The CBA is signed. Everyone can relax until the next round of bargaining, right? Not quite. Management-rights provisions under Minnesota PELRA recognize that certain decisions remain within an employer’s inherent managerial authority. But when a management decision changes a mandatory term or condition of employment, the analysis gets more complicated.

The Minnesota’s Public Employment Labor Relations Act (MPELRA) expressly recognizes an employer’s authority over matters of “inherent managerial policy.” Under MPELRA § 179A.07, subd. 1, public employers are not required to negotiate over matters such as the employer’s functions and programs, overall budget, use of technology, organizational structure, selection of personnel, and direction of personnel.

However, managerial rights sit alongside MPELRA Section §179A.07, subd. 2, which requires public employers to “meet and negotiate in good faith” with the employees’ exclusive representative concerning terms and conditions of employment, such as hours, compensation and fringe benefits, staffing ratios, and personnel policies affecting employees’ working conditions. (MPELRA § 179A.03, subd. 19).

When evaluating an operational change, employers should not only ask whether management has a right to make the decision but also whether implementation will change terms and conditions of employment that would trigger an obligation to bargain under MPELRA.

Luckily, Minnesota has an established framework to assist employers in this analysis under the Minnesota Supreme Court decision of Foley Education Association v. Independent School District No. 51. In this case the Court indicated an employer’s unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment is a prima facie violation of employees’ collective-bargaining rights because such changes “circumvent the statutory obligation to bargain collectively” with employees’ exclusive representative. However, the court cautioned that does not necessarily equate to an unfair labor practice. The Court laid out questions to be considered:

1. Does the change concern a mandatory term or condition of employment? If the subject falls outside mandatory bargaining—including matters of inherent managerial policy—the unilateral-change rule may not apply.
2. Is there actually a change? If the “change” is consistent with the parties’ established past practice, it may not constitute a “change” at all.
3. If there is “a unilateral change in a term and condition of employment,” did the employer engage in a “bad faith refusal to bargain?” Relevant considerations include whether the union had an opportunity to bargain, whether the CBA authorized the employer’s action, or whether the union waived its bargaining right.

Stay tuned next week when we will take a deeper dive into recent decisions considering the balance between managerial rights and duty to bargain terms and conditions of employment. If you and your organization have concerns about the distinctions and how to evaluate the interplay between management rights and terms and conditions of employment, both during bargaining and once contracts are settled, contact Wiley Reber Law for legal advice that works.