Last year, we discussed the termination of an employee from the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC), who was later reinstated by an arbitrator following an arbitration under Minn. Stat. 43A.33, subd. 3(b).  Following the employee’s reinstatement, the DOC sought certiorari review of the decision in the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The employee, Knutson, argued that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, arguing that certiorari review only applied to agency decisions, while this was a decision of an arbitrator.  Knutson argued that under Minnesota’s Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA), the DOC was required to bring its appeal to district court.  The DOC argued that because the arbitrator’s decision, under the statute, was a “final quasi-judicial administrative decision,” it was reviewable by a writ of certiorari.  It also argued that because it was required to arbitrate under the statute, as opposed to a mutually-agreed dispute resolution procedure, that the decision was not subject to the MUAA.

On top of this, the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) was brought into the suit as a party due to its involvement in providing the list of arbitrators to the parties prior to arbitration.  As a result, two state agencies were on opposite sides of an appeal, with the Attorney General’s office arguing on behalf of both.

The Court of Appeals determined that a decision of an arbitrator appointed under section 43A.33 is a decision of the BMS for the purposed of obtaining judicial review.  Knutson appealed the decision of whether it was a final agency decision subject to certiorari review, and BMS asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to determine whether it was a proper party in Minnesota Department of Corrections v. Nathan Knutson.

In addressing Knutson’s claim that the proper path for the DOC was an appeal to the district court under the MUAA, the Court found that the plain language of the MUAA requires an “agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration.”  The Court found no record of an agreement between the parties to arbitrate, and that the “statutorily imposed Managerial Plan,” which controlled the terms and conditions of Knutson’s employment, did not serve as a contract between the parties.  Knutson had argued that because an employee handbook could be considered a contract, and that the Managerial Plan included reference to the arbitration statute, that the parties had entered into a unilateral contract.  The Court responded that a party agreeing to do something it was already legally obligated to do could not serve as consideration.

The Court then considered whether the arbitrator’s decision was reviewable by writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals.  Here, the Court sided with Knutson that the decision of an arbitrator was not attributable to the BMS, but found the decision was still subject to certiorari review.  The Court found that the Legislature did not “explicitly provide for a right of discretionary review” in the state’s dispute resolution statute, and without certiorari review, the arbitrator’s decision would be final.  It then held that because of this, the decision of the arbitrator was reviewable by the Court of Appeals.

Finally, the Court found that under the state’s dispute resolution statute, the BMS had no power to “compel arbitration, enforce an agreement, required the appearance of parties, alter the decisions of arbitrators or demand the payment of fees or expenses.”  It found no “legal or equitable interest in the outcome of” the appeal for the BMS.  As such, it was removed from the appeal.

While the scope of this decision is somewhat limited, it shed light on different parties’ ability to appeal the decisions of an arbitrator in different settings.  Disputes over management-level employees working for the state can be appealed directly to the Court of Appeals, while the rest of the state (if subject to a mutually-agreed dispute resolution process) can only appeal awards to district court.  While appeals of awards are rarely successful, it is important to know your rights as an organization to appeal those awards in the courts.  If you, or your organization, need assistance with the arbitration of disputes or the appeal of arbitration awards, contact Wiley Reber Law, for arbitration representation that works.