It isn’t often that suits having to do with public employment collective bargaining agreements make it all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court. It’s extra special when those suits involve two of your favorite attorneys!
The case, Clapp v. Sayles-Adams, (formerly Clapp v. Cox) was over a taxpayer’s standing to challenge alleged unlawful disbursements of public funds. The lawsuit stemmed from the settlement of the collective bargaining agreement between the Minneapolis Teachers Association and the Minneapolis Public School district. Specifically, the suit challenged the constitutionality of “racial and ethnic preference provisions” in the 2021-2023 collective bargaining agreement.
While the constitutionality question of the suit was important, the more important aspect of the suit was whether a non-party to the agreement had standing to challenge the agreement when its terms had no real impact on them. At district court, the court found Ms. Clapp had no standing to challenge the action. However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the disbursement of funds in order support the changes to the collective bargaining agreement could be challenged under the common law taxpayer standing doctrine.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue, and examined the question of the whether a taxpayer could challenge the language of the collective bargaining agreement, given the expenditures associated with the language change were incidental, and not a direct product of the language change.
In its decision, the Court stated that to have standing a taxpayer may not rely on expenditures that are merely “incidental” to the central dispute.” It held that while Clapp lived in the city and part of her property taxes went to the School District’s costs, the money spent to implement and monitor compliance with the contract language in question was only incidental. Citing a decision from earlier this year, the Court stated, “The activities of governmental agencies engaged in public service ought not to be hindered merely because a citizen does not agree with the policy or discretion of those charged with the responsibility of executing the law.”
While the Court left room for judicial review of collective bargaining agreements for those who are actually impacted by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (i.e., teachers and paraprofessionals), the Court found that a common taxpayer had no standing to challenge the language of a collective bargaining agreement when no funds were being disbursed specifically based on the challenged language.
Greg and Ben had the pleasure of participating in this judicial review process, as representatives of the Minnesota Public Employer Labor Relations Association, alongside several amici, where we fought vehemently to protect public employers’ rights to be creative in the collective bargaining process without interference from uninterested parties. The decision goes a long way in protecting our time-honored practices of working together to reach mutually-beneficial agreements for employers and employees.
It took a long time to get here, but it’s finally done. If you, or your organization, need assistance in negotiating or defending your collective bargaining agreements in any venue, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.