(dissenting):
I would affirm the trial court’s determination that after bargaining in good faith to impasse on Article X concerning the payment of health insurance premiums for *503retirees, the county was free to implement its last best offer on the contract term.
As to terms in contracts with essential employees which are subject to interest arbitration, I agree with the majority’s construction of Minn.Stat. § 179A.20, subd. 6 (1990) that when those terms are certified at impasse, they remain in effect until arbitration over the new contract is complete. However, the legislature has specifically stated the failure to reach agreement over the issue of the payment of retiree insurance premiums is not subject to interest arbitration. Minn.Stat. § 179A.16, subd. 9. Therefore, I believe any terms dealing with this issue which are at impasse do not survive beyond the expiration date of the existing contract, in this case, December 31, 1989.
The majority would apply the provisions of Minn.Stat. § 179A.16, subd. 9 only when bargaining has reached impasse on the initial introduction into the contract of terms relating to retirees’ insurance benefits and not when the terms already exist in the contract. The language of the subdivision does not support such a dichotomy. The subdivision clearly states:
Failure to reach agreement on employer payment of, or contributions toward, premiums for group insurance coverage of retired employees is not subject to interest arbitration procedures under this section.
Minn.Stat. § 179A.16, subd. 9. Nothing in this language suggests the subdivision applies only to the introduction for the first time of terms dealing with this matter.
Minn.Stat. § 179A.20, subd. 2a provides that a contract cannot obligate an employer to fund health care benefits for former employees beyond the terms of the existing contract. This section also suggests the majority’s interpretation of the limitations on Minn.Stat. § 179A.16, subd. 9 is incorrect. If Article X were subject to interest arbitration and, thus, a possible determination retaining the article in the new contract, the county’s obligation to fund health insurance might be extended beyond the existing contract. Section 179A.20, subd. 2a prohibits such an obligation.
I believe a more reasonable interpretation of the above three provisions of the statute is that if an agreement on the payment of insurance premiums for retirees cannot be reached, the existing provisions cannot be enforced beyond the expiration date of the contract, and the employer may unilaterally implement changes in its policy on this issue. Therefore, since the one year extension of the 1988 contract between LELS and the county expired on December 31, 1989, the county was free to implement its new policy on January 1, 1990.
I respectfully dissent.