With the rise in union organizing activity across the country, there is always a fight to create new bargaining units. In Minnesota public labor, unions are frequently attempting to “expand their territory” of both members and job classifications.
In Anoka County v. LELS, the union appealed from the Bureau of Mediation Services decision regarding LELS’s proposed bargaining unit of a group of clerical employees from the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. The County opposed the union’s petition and proposed a county-wide clerical and technical unit, as many of the titles sought to be organized by the union existed in departments other than the Sheriff’s Office, and the County already had 11 existing bargaining units.
The parties went to a hearing in front of a BMS hearing officer, and the BMS determined that the unit proposed by the union was not appropriate, and “that the only appropriate bargaining unit was a county-wide unit consisting of: ‘All clerical and technical employees of Anoka County, who are public employees…excluding the appraiser, senior appraiser, professional, supervisory, confidential, essential and all other employees.’” The union appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Parties appealing decisions of the BMS face an uphill battle. Bureau decisions “will be reversed only when they reflect an error of law or where the findings are arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence,” and the challenging party bears the burden of proof.
In determining appropriate units, the Bureau is to consider the following:
- Principles and 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
- Degree of functional integration, nature of employee skills and functions, interchangeability and contact among employees, general working conditions, hours of work, number of employees affected, nature of compensation, and common supervision.
The BMS also needs to consider whether “overfragmentation” will result from the certification of a proposed bargaining unit.
In its review of BMS’s decision, the court found that BMS considered all of the principles described in Minn. Stat. §179A.09, regarding appropriate bargaining units. While the union disagreed with the BMS’s conclusions regarding the weight of evidence and testimony of witnesses, such disagreement cannot lead to a decision being overturned by a court. Simply arguing that the BMS “should have determined that…factors weighed in the union’s favor” is not enough to reverse the decision of an agency.
In regard to overfragmentation, the court found that BMS appropriately exercised caution with regard to limiting the proposed unit to only the Sheriff’s Office administrative employees. Six of the 16 positions sought to be organized by the union existed in other county divisions, departments, or offices. The court found that the union’s proposal “increases the risk of disruption caused by overfragmentation.” As such, the court determined BMS acted within its authority.
One interesting item of note is that the union also challenged the BMS process, in that the agency seemingly went against its long-standing standard of determining whether the proposed unit was an appropriate unit, and instead looked to create the most appropriate unit. The court made a point to call out the agency for departing from “its prior norms and decisions.” While the challenge by the union was not enough to have the decision overturned, it appears to have created an opening for parties in future BMS hearings.
While this decision is unpublished with no precedential impact, the decision lays out a framework for both unions in challenging BMS determinations and employers in defending their arguments with regard to appropriate units. It will be interesting to see how both unions utilize this information in the future, and how the BMS might modify its approach to bargaining unit proposals. If you, or your organization, need assistance in the union organizing arena, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.