Anoka County, Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, ...

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

1
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.

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

2
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.

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-PCL-

0678, 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-PCE-

0989, 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

3
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.

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

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).

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

1
The terms confidential employees, public employees, and supervisory employees
are defined in Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subds. 4, 14 and 17 (2022).
2
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.
3
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.

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

4
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.

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

5
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-PCE-
894, 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.

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.

6
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

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.
7
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

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

8
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).
9
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

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

10
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]).

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-bargaining-

unit 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

11
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).

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 office-
clerical-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

12
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.

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.

13
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.

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

14
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.

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
ヽ ,・ 1■
PUBL:C EMPLOYME‖ T RELAT:ONS BOARD
Room.5981SpaCe center Bulldinp
Эom̲598,space Center Bullding
庶精席嘲轟ヽ
デせ ぅ510: :ξ
鑢 脇

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
The Amerlcan Federatlon of State, County and Munlclpal
Emp).oyees 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:
ｌ
■

UNIT NO. ■ : s ecretar s chool
aides and nurses o strlct
一
ａ

nnes o ta
︑

0. more
¨

ｒ 一Ｓ

ａ ｄ
ｎ 一ｅ

an urs s per
一

W
ｅ
ｍ
ｐ

ｎ

ear u e
other oyees.
°
ピ
】1:9〕 31:tri lnesota. who are
ed for mo ours per we re than
ears exc■ u S
ent1a1, and aI1 other employees.
UNIT NO。 3: Al odial and maln
Ind endent Schoo stric 0.
0 are or more
more
COn
ヽ:

く巌
"〇
 UNIT NO. 4: A e ees of tlon
0 nde 0. On
ota. who oyed for
We more WO
S ther

UNIT NO. 5: All su ervlsor emDloriees of Inde endent
ool Dis rlct No. 0、 0 Mlnnesota, w are no

r mo
We nore t r er vear
COn an a■ er em ees.

UNIT NO. 6: All confidenti Loyees o Indep endent
Schoo■ Dis ct No. Ota o are not
o are hours
n
wee
S 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
the excluslve representatlve. The petltlon
ttAll requested the_Director
to deslgnate as an approprlate unlt non-teachlng employees
who work
irAei"raent Schooi'Dlitrlet 480 exctudlng
per
employees
year'"
"i
i""r inin 14 hours per week or 100 days
On June 2, )977, a hearlng on the petltlon was conducted by
a hearlng offl6er of-the Bureau of Medlatlon Services. At a
the
unlt of
i,ui"i"g,"Counc11 No. 65 amended its petitlon to request ln
employees ind a unlt of confldentlal empl'oyees
"rp""rl6oty
aabftlon tL a unlt of all. other non- certl fl cated employees. of the
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'
-electlon to
N;;: 3, 4,:, ana 6 and,lpursuant an agreement
unlts.
of -the
to unit
ne ora6reo a'malI ba110i for those As
flo.. i and 2, a sufflcLent showing of lnterest was not submltted
and no election was ordered ln those two unlts ' ;

f11ed -by Councll No' 65'
After receivlng notlce of thls appeatlmpounded
the Dlrecton ordereE the eLectlon ballots before
.tabuLatlon pending the declslon of the Priblie EmpLoyment Relations
Board.
ヽr

‑2‑
 :●
●

Pursuant to Mlnn. Stat. s 179。 72,.subd. 4 (!976), thls appeal
ls before the Board on the record estab■ ished by the Dlrector.

II. 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 unlt bf transportatlon employees,
rather than a slngle unlt of non-sup ervlsory , non-confldentlal
empl-oyees as requested? I/ .

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
クie DI「 e:::3ラ
mき
11 ::ie l:I:p::1:id:]:ti:R,
1よ
ong with othざ r relevant factors, the

]/ 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..
_A In vlew of the disposltlon of thls matter, the Board need riot
. 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モ °
Councll N8::u::Sc:RIeI:ご 1:。 ve
:『 ;° Ilit::I:rTl:3:吉
were not proper■ y appl■ ed and that the Director's decision ls
without ractual support in the record. In particular, Council
No. 65 alleges that proper weight was not accorded to the desires
of the petitioning employee 2Pepresentative, the on■ y statutory
criterion supported by the 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■ vё
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
::Iを l11ln:131::. 131:te:in:fe :Fi:::き dOes
not warrant re」 ection of the reql ::ilfi:]iivi:31:ieii!員
particu■ ar importance placed by the Statute on the desires of the
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 ‑
 ● デ
▲ 一 ▼

︑
Board et aI., PERB Case Nos.. 73-PR-571-A, 74-PR-59-A,
A (November 2 6, L975), aff rd. gub nom.
sota v. Pub11c EmPlo_ymgnQ
Regents of ttlg.Unlvergl9u of Mlnnesota Employment
September 26, 1977)。
The Board flnds that the requested general unlt ls approprlate.
The record provldes no 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

Peter 0bermeyer

el-tzer

Dated at Saint Paul, Mi-nnesota,
Nbvember 10, l-977
Ｌ″
´

・
 一
●
BtlREAL10F MDIA10N SERVICES

State of M― esclta
ヽ﹁ＤＯ拇 一

ヽ

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
H魏 0壼 ter
CERTIFICAT10N IJNIT DETERMINAT10N
MRODUCT10N
On Monday,Deccmber 14,1998,the Bureau of Mcdhion Senices,St'い ofMinncsota curCau)
conducted a hearing pursuantto a petton received from ttc Amencan Fe面 lon ofState,County
and Municiptt Employecs,Counci1 65,NashwaOL MinnesOta(CounCi1 65).Thc petition requested
血 detettdon of an appropnate urut and ca五 icatlon of Coulc■ 65 as the exclusive
畔 nttdVC Ofcem■ n emp10yees ofthe County ofMonison,Litle Falls,Minnesota(COunty)

PttRⅡ ES

At tt hearing NIr.Stcvc P blc,StaffReprcsentative, pCared on beb」 fofCounci1 6驚 and NIr.
Bemie Steffen,Labor Counsel,represcnted the County.

ISStlE

What h the appropntte mt fOF emp10yees ofthc Com Administrators'Deparme籠 ofie Comげ

(612)649 5421 FAX:(6121n3‑"13 11υ :18006273529
1380 Encヮ Lalle o Sui● 12● S● Paul,MN 5510● 5邸
An Equa1 0PPom● ty Entployer

Resp Add 008
Certificatio● Urit Determination
BMS Case No. 99‑PCE‑402
Page 2 」anuary 4, 1998

DISCUSS10N

appropふ eM鳳 珊 vξ駅 鰍 胤 絣 潔 棚 ご 鑑
Servlces I狗 甲 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 ヽ

represented by a labor c哩 印 屹a● on atthctime tts p n was iled輔 th the Bureau.

At issue is wheulerぜ 腱 non‐ supervisow and non‐ co証mmual employees of」 僣

織ぽ辮ilF服 器器品笛
Ψ輩 躙 ■
品蹴l酬電 C

洲 器 ふ出 息 ¶よ
織鍔 7忌 器臨譜柵ず響[搬 ば よ
ney concluded士 口 adminism
t all oFlcetlcrical‐

柵 児轟躍.CT鵬 響¶艦 婚譜:蹴i慰機ミ脚
nam ofits operaticlns and personnel system,argued thc Comty.

2硼鳳iW酬
:Ⅷ
鵬 ls柵
剛しd"armtt md county‐ widc Omc← di」 鑑躙禦T議総 l‰ 機 s淵
employees宙 1l genmlly be detemned as appropnate

This pdicy favors■ e enblお he■ of甲 ゅ date面 越 whch are based on broad
Occupational groups― esse面 」,public works,and o饉 Ce‐ cle五 cd admintsmtM,た chical,and

‰ λ 』鰈 酬 肥 椒 淵 癬
珊
senttce emplo藤 :s appropnate because ofuntql 榊 慰 撫 即
llis personDel Systcni dlrecuy impacts ccniǹtenns and Conditions ofemploッ ■nenf'ofcounty
ｔ

[
American Federation of Sta二 呈 ⊆。u2=x and MIn■ C■
un
̀ a w Enforcement
ヽ
erv .ces, BMS Case NO. vt
that under certain oonditiOns ■iCensed and non-licensedto
-e employees of a sheriffs department have the right
essential
vote for separation intso an appropriate unj-t of licensed and\. non-
}1￡
ξ
』fξttfttfon of State, county and Munici
ountv
lo
tearns′ BMS Case NO. UO一 PК ―
Coun 。

Resp Add 009
 Certification onュ 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は cal‐ adminis缶11ve9 tech面 cal,and professional employees ofa county
ヽ

This bargainmg smcm preference of ie Burcau accurately applLs the uni
d 帥面nlion cntena of the PELRA.4 1n additioL such a bargШ Шtt smcmre collsiders the
・
general co― unlty of intcresr'ofau comty Cmployees and is supportivc ofereclivc collcctivc
bargal硼 鴨 for bo■ laborand mmgement

3. Fact ofthL Case Tに record in dis case estabU出 ぃ a disttct co―uruty of
htreゞ "among」 l employecs of County.k農頑 ve of ms commmty ofinte責 ず 'are thc
folo揃 ng:

* county-widecomprehensivepersonnelsystem;

* salary, insurance, and fiinge benefit compensation package which is
common to all non-represented employees;

* 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. Conclusion. We conclude that the record in this case supports the County's
position that a county-wide office-clerical-administrative, technical, and professional unit is
\- appropriate for collective bargaining. Thereforq Council 65's petition will be dismissed.

a Minn. Stat. 1?9A.09, Subd. 1.

Resp Add 010
Certification Unit Determination
BMS Case No. 99-PCE-402
Page 4,..January 4, 1998

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イ徴―ぅぃ電も '

Peter E. Obenneyer
Hearing Officer

cc: Steve Preble
Tim Houle (2 copies - including Posting Copy)
Bemie Steffen

ヽ
、

Resp.Add.011
￨

BUREAUOFttDIARON SERVICES
State of MinnesOta

IN THE MATTER OF A PETIT工 ON FOR SEPTEIBER ■2′ 1989
IIIVESTIGAT10N AND DETERMINAT■ ON
OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; APPROPRIATE ヽ
W工 T AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE:

Anerican Federation of statb, county and [uriicipal Ehployees,
council No. 65, Hibbing, lllnnesota
-and-
county of Redrrood, Redwood Faf1s, l,tinnesota
-and-
Law Enforcenent Labor services, Inc., Bloomington, l{innesota
BMS CASE NO. 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.

ヽ

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ユ
1380 Ene■ v he・ Sulte F2・ St PauL NtN 55108 5253
An Equa1 0PPornHり E PI●/er

‑30
Resp.Add.001
 Certification Unit DeteruLnation
BI,IS Case No. 90-PCE-2 003
Page 2

´ 2. All Departuent Heads are excluded from
the appropriate unit.
3. 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
1. What is the description of the appropriate
unit?
2. The list of ernployees fall,ing lrithin the
appropriate unlt.
3. Are the following emPloyees confidential nlthin
the neaning of Hinn. stat. 1?9A.03, subd. 4:
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

5. Has council 65 subnitted ttre required ehoring
of interest through valid authorization cards
to sarrant the coicluct of an electlon?
Discuaalop
1. Baraalphc 8tluctur6. In establishing the bargaining structure
i.r @e- Bureau has rtLlowed -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
t ign*iv' maintenance, service dePartnent ' t"l--:tt]::-
JrEii.ir-t""rrnicar-piofessional etuPloyees are deternined
appropriate.
Although not an noccupationa.L group,rr emPloyees- of the -social
unit
h"p.rtnent frav"-l"tn give-n a i6pa-raCe svstem because of their
;;il;;-
"""ri"E t;1-"iro"it ip with the- I{innesoti ueri^t,
' 2l such
Pi:!-:?:?tt
a bargarnlng
cei€ain personnel policies and practicescriteria of the Public
;4il;ilr; welgns Uien"r-"ti"r,=
u-nit deternination
Act t!" organizational
rrpi"Vn""t iiuot governnent, and- 'the community of.interest.of
(PEr'BA),
itir"tr". of county record in this
.
case supports a s:-n1-Lar
[h.-"rpi"V."s invofve-d.
-i The
;i;dff;-il;[ "i u"if office-clericar-rechnical-professional
enployees is aPProPriate.
Council 65 argues, hoYrever ' that enployees of the Public gea1th
il;il; slr"i6" t'pro{ii--JJura_ ue e-xcliraed fron thls base unit
a
;;;;;; PHNs ernpldyee='ao not share 'r connunity of inter-est".uith
iil-Jrr"ii-"ipi"i""'" in The Bureau faced this issue
in. base unlr. Bureau
i" gl
tir" SIEEi-geuEly Jl". therg lbq found that a distinct
;".il""F6F-i"t&est,i txisted between public. health nursing
p;;;;;;i' "na "iei."-clerica1-technicar-prof essional' enproyees'

BMs Case 87‑PR‑4■ 8‑A′

BMs Case 33‑PR‑48‐ A.

2/ AmeriCan FederatiOn of State. COuntv and.菫 i:1聟 エコ里ユgy=EE′
嬰書 皇￨―
Counc■ ■ Noこ ̀5 and Countv Of Stearns, BMS Case No.
85‑PR― ■5■ ―A.
supra.′ Countv of Sib■ ev.
３ 一
′
′

Resp.Add.003
 Certification Un■ t Deteェ μination
BMs case NOぃ 90‑PCE‑2003
Page 4

S。 t:臨。
計
″
翼 話 撃 書 計鶏 ∬ 貯 篭
C蹴 aiξ
r葛 恐熙ご:黒 轟Ъ
こ 罪理 :聖 錘鱗 椰 髪
record and.Bllreau case precedents。 ,̲̀ … …・

1: s a
unti■ such time that propoSa■

よ1:‖ 曇 me肥 電
署こ F=轟1■ 胤
cause emp■ oyees found
I:t∫ 記謡側盤rl翼 守 L量 暇 imp10yer.恥
ollective lbargaining rights′ the
ヌ
Bureau has llnarrowly" defined confidentia■ status 塁ノ and rejected
administrative convenience as a 〕ustification for deteニ ュining an
器 掟子 ::織 営審 議 Lξ lw鞣 歴辮 t端島 轟悧 路 。
こEE
of the PELRA.
The County contends that four employees lneet the confidential test
of the PELRA. ̀Mrs. Ar■ ene Helwig′ 」unior Office Managerノ Legal
n:::
ご 讐 Fttjttll轟
::i::i:1liriデ 整 :I[:]」 ゝ 恥
Helwttg コay″ in the future′ have 鸞
labor contracts to be reviewed by the county AttOrney. Such duties
:ld感 撃 ]tit彙 甘∬ 理譜譜 糧 轟 ,S SuCh are not
47 Minn: Stat: ■79A:03′ subd. 4。
二/ American FeaeratiOn Of Statea Countv and Munici● a■ Emp■ Ovees′
ここunこ II 爵6.・ 6S and lndeDendent Scho● ■ District No。 76■ . BMS
Case No. 86‑PR‑4■ 4.
丘ノ Countv of Ramsev and AmeriCan FederatiOn Of State. Countv
五五d Municipal Em01ovees, Counci■ No. ■4′ BMS CaSe No.
82‑PR‑67‑A.
７ 一
′ ′

′ 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ェ ■uination
BMS Case No. 90‑PR‑2003
Page 5

AS the .lsecretary‖ to the Count:

筆 礎 r捕菫
when necessary。 ̲ n her r。 e こ
・
ユ

I:『 lttly lt二 ::きlmttilttl』 Lξ ぜ覺:::::I鋼聾
∬祟驀義 ::Ii::
:11:I::こ 1。 lndai:ra[こ ヨ
l[:3ie:ucls ref.ective of a COnfidentia■
elnp■ oyee。

n糟
螢::E■ 繁 猟議u網譜 ふ麟電
clerica■ ′ and payroll
′ financia■
the County Highway Department。

:i::::::sii「 illl』 ilIIIlily:l!:il:I[[e3:1■ 11。 nξ indpi::撃 ]:::
bas.S・ TheSe duties are
::::::i:i[itl考 燃 il!I:]!:IEl:1:3せ EIiEラ

lli:1じ よ
竃
コ Ъ息
『習
leX:1111』 L】

olson's irregular ttnvolvement
[i
Ⅵ 尊
lijili」 i]lli:
sufficient basis tO exc■ ude her a
lis=:[itt° 鳳縄
l:nttittFat鳳 土 寵 ic:ul∫ 11』 』 111]『 :111lFttV:
status by bOth the Bureau and
valid basis for finding confidentia■
the pub■ ic Emp■ oyment Re■ ations Board. 2ノ
Flndino3
1. The rnotion of agreement is appropriate'
2. The unit sha1l consist of office-clericaI-
technical-professional employees of the
CountY.

二s蟄 :iSSue
轟朦岬■∬濯電驚よ :二
９一

BMs Case No.
82-PR-6?-A, October 12, 1981.

Resp.Add.005
cert ification unit Dst€rElnation
BMS Caae No. 90-PR-2 003
Page 6

3. 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
BltS Case }{o. 90-PCE-2003
Page 7

3. The county shall post this order at the wolk
locations of all employees lnvo1ved.

A Dartv nav file a request for reconsideratlon of, this order Py tUe
E lriil"i.rlr, pi"ritda such Uri6en request is received vithin ten
iior- cirenaii davs -Eni, and sets forlh the basis for Buctr
lill"=i-&?-jii"". oia"r n"y arso be appealed ro the_rrubllc
il;i;;;t-iaiition.
-ozoo Foard. lllinesota nul-e€ Parts sslo'2210 and
ir'oo . , govern such request and appeals '
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 , Counci,l No, 65,
l早 :[ll:l illi[::l:n of State, County & Murlicipal Employё
‐and‐
County of Sibley,G可 lord,‖ innesota・

CASE NO. 83‐ PR 48‐ A
′

UNIT DETER卜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
'exclusjverequested determjnation of approprj'atei unit and certificati0n as'
representat'ive for certajn employees of the County of S'i'hiey,
Gaylord, Minnesota,
At the hearjng ail lnterested parties were provided an opportunity to
present testlmony and evidence pert'inent to the questions rajsed by the
filing of the petition,
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. Are certain ernployees confidential?
4. Has the petitioner subm'itted the requi red showing of "interest
through signed authorjzation cards to warrant the,conduct of
an elect'ion?
5, 'lf an election 'is ordered, how should Jt be conducted?

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 蠅轟>①
Add.38
 Page 2
Case No, 83‑PR■ 48・・A
Unit Determinatlon

Pos'i tjons of the Parti es
|'lr. Bergstrom took the position that the fol'lowjng employees are supervisory
jn 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'i-
strator, 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,

|4r, Bergstrom also stated that all employees of the Publ'ic Hea'lth Nursing
, Department should be i'ncluded 1n the unit,

.l,lr, l4oore lpok the posi t jon that none of the . above-l isted empl oyees .are
'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 that an on-s'ite el ectl on shal J be
conducted by the Bureau

Supefyi sory jS.tatus

A. Applicable Statutes. I,linn. Stat, 17g,63, subd, 9, defines a
ffie,,-ET*foTTofis:
"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,
transfer, suspend, promote, discharge, assign, reward or disci-
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,,
subd. 3, states 'ln part :
,

'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
Unl tDetermi'natlon

B.田 scussloǹ luli nnes ota artment of
艶 latiOhS Vo Minhe3ota
b/4*A an 82‐
」une 29, 1982ぅ the Bureau fol I ows :
'
'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 by: '

1. 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

, 2, Lacking a record of experience; verificatjon that the
-f
act be "fo'l'l bfr6 d'
emp1 oyEe'''ii'-re'comrhe n dat1 on .'wo u l'd^ i ri
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

;i?f; lfl 'til 3'Ifil, 3J. lf i :t[]fi{:: ;;,t'fil ifi i,,?x.i. l'fi ;!. -
visory authorjty; or
4,. Wrjtten proof. of the delegation of the authority to the
employee, i,e.., job descriptjon, personnel documents, etc. "
'Confi denti al Status

A. Applicab'le Statgtes, [irU.!!{L: ]79,63., s'ubd.. B, defines a
@eeTlf foTlo-ws': .

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
 ●ヽ
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 nforma-
tion 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:
1. Does the employoe ,have access to inforrnat'ion which is in
the form of an employer's proposa'l?
2, Does the employee have access to inforrratf on which, 'is
conf identi a'l to the empl oyer ,only?

?i,llfl ,rTBl?/i: B:'tl: -'' " ;
losni yl l,!!i ![ !liit]Fj,ill",!
|1

ae.vg]_gp-r!g ptgpol'll.s
-qld,cptrtt!e'i^p'rqpo'9q-ls?,- "
...
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
negotiating", The determination of confidential'ity must reach
'sumoundi ng
beyond mere access and i,nvesti gate .the ci rcumstances
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 oyee rePresentati ves . "

B, Discussion.., . In determlning the bargaining structure gf,county
コ
.

90壺 ｀″ 聾聾
聾聾 生 艘
119写 虹 艘11liり げL191営 叩単lFrSe2attte
言■｀ ■り… 製 製上上 ,110119写 a.ヽ
11"…
ｒヽ ヽ

.｀
]ヽ ア=1聖 ̲r二 、
'11° こ1.L ″ ・・…1'Lヽ . ̲̲̲・ ・ 口・
'い
.

.̲̲ノ
「
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 tradi-
tjona'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
it Uatance between
the narrow community of interest of sone employees an( the
qxcessive fras:enr:tro: of the bargai,nins strucrure,
FindingS

As Director o.f lhe Bureau of Mediation Services, State of ]4innesota, I flnd:
I , The appropri ate uni t ,js :

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 t and are to be j nc'l uded j n the irnl t.

3. is a supervlsory
Stat, 179,63,subdi 9,
♀
lil羊 !さ :lll:Illill:li:liii81:lull:il'̀

Add.42
 ● 0

Page 6
Case Nò 83‐ PR‐ 48"A
Unit Determinatl on

4t Pat Zaske, Assjstant Treasurer; He'len Ingvalson, Assistant
Assessor,lr Eldrene Ebert, Assistant Recorder; Bonnie Paulsen,
0ffice llanager; and Larry Gasow, Zoning Administrator, are.
not supervisory employees wjthin the Ineaning of Minn, Stat.
.l79.63,
subd, 9, and are.to be.included 1n the unit.
5。 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.
' 6, 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
wjthin the unit determjned approprlate to warrant the conduct,
, , . "-.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,

2̀ 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 ' 1
・
Gene Salmonsen,(2)(Includes Postj ng)
Peter D: Bё rgstrom、 .
Albert L, Church .:
. Llrry Gasow
Dated at St, Paul, 卜linnesota,
Septembё r lo∫ 1982

Add.43
STATE OF MINNESOmA " OF MEDIAT10N SERVICES ST, PAUL, MI卜 剛 SOTA 55],55

IN THE MATTER OF: cASE NO。 81■PR二 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日 , IT IS HEREBy
CユRTIFエコ D rrlLAT THE ・
bttNNESNA SCIImL EMPUDl燿 亜6 ASSOCIATIい , 田 , PAllL, MIIW亜 嗚CTA

・
:幣 :濃 L壼
:liflllilili:IIIIji::II:11111i]li撃 lilli:liII[璃 [ill[I::r
of al■ tho omployOo● 土n such unit For the purpo● 08 。F colloctive bergain■ng wtth roβ p9ct
to rateD oF pay, Ⅵnge8, hOurぃ oF employnont, and other conditiong oF employment.

いET: A■ l of I School District No, 690
are not'required to
whO" sence

The Ceaae and Doel.st Order' Lssued on March 121 1981 , 1o hereby
I-:Lfted tn its entirety.
EEo: j j
cc: Ed Dahle
Stuart Blackorby CP)
(.Includes tus"birrg')-
Robert A. HWhes DttREOTOR
Irtichael Plrsch BUREAU OF MED工 AT工 ON
STATE OF M正 剛 SOTA
Dated at St, Paul′ Mlrlnesota)
」une 29, 1981
FORM郎 ‑5 Add,44
(Rev。 177う
 BttF幕 :[∬I晰 理m農
VETERANS SERViCE BUELDING
SAENT PAUL 55155
PHONE 612・ 29■ 2525

IN TEE MATTER OF:
INVESTIGAT10N AND CERTIFICAT工 ON OF
PUBLIC EMPLOYEESt APPROPRIATE UNIT:
AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE:
-S?ater'
American reaeration or Count;*ana-
- Municipii Ernployees
Councll- No. 650 Hlbblng, Minnesota
-and-
Inde'pendent School Dlstrtct No. 480, Onaml-a, MLnnesota
CASE NO. 77-PB-802-A

AMENDMENT OF UNIT DETERMINAT10N
On 」une・ 15, ■977).the Bureau of Mediation Services issued
a Unit DetermlnatiOn finding six appropriatё units. The Unit

:lli[l::lj[:繋
::￨「 :}:重 :llil:i!:」 II::::1162:[i:::rill:Ii:: ̲
d be combェ ned into,one
:lli11賃 il:]inYl:tS・ ' 2, 3, and 4 shou■

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 whosё
nt servlce exceeds the lesser o, ours per week
Or e̲normatt work week and more
WOr rvisorv and con
emp上 Oyees.

UNIT NO. 5: All supervisory empl-oy-ses of-fndependent
lchool Dtstrl t
requ■ re certirica
serv exceeds the lesser of
Ｆ一

ours rcen normatt worK we
ｎ
ａ

Or
and more WOr r r9 exc■ uding conf■ ―
a⊥ an otner emp上 oyeeS,
UNIT NO.6: Ai■ ciギ
Schoo■ District No 墨聟窪論翠鳴語齢￡ 軍嘱器識翼書
e boarc o
:

AN EQUAL OPPORTUN:TY EMPLOYER く鬱レ③
′/
● ●

;;壼 FR38o2‑A
Amendment of Unit Determination

Education and whose ■ t service exceeds
esser S er wee ercent o■ normal
work we more r year excttu
supervisory and a r employees.
BUREAU OF MEDIAT工 ON SERVICES

″
ERNEST H. JONES, DIRECTOR
EHJ: e1
gc: Donald F. Sandstrom (2)・ (InC■ udes Posting)
John Glorgi
Albert L. Church
D.+t e{- $. R*t′M'r,r'.err*r-
crづ 'グ フ
LCeい し ァ

・
︑
^'′
‐
・
崚｀
‑0
STAT巨 OF MINNESOTA
BUREAU OF MEDlAT10N SERVICES
' 205 AUROttA AVENUE
SAINT PAUL 55i03
PHONÈ12・ 296‐ 2526

1N THE MATTER OF A,PETIIT10N FOR、 .
INVESTIGAT工 ON AND CERTIFICAT10N OF, '
PUBLIO EMPLOyEES' APPROPRIATE lUNIT '
' AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE:

Minnesota Schoo■ Emp■ oyees Association, St・ t Pau■ , Minnes.otご ・
…and… , ' ,
Independent School District No. 6901 warrOad, IMinne S'ota
.OASE NO。 ・
81.PR‐ 947‐ A

UNIT DETERMINAT10N
Int noduct ion
. On Wednesday, 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
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, What l-s the appfopnlate unlt or units?
2. Whlch ernployees would proper.ly faII wlthin the
appr.opr,late unlt ?
3, Has 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, secre-
barial/c1erlcal, and beachen aldesl os reeuested in the petltlon.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYttR く醸>◎ Add.34 3
ヽ

0
Page 2
Case Nò 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 lnappro-
pr'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

In determl-nlng appnopr,late unlts, the Bureau is direoted by the
statutory , crlter.ia established by MInn,.. .St . l-T9 ,71, subd. '3.
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 appropri-
aEFiiirrEs 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 norr-
beachlng per.sonneL. fL found that r

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
the Dlrecbor l"s to determtne If the unlt petltioned
that of ranr
for. ls appropr.late bargalnlng unib. No provlslon of
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, rl

Add.35
・ :ユ

●
̀

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,
2̀ 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. Judlbh Pa1m, Assistant to bftice Manager,, and Dona
RunneLs, General Offlce Secretary, are confldenttal
employoes 1n accor"dance wlth Mlnn. St.. LT9,63, subd. B,
and ane to be exeluded from tE,t unll;
1 4, The appropriate unit is deterinined・ to be:

3
be certiFicaLさ d― b C_-&ate Boabd oT EduaEtTon,
whose employmen ce exceeds esser o
hours er wee cent o e normal wotk
anct rnore an O woF er year, exclud-
Ing employ-ees of t or.tatlon Departnent and
Qpry COn ent employees.
…
5, lhe potltloner has submJ.tted the requlred showJ-ng
of lntenest through,valld authorLzation oards for
the empLoyees falling wlthin the appr"oprlate unlt,
′じ

It wlII rrot be posslble for" the Bureau to oond.uct
an on-slte electlon befone the close of the I9B0-81
school year; bhenefore, a mal1 bal1ot electlon wlLt
be conducted.
Or"der

As Dlr.ector of the Bur.eau of Medlatlon Senvfces, State of .Mlnnesog'a,
I order.: ' :i

1. 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■ 申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 all work
つＪ

Iooatlons of the employees lnvolved,
BUREAU OF MEDIAT10N SERVICES
・ ・
STATE OF MINNESOTA

PETER E. OBERMEYER, 1工 RECTOR

PEO r e1

/ cc: Stuart Bl"ackorbY ( 2 ) (Includes PoSting)
Robert A, Hughes
lvilchael Ptrsch
Edward DahLe
Dated at Stn Paulo Minnesota,
May 27, 1981

Add.37
 ●●
●

3UREAUOFllED■ ■ON SERVICS
IN THE MATTER OF: State of Minnesota OCTOBER ■6′ ■990

Minnesota Teansters Public and Law Enforcement Employees 0nュ onf
Local No. 320, Minneapolls, Minnesota
-and-
County of Anoka, Anoka, tlinnesota
BMS CASE NO. 9O-PCE-3223

CERTIFICAT工 ON OF RES,LTS OF E■ E⊆ ■■ON .
The tabu■ ated resu■ts of a certification e■ ection conducted in the
=讐
°f Mediat:?n
:::V:こ ::p[:38:1 ぜx週 111:こ if『 itζ llls,f the BIreau
EL工 GIBLE EMPLOYEES (557)
▼OTES FOR TEAMSTERS UN10N′ LOCAL NO。 320 (■ 4■ )
VOTES FOR NO REPRESENTAT■ ON (336)
TOTAL VOTES COuNTED (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 Status Quo Order issued by the On Apr■ ■
6, ■990′ is lifted in its entirety.
STATE OF MINNESOTA

Cornmissioner
))
cc:' Robert Weisenburger
Jay McLinden
. Ron Welde (2)
(fncludes posting)
Bernard Steffen

1612164,● 21 FAX:(61υ 643刹 t3
1380 Encrgy Lanc,Suite≠ 2̀St Poul′ MN 55108 5253
An Equal oPPOrhnity Emp10yer
P■ nled By A State Facility ′
 翻丁魃巡⑮
骨倉ギ
l洟 ヅ麗融 鐘閂鯰 V薔

February 24,2021

Law Enforcement Labor Services, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
-and-
Anoka 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

Aζ 〕El、 ■1101)ジ o,れ い｀
ity E,1、 ploy● ぎ
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 enЩ 』QyttQ旦 : 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 à̀per 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.ヽ Vhile the Forensic Technicians and Medical
Secretaries participate in the same compensation and classification as the Office
lnvestigators,the Field lnvestigators do not.

b〕 ユnL塁塁壼狙里彙丞二重ヒ墨直■型」p山 旦コ堅ュ匹亜塑ユヒ上墨』蛙迪n胆 :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
the Director. Forensic Technicians report to the Morgue Supervisor、 んrho reports to
the Medical Exanliner.The dissilnilarity of supervisory levels does not create a
community ofinterest.
Unit Cla日 lcatlon Order
BMS Case No.
21PCE0336 Page
4.… February 24,2021

d〕 G崚 コ唱ェュph菫ェ⊥」QQ」lQュ : 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

As 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
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/物
Michael Stockstead
Hearing Officer

Scott Lepak
Kim Sobieck
Mark Schneider

POST:NG

POSTIT AT THE WORK LOCAT:ON(S)OF ALLINVOLVED EMPLOYEES.