As part of the Individual Providers of Direct Support Services Representation Act of 2013, personal care assistants (PCAs) were allowed to organize for collective bargaining under PELRA.  To assist with that, the Minnesota Department of Human Services must maintain a list of names and addresses of all individual providers who have been paid for providing direct support services to those receiving assistance within the past six months.

In 2014, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was granted access to the list of PCAs maintained by the Department of Human Services (DHS, sorry, there are a lot of acronyms in this blog), as it satisfied the criterion granted by PELRA as an employee organization.  Under PELRA, the BMS Commissioner is required to provide a recent list of PCAs to either an exclusive representative of PCAs when that organization demonstrates support from at least 500 PCAs, or to any exclusive representative of individual PCAs.  When the list is available to an employee organization, it must be made publicly available.

In 2016, six PCAs – members of SEIU, sued after they requested access to the DHS list of employee addresses in order to attempt to decertify the union, and were only provided the 2014 list of employees, as it was the only list that was publicly available.  The six PCAs were seeking the most recent list of PCAs.  The district court ordered that the list be turned over to the group seeking to decertify, and then heard argument on whether the State had violated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) by refusing to turn over the most recent list.

The six PCAs argued that the list was public personnel data under the MGDPA, and that the information was “publicly available” information under PELRA.  The agency argued to the contrary.  The district court found for the group attempting to decertify, and that the “not public” personnel data could be turned over by the court.  It did not address whether the list was publicly available under PELRA.

On appeal, the court found that the group was not entitled to the list of PCAs under PELRA, as it did not meet the criteria as a bargaining unit representative.  However, it held that the home addresses and telephone numbers of the PCAs were public because the statewide group of PCAs were public employees and their personnel data was subject to disclosure under the MGDPA (despite the fact that there is no mention of an employee’s personal phone number or address in the list of public data in the Act).  The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the agency had violated the MGDPA.  The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

In its decision Greene vs. Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that the PCA list only becomes available to an exclusive representative upon request, therefore, if an employee organization does not request the list, it is not publicly available.  The group of six PCAs argued that the Court’s ruling would make it impossible for the PCAs to decertify, as they are allowed to under PELRA.  The Court noted that it would not close off the PCAs’ path to decertification as there were alternative ways to get necessary data.  Furthermore, the fact that in 2016, the group was able to gather 500 signatures in support of its decertification petition showed that the concept was not impossible.

In turning its discussion to the MGDPA, the Court first held that the members of the statewide group of PCAs were only considered public employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, based on the plain language of the statute.  The Court found that no actual employment relationship existed between the state and the PCAs – the PCAs were rather employees of the participants in the state program.  The Court then found that only certain personnel data on public employees is public, and that did not include the home addresses and home telephone numbers of the PCAs maintained by the DHS.  Furthermore, as the work location of the PCAs would include the program participant address, the sharing of that data was explicitly prohibited by statute.

Finally, the Court found that even with the presumption in Minnesota that government data be treated as public, because both PELRA and the MGDPA made the data private, the information should not have been turned over to the group attempting to decertify.

As all who work for public employers are aware, data requests are an everyday issue that can confuse even the brightest of legal minds (as evidenced by the decisions of the district court and court of appeals).  The penalties for failure to adhere to the MGDPA can be severe, so it’s important that you’re getting the proper legal advice when it comes to the sharing of government data.  If you, or your organization need help responding to data requests, contact the Wiley Law Office, for data practices advice that works.