the qxcessive fras:enr:tro: of the bargai,nins strucrure, it FindingS As I Director o.f lhe Bureau of Mediation Services, State of ]4innesota, I , The appropri ate uni t ,js flnd: : work 'da.ys per .year, excl udi n cial rvi ce Department maintenance ees, esse ial ernp:ioyees, and supe.rvis0ry and gonfidentiql employees. 2. . Employees of the Publ'i,c Health. Nursing Department have a communjty of interest with other employees wjthin the appropri ate unJ and are to be j nc'l uded j n the irnl t . t is a supervlsory 3. lil ! :lll:Illill:li:liii81:lull:il'` Stat, 179,63,subdi 9, Add.42 0 Page 6 Case No` 83 PR 48"A Unit Determinatl on Pat Zaske, Assjstant Treasurer; He'len Ingvalson, Assistant Assessor,lr Eldrene Ebert, Assistant Recorder; Bonnie Paulsen, 0ffice llanager; and Larry Gasow, Zoning Administrator, are. supervisory employees wjthin the Ineaning of Minn, Stat. not .l79.63, subd, 9, and are.to be.included 1n the unit. 4t 5 ' , , 6 , Bernette Zumhoffe, Accountart, is a confidential employee within the meaning of l4'inn, Stat. 179,63, subd, 8, and is to be excluded from thE unit. red showi ng of j nterest ll're peti ti oner has submi tted the requ'i for the employoes falling through signed authorization cards to warrant the conduct, approprlate unit wjthin the determjned , . "-.7*. ...An pn-si,te .d'lgcti.on ShL11. b-e ,gondugled.,.bV the Bureau 0rder , As ,Director of the Bureau of ilediatlon Services, State of MinnesOta, I order: 1. An on site election shall be conducted by the Bureau for the employees falling within the unit determined appropriate in accordance with an Election Order to be issued by the Buroau, 2` The emp10yer shall post this order at the work locations of the employees involved . BUREAU OF MEDIAT10N,SERVICES STATE OF 141NNESOTA . . . OBERllEYER, PEO:el cc:, Wllliam Noore ' Peter D: BÑ rgstrom . 1 Gene Salmonsen,(2)(Includes Postj ng) . Albert L, Church Llrry Gasow .: linnesota, Dated at St, Paul, SeptembÑ r lo∫ 1982 Add.43 STATE OF MINNESOmA " OF MEDIAT10N SERVICES IN THE MATTER OF: ST, PAUL, MI SOTA cASE NO 55],55 81 PR 947-A Mttnnesota School Employees Associatlon, Sto P,111, Minnesota and Independent School District No, 690, Warroad, Minnesota CERTIFICAT10N OF EXCLJSIVE REmE SENTATIVE An oleotlon having bean oonducted ln the abovo-entlll.ed matter by an Agent of tho Bureau. of Mediation Servleee, $t*.Le of }{lrureeota, ln accordanoe with the Bul"es and Begmlatlono of tho Bureau, ft J.o i:rdlcatsd from tho tabuJ,atlon of eleotlon reauLts that an exclunlve repreeentatlve for coJ*lectlve bargalning Furpoees has boen neLect,ed. Eligib e Voters (13) VOtes for Minnesota School Ettployeos Association (9) Votes for No Representative (2) Tota Votes (11) Pur uant to authOrity vented n the Bureau oF Mbdiatlon Sorvice , IT IS HEREBy C RTIF D rrlLAT THE bttNNESNA SCIImL EMPUDl 6 ASSOCIATI , , PAllL, MIIW CTA : : L :liflllilili:IIIIji::II:11111i]li lilli:liII[ [ill[I::r of al tho omployOo n such unit For the purpo 08 F colloctive bergain ng wtth roβ p9ct to rateD oF pay, nge8, hOur oF employnont, and other conditiong oF employment. ET: School District No, 690 of I A l are not'required to whO" The Ceaae and Doel.st Order' Lssued on I-:Lfted tn its entirety. EEo: j j cc: Ed Dahle Stuart Blackorby Dated at St, Paul′ Mlrlnesota) une 29, 1981 -5 (Rev 177 , 1o hereby CP) (.Includes tus"birrg')Robert A. HWhes Irtichael Plrsch FORMé March 121 1981 sence DttREOTOR BUREAU OF MED AT ON STATE OF M SOTA Add,44 BttF :[ I m VETERANS SERViCE BUELDING SAENT PAUL 55155 PHONE 612 29 2525 IN TEE MATTER OF: INVESTIGAT10N AND CERTIFICAT ON OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEESt APPROPRIATE UNIT: AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE: -S?ater' American reaeration or Count;*anaCouncll- No. 650 Hlbblng, Minnesota -andInde'pendent School CASE Municipii Dlstrtct No. 480, Onaml-a, Ernployees MLnnesota NO. 77-PB-802-A AMENDMENT OF UNIT DETERMINAT10N On une 15, 977).the Bureau of Mediation Services issued a Unit DetermlnatiOn finding six appropriatÑ units. The Unit :lli[l::lj[: :llil:i!: II::::1162:[i:::rill:Ii:: d be comb ned into,one :lli11 il:]inYl:tS ' 2, 3, and 4 shou :: :}:é Therefore,,as Director of the Bureau Of Mediation Services, State of Minnesota, I hereby amend the Unit Determination as issued and find the fo owing appropriate units3 : State Board of Education, and whosÑ nt servlce exceeds the lesser o, WOr emp Oyees. UNIT NO. 5: All supervisory lchool Dtstrl a⊥ empl-oy-ses certirica requ re ours and more ours per week e_normatt work week and more rvisorv and con Or an Or Schoo District No AN EQUAL OPPORTUN:TY EMPLOYER r otner emp oyeeS, UNIT NO.6: Ai ci t exceeds the lesser of serv rcen WOr of-fndependent normatt worK we r9 exc uding conf : é é e boarc o é _ ′/ ;; FR38o2-A Amendment of Unit Determination Education esser and whose S work we er wee more supervisory and a r t service exceeds ercent o normal r year excttu employees. BUREAU OF MEDIAT ON SERVICES ″ ERNEST H. JONES, DIRECTOR EHJ: e1 gc: Donald F. Sandstrom John Glorgi Albert L. Church (2) (InC udes Posting) D.+t e{- $. R*t′M'r,r'.err*rLCe cr ' “ ^'′ -0 STAT OF MINNESOTA BUREAU OF MEDlAT10N SERVICES ' 205 AUROttA AVENUE SAINT PAUL 55i03 PHONE`12 296 2526 1N THE MATTER OF A,PETIIT10N FOR INVESTIGAT ON AND CERTIFICAT10N OF, PUBLIO EMPLOyEES' APPROPRIATE lUNIT ' AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE: ' ' . Minnesota Schoo Emp oyees Association, St t Pau , Minnes.ot , ' , …and… Independent School District No. 6901 warrOad, IMinne S'ota .OASE NO 81.PR 947 A UNIT DETERMINAT10N Int noduct ion . . ' Aprll 1-5r 1981, & hearing was held by the Bureau, of Ivledlatlon Servlces, State of Mlnnesota, ab the Roseau Counby 2 Cou:rthouse, Rosea.u, Minnesota, purs,uant.to a petltlon fl1ea by the lvlinnesota Sohool Employees Associatlon, St. Paul., Mlnnesota. Ihe petitlon requested determinatlon of an approprlate unlt and On Wednesday, the certlflcat5-on as excluslve representatlve for" centaln, erapl-oyees of, lndependent School DlstI,lot No. 690, Waruoad, Minnesota. At tho hearlng all lnteres,ted partles i^rere provlded an opportunlty to present testJ-mony and evidence pertinent to the quesblons raised by the flIlng of the. petltlon. Issues 1, 2. What 3, Has l-s the appfopnlate unlt or units? Whlch ernployees would proper.ly faII wlthin the appr.opr,late unlt ? the petibloner submltted the regulred showlng of lnter.est to'war.nanL bhe,conduct of an electlon? Posttlons of .the Par.ttes lf of the MSEA, took the posltlon that the app::oprlate unlt should conslst of cooks, custodlans, secrebarial/c1erlcal, and beachen aldesl os reeuested in the petltlon. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYttR é > Add.34 3 0 Page 2 Case No` 81-PR 947-A Unit Determination Mn. Robert A. Hughes, on behalf of bhe Sohool Dlsbr.lct, took thg posltlon that the unit as i.equested by the petttloner ls lnappropr'late,and that ther"e should be separate bargalnlng units for each occupatlonal group and for bus drlvers. He furbher contendod,tha| the petltlon, as flIed, does not reflect the wlshes of the employees and that the Bureau should conduct an lnformal lnvestlgallon and/or electlon among each occupatlonal gnoup of employees bo make a posltlve deber"nlnation as to whether fhe petltlon nefleets the wlshes of bhe employees. Mr. Hughes funther stabe(l t'hat Er"w1n Pabker, Head Custodlan, drnd Doroihy Jesme, Ilead Cook, are supervJ.sory enpJ"oyeesi that EmiLy Turner, Office Ma{qsgt,1s both supervlsory and confidenttal; and that Judlth Pal"m, Asslstant bo bhe Qfflce ivlanager, and Dona Runnels, Genenal OffLce Secretary, are confldentla1 ernp1oyees. Dls cus s lon the unlts, the Bureau is direoted by '3. . l-T9 statutory , crlter.ia established by MInn,.. .St ,71, subd. The appllcablon of these cr5.terla,to the ernployment relablonshlp extstlrtg ln school dlstrlcts requlres the bal.ance between the oommunlty of lnte::est of employee$ and excesslve fnagrnentatlon of the bargatning str.ucture. At sorne polnt the Bur.eaurs general pollcy of separate unlts for, offlce, food sernvlce, maintenance, and transportatl-on employees confllets wlth unlt fragmentation because of the number of employees lnvol-ved. Ml.nn,.Etr. il,|g,71, subd. 3,'ehiphaslzes that ln determlnlng appropriaEFiiirrEs the Director I'shalI ptace particular lrnpor.tance upon the hlstory and extent 6dp onganlzation and the deelres of the petltlon* lng employee represFntatlves,rr The PERB ln Independent SchooI Dtstrlct No. 480 ano AFSCME Oouncil No. 65 (Case No, 77*PH-802-A) rever"sed the Bureaurs flrtdlng of four separate unlbs of norrbeachlng per.sonneL. fL found that Irsecttort L79,7L, subd. 3, makes 1t clear that ihe deslres of, the petltlonlng employee representative shaLl be Biven parblcular {mportance. t( l$ * Pursuant to Mlnn. SCab,179.71, subd, l, the role of the Boand as well as that of ranr the Dlrecbor l"s to determtne If the unlt petltioned appropr.late bargalnlng unib. No provlslon of for. ls the PubLlc EmpJ-oymenb Labor: Relatlons Act mandates that coLl-ectlve bargaintng In a proposed unlt whlch ls otherwlse appropriate 1s to be denled stmply because another unlt may be conceptually Imost I appr.oprlate, In determl-nlng appnopr,late r rl Add.35 : ` Page 3 Case Not 8 PR-947-A Unit Determination Find=ngs l, Erwln Parker., Head Custodlan, and Dorothy Jesme, Hoad Cook) ar6 super.vlsory employees In aocordance wlth Mlnn. St_. L79',63, subd.. 9, and are to be exc1uGE*fr6m' the'unrt, 2` Emlly, Tunnerr, Offtce Manager,, ls a supervisory ernployee In accordance wlth Mtnn. St. ].79 .53, subd, 9 , and a confldehtlal employee tn accordance with Mlnn. St. L79.63' subd.. B, and ls bo be oxcluded from-Thd unlt 3. 1 4, . Judlbh Pa1m, Assistant to bftice Manager,, and Dona RunneLs, General Offlce Secretary, are confldenttal employoes 1n accor"dance wlth Mlnn. St.. LT9,63, subd. and ane to be exeluded from tE,t unll; The appropriate unit is deterinined to be: be certiFicaL d b whose employmen hours er wee Ing 5, B, anct rnore an employ-ees of t COn Qpry 3 C_-&ate Boabd oT EduaEtTon, ce exceeds esser o cent o e normal wotk O woF er year, excludor.tatlon Departnent and ent employees. … lhe potltloner has submJ.tted the requlred showJ-ng of lntenest through,valld authorLzation oards for the empLoyees falling wlthin the appr"oprlate unlt, ′ It wlII rrot be posslble for" the Bureau to oond.uct an on-slte electlon befone the close of the I9B0-81 year; school be conducted. bhenefore, a mal1 bal1ot electlon wlLt Or"der As Dlr.ector I order.: 1. of the Bur.eau of Medlatlon Senvfces, State of .Mlnnesog'a, ' :i A malr bal-}ot erectlon shal-I be conducted 1n accordance wlbh an electlon onder to be lsSued by the Bureau, Add.36 ,r.. , t {. Page 4 Case NO 8 PR 947-A Unit Determination 2 The.employeu shaLl lmmediately furnlsh to the Bureau and bo- bhe petttloner a I1st of the omployees falLl-ng wlthln the unlt hereln deter:mlned. appropr'Iate, along wlbh thej-r" home maillng addresses. The empl-oyer shal-I post thls order" at Iooatlons of the employees lnvolved, all work BUREAU OF MEDIAT10N SERVICES STATE OF MINNESOTA PETER E. OBERMEYER, 1 RECTOR PEO r e1 / cc: Stuart Bl"ackorbY Robert A, Hughes (2) (Includes PoSting) lvilchael Ptrsch Edward DahLe Dated at Stn Paulo Minnesota, May 27, 1981 Add.37 3UREAUOFllED ON SERVICS IN THE MATTER OF: OCTOBER State of Minnesota 6′ Minnesota Teansters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Local No. 320, Minneapolls, Minnesota 990 0n onf -andof Anoka, Anoka, tlinnesota BMS CASE NO. 9O-PCE-3223 County CERTIFICAT ON OF RES,LTS OF E E⊆ ON . The tabu ated resu ts of a certification e ection conducted in the :::V: ::p[:38:1 xé = 111: if itζ llls,f the BIreau EL GIBLE EMPLOYEES FOR TEAMSTERS UN10N′ LOCAL NO 320 VOTES FOR NO REPRESENTAT ON OTES TOTAL VOTES COuNTED °f Mediat:?n (557) ( 4 ) (336) (477) Accordingly, IT Ig CEBTIFIED lplnt rEE ttINNEaoIA TEII{8!EB8 PUBITIC elrD lIJAf ENFORCBtIEtflt EIIPLOYEBa ITNION, !,OCAL NO. 3Zo, IiIINNEAPOI/IE, llMNESoTA. is No! the eiclusive representative of the following approPrrate unrt: . 'AII clerical and technicaL emplovees. of the County.of Anoka. Anoka, Minnesota. who are. pubtic eiroloyees within the rneaninq of I,{inh. The Maintenance of 6, 990′ is lifted Status Quo Order issued by the in its entirety. STATE OF MINNESOTA Cornmissioner )) cc:' Robert Weisenburger Jay McLinden . Ron Welde (2) (fncludes posting) Bernard Steffen 1612164, 21 FAX:(61υ 643 t3 1380 Encrgy Lanc,Suite≠ 2`St Poul′ MN 55108 5253 An Equal oPPOrhnity Emp10yer P nled By A State Facility ′ On Apr é l é é V é é é February 24,2021 Law Enforcement Labor Services, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota -andAnoka County, Anoka, Minnesota BMS Case No. 21PCE0336 INTRODUCTION On September 9, 2020, the State of Minnesota, Bureau of Mediation Services [Bureau), received a petition from the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota [Union). The petition requested determination of the appropriate and certification as exclusive representative for a group of employees of the Anoka County, Midwest Medical Examiner's Office, Anoka, Minnesota (Employer of County). On Thursday December 3L, 2020, a pre-hearing was conducted to discuss the possibility of conducting the hearing via video conference and the logistics for conducting such a hearing. A hearing was subsequently conducted on Thursday, |anuary 14,2021, via a WebEx platform, with some witnesses presenting in the hearing room before the hearing officer in the offices of the Bureau. The parties timely submitted post-hearing briefs by Wednesday February 3,2021,, and the record was closed. APPEARANCES At the hearing Scott Lepak, Attorney for the County, represented the Employer and Attorneys Kim Sobieck and Mark Schneider, represented the Union. 1380 Energy Lane,Suite 2,Minneapolis,Milanesota 55108 5253 651-649 5421 l FAX:651 643 3013 1 TTD:1 800 627 3529 1 mn.gov/bmS 1101) Aζ El o, ity E,1 ploy Unit Clattication ttrder BMS Case No.21PCE0336 Page 2.… February 24,2021 1SSUE llyhatis the appropriate bargaining unit to be deterrnined? BACKGROUND In its petition, the Union seeks to create a unit described as: "AIl Full-Time employees of the Midwest Medical Examiner's Office, Ramsey, Minnesota in the position of investigator, who are public employees within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 1794.03, Subd. 14, excluding supervisory and confidential employees." The Midwest Medical Examiner's Office (MMEO) is an Agency within County Administration Department of Anoka County. During the Pre-Hearing Conference, the Union clarified their petition is to determine a unit consisting of full time "Office Investigators". POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The County maintains the full time Office Investigator is a fragment of the positions within the Medical Examiner's Office sharing a community of interest. In addition to the Office Investigator, the Forensic Technicians, Field Investigator, and Medical Secretaries are included within the same community of interest. The Union argues the positions in question is a unique a community of interest, have submitted an interest in being represented by the Union and should be included in the appropriate unit rather than creating an Office wide unit of disinterested individuals.. DISCUSSION APPLICABLE STANDARDS Minn. Stat. S1794.09, addressing unit determination criteria provides in relevant part: Criteria. "ln determining the appropriate unit, the commissioner shall consider the principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the employees, professions and skilled crafts, and other occupational classifications, relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority, geographical location, history, extent of organization, the recommendation of the parties, and other relevant factors. The commissioner shall place particular importance upon the history and Untt ClaHlcation Order BMS Case No. 21PCE0336 Page 3.… February 24,2021 extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives." COMMUNITY OFINTEREST Revievving the criteria outlined in Minn.Stat.§ 179A,09,subd.1: a COttensation4 ans ofthe en QyttQ : There is no dispute the Office lnvestigators are within the County classification and compensation system. Forensic Technicians and Medical Secretaries are also within the systenl,while the Field lnvestigators are compensated according to their ovvn salary schedule.Additionally,the three positions are grouped sirnilarly vvithin the classification compensation system vvith the Forensic Technicians at grade ll,the Office lnvestigators at grade 10 and the Medical Secretaries at grade 8. Ex l,#5 Field lnvestigator compensation is comprised ofan“ on call''payment for the tilne in vvhich the lnvestigator is standing by,and they a``per scene"payment of$100 perincident.(Ex 17 For incidents extending beyond whatis normany expected there rnay also be a$20 per hour supplement when approved. Vhile the Forensic Technicians and Medical Secretaries participate in the same compensation and classification as the Office lnvestigators,the Field lnvestigators do not. b nL é é p n :In reviewing the position description for the Office lnvestigator(Ex 8)′ itiS deterrnined not to be that of a professlon or skilled craft. Not to deride the significance ofthe position but instead fono1/ving the definitions vvithin PELRA′ it sirnply does not rise to the definition of profession or skilled craft.The same is true for the positions of Forensic Technician′ and Medical Secretary,although their duties differ from that of the lnvestigators. The position of Field lnvestigator would be considered to be a profession or skilled craft had the degree in physica1/social sciences or crirninal iuStiCe been a requirementinstead ofa preference. C :Exhibit l l delineates the organizational structure ofthe County Medical Exarniner's Office. For each position within the Medical ExaFniner's Office there is a Supervisor identified. Each Supervisor reports to either the Medical Exalniner,who reports to the Director of the Midvvest Medical Exarniner's Office or to the Director hirnseli Medical Secretaries report directly tot eh Director ofthe MMEO who reports directly to the County Adrninistrator. The Office lnvestigators and Field lnvestigators report to the lnvestigation Supervisor,vvho reports to the Medical Exarniner,who then reports to rho reports to the Director. Forensic Technicians report to the Morgue Supervisor the Medical Exanliner.The dissilnilarity of supervisory levels does not create a community ofinterest. Unit Cla lcatlon Order BMS Case No. 21PCE0336 Page 4.… February 24,2021 d G ph ⊥ QQ lQ : Exhibit l,stipulation number 9 establishes the Forensic Technician,Office lnvestigator and Medical Secretary positions are alllocated at the MMEO facility in Ramsey Minnesota.Field lnvestigators work from their home offices located throughout the Counties served by the Medical Examiner.(T,Sheets The geographic service area forthe MMEO howeveris far greater than atthe Ramsey Office and encompasses several Minnesota Counties. In addition to the positions already listed as being housed at the Ramsey facility,the Forensic Pathologists also work at this site. Under agreement between the parties as identified in Exhibit l′ the Forensic Pathologists are to be excluded frorn an appropriate unit. Ex l,Stip 2 In the instant case,although the varying work locations for the MMEO are throughout several counties,the Office lnvestigators sought by the Union are al1located in the Ramsey office and do not perforrn any “ field″ work. e Histottι : MMEO employees are currently unrepresented.Atleast two previous attempts have occurred to seek representation for technical and clerical employees ofAnoka County νhich have failed to establish a unit and bargaining relationships. 90PCE3223,09PCE0284)There iS Currently no history with the proposed unit. :This means the groupings ofemployees among whom the union has support and upon which it has focused its organizing effortsi State of Minnesota,State Board of Public Defense,and Teamsters Loca1 320.BMS Case No. 98PCE0490 MarCh 3,1999 . In the instant case the Union has support from the Office lnvestigators ofthe MMEO.This factor supports the Union's position there is a community ofinterest. g :The Union's recommendation is to create an appropriate unit consisting of full tilne Office lnvestigators.The Employer's recommendation is to certify an appropriate unit consisting MMEO employees except the Forensic Pathologists νhich the parties have agreed to exclude. These positions offset each other and provide no guidance in this case. h Other relevant factors:The Employer raises the issue of over fragmentation,a consideration notidentified in§ 179A.09 however a consideration the Bureau has used for decades. Deterrnining the appropriate unit requires the balance between the community ofinterest ofemployees and excessive fragmentation ofthe bargaining structure. The Bureau has developed a decision policy preference forthe establishment offour basic units in County government.Absent compelling reason otherwise′ units of essential,highvvay rnaintenance and public works,social Service departlnent,and county wide office clerical adnlinistrative,technical,and professional employees will generally be deternlined as appropriate. This policy favors the establishment of appropriate units vvhich are based on broad occupational groups essential,public works′ and office¨ clerical adnlinistrative′ technical,and professional. The exception to this broad occupational group Unit Clarification Order BMS Case No. 21 PCE0336 Page 5...February 24,2021 standard, is our finding that all employees of a social services department make-up a separate unit. (99PCE0402) This bargaining structure preference of the Bureau accurately applies the unit determination criteria of the PELRA. Here however, we find the Employer has entered into stipulations whereby additional units of essential employees were formed, negating a consideration for over fragmentation. CONCLUSION with the exception to Bureau policy for social services, MMOE employees share a uniqueness not found in a more general clerical/technical unit description. The Employer's objection to the Union's description is not to follow the broad Countywide policies of the Bureau but instead shoehorn the policy into fitting within the MMOE. The uniqueness of the position, the work performed, the separate location from other County employees and the desires of the petitioning union favors a determination a broad clerical/technical unit As should not be created. We also find persuasive the fact that an appropriate unit consisting of the entire clerical/technical employee class was certified and the parties never reached a collective bargaining unit. We take this as strong evidence that a broad bargaining unit would not lead to stable and constructive labor relations. Additionally, the Unions desire to include only a portion of a job class is not appropriate. The position of Office Investigator does not change for a public employee serving less than full time. The record is void of any reference to differing job duties, compensation structure, levels of authority and responsibility, geographic location, or other consideration to suggest differentiation. Having established multiple essential units with the County diminishes the argument against fragmentation. The particular importance on desires of the petitioning employee representative, and history and extent of organization strongly favor the determination of an appropriate unit of Office Investigators. The principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the employees, professions and skilled crafts, relevant administrative and supervisory Ievels of authority, and geographical location all favor and disfavor the Employer's arguments given some employees share interest while others do not. The petitioner's position is upheld with the exception of excluding all but full-time employees. A unit of all Office Investigators is appropriate. Excluded from the unit are Field Investigator, Forensic Technician and Medical Secretary. The parties had previously stipulated to the exclusion of the Forensic Pathologist. unn claHlcation Order BMS Case No. 21PCE0336 Page 6.… February 24,2021 FINDING AND ORDERS l. The appropriate unitis described as: Al1 0ffice lnvestigators emD10Ved bv the Anoka COuntv Midwest emD10Vees within the meaning of Minn.Stat.179A.031 subd.141 2. The Bureau shall conduct a mail ballot election among the eligible employees in accordance with the attached Mail Ballot Election Order. 3. The Employer shall post this Order at the work locations of the employees involved. STATE OF MINNESOTA Bureau of Mediation Services ,ANET L.10HNSON Conllnlssloner S/ Michael Stockstead Hearing Officer Scott Lepak Kim Sobieck Mark Schneider POST:NG POSTIT AT THE WORK LOCAT:ON(S)OF ALLINVOLVED EMPLOYEES.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
