There is a ton going on in the world of employment and labor law, but we are pressing on with our month-long (and more?) review of all of the legislative changes taking place in the Minnesota workplace. You can check the blog for parts I and II of our reviews. This week, we dedicated our update to changes in both the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“MGDPA”) and the Minnesota Public Employer Labor Relations Act (“PELRA”) having to do with public employees.
MGDPA
First, the MGDPA has been updated to require employers to provide personnel data to labor organizations, to the extent it is necessary, to conduct elections, investigate and process grievances, and implement the provisions of PELRA. The changes also include protection for the employer from claims regarding the sharing of data to labor organizations. Conveniently, the data shared between employees and their exclusive representatives on employer technology is now deemed private data, not subject to public data requests.
PELRA
As far as PELRA goes, the changes are monumental. First, the definition of public employee was changed to include school district or charter school employees, no matter how long they are employed by the school district. Adjunct professors at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities were added to the list of public employees, as well, regardless of the number of credits they teach.
The two biggest changes to PELRA are in Minn. Stat. 179A.03, subdivision 19, “Terms and conditions of employment.” For those unaware, employers are required to meet and negotiate over all changes to terms and conditions of employment. For all public employers, “staffing ratios” have become terms and conditions of employment, and personnel has been removed from the definition of managerial rights. For school districts, term and conditions of employment has expanded to include “adult-to-student ratios in the classrooms, student testing, and student-to-personnel ratios.”
Now, if a union brings up staffing ratios in negotiations, employers cannot avoid the subject anymore by stating staffing is a management right. However, employers are not required to agree on anything having to do with staffing ratios. Remember – you have the right to say, “No.”
The real question is whether employers will be required to negotiate over staffing changes that take place during the term of an agreement. Does the termination of one employee alter the terms and conditions of employment, necessitating negotiation prior to the move taking place? We’re looking into it. Does the maintenance of current staffing levels create a past practice that cannot be modified without negotiation, or at the very least notice at the bargaining table? Will employers be subject to unfair labor practices if they fail to replace retiring employees within a certain period of time? The impact of this legislation remains to be seen, but we can be sure it is going to create serious issues for employers going forward.
The final changes we’ll discuss have to do with the laws put in place to help unions keep existing. First, PELRA was amended to require employers to rely on certifications from exclusive representatives stating employees have elected a dues deduction towards that representative, and that choice remains in effect until the employer receives notice from the union that the employee no longer wishes to contribute dues. Employers are required to begin deducting dues within 30 days of the notice.
In addition, employers now have an obligation to provide contact information to exclusive representatives of new bargaining unit employees, and allow the exclusive representative up to 30 minutes to meet and speak with that newly hired employee, during which the employee must be paid. Employers must allow bargaining unit representatives to communicate with employees over employer-provided e-mail addresses, and must allow representatives to meet with unit members in facilities owned by the public employer (as long as the use does not interfere with governmental operations). That may end up being important limiting language when an union asserts an unfair labor practice.
Finally, the union election process has been expedited, and allows for the Bureau of Mediation Services to recognize bargaining unit representatives for a group of employees upon receipt of a petition requesting certification of the unit along with the signatures of 50 percent of the employees in the proposed appropriate unit who wish to be represented by the petitioner. On top of this, employers can be found to have committed an unfair labor practice for interfering with the 50 percent verification procedure.
The Governor has already signed off on the bill, and these changes are set to become effective July 1. Of this year. You must prepare for the changes now, as unions are not going to ease into the changes. They were clearly put in place to allow public unions in Minnesota to flourish, and we expect unions to take full advantage of them as soon as possible. If you, or your organization, need assistance in adapting to these new laws, call Wiley Reber Law, for labor relations advice that works.