Firefighters Union Local 4725 v. City of Brainerd, A18-0398

• Citation: 934 N.W.2d 101
• Decision Date: 09 October 2019
• Docket Number: A18-0398
• Parties: FIREFIGHTERS UNION LOCAL 4725, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF BRAINERD, Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

934 N.W.2d 101

FIREFIGHTERS UNION LOCAL 4725, et al., Respondents,

v.CITY OF BRAINERD, Appellant.

A18-0398

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: October 9, 2019

OPINION

LILLEHAUG, Justice.

This appeal concerns a labor dispute under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA), Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.01 –.25 (2018). Firefighters Union Local 4725 (the Local) and union president Mark Turner sued the City after it restructured its fire department and eliminated all of the union positions. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the City committed an unfair labor practice under Minn. Stat. § 179A.13, subd. 2(2), which prohibits public employers from "interfering with the ... existence ... of any employee organization," and remanded to the district court. The City sought further review, acknowledging that the decision to restructure the fire department interfered with the existence of the Local, but contending that the decision was an authorized exercise of the City’s "inherent managerial policy" under a different section of PELRA, Minn. Stat. § 179A.07, subd. 1. We affirm the court of appeals' decision, but with reasoning that differs in part.

FACTS

The Local is an affiliate of the International Association of Fire Fighters and represents five firefighters who were employed by the City on a full-time basis. The five firefighters were the entire membership of the Local at the time of the City’s decision to restructure the fire department in 2015.

In 2010, the City experienced a budget deficit following a decrease in both property tax values and state aid. The City attempted to restructure its fire department by eliminating the full-time fire equipment operator (FEO) positions and have the FEO duties performed by paid on-call (POC) firefighters, who receive nominal compensation and limited benefits. All of the FEO employees, but none of the POC firefighters, were members of the Local. The Brainerd City Council passed a resolution to adopt this plan, but later rescinded it due to public opposition.

In January 2015, the City and the Local negotiated and signed a new three-year collective bargaining agreement that covered the union FEO employees, but not the nonunion POC firefighters. Six months later, the City informed the Local in writing that the City again sought to restructure the fire department to save money. The restructuring would eliminate the FEO positions as a cost-saving measure. The Local vigorously opposed the City’s proposal to lay off all of the Local’s members.

In September 2015, the City Council passed a resolution to restructure the fire department by eliminating the FEO positions, using POC firefighters to perform the work previously performed by the FEO employees, and creating a full-time assistant fire chief position. The effect of the restructuring was that the union FEO employees lost their jobs and their duties were performed by nonunion firefighters.

In January 2016, the Local filed a complaint in the district court alleging four counts. Count I—the only claim at issue in this appeal—alleged that the City, in eliminating the FEO positions, laying off the FEO employees, and promoting a POC firefighter to the new assistant-chief position (rather than rehiring an FEO employee), had engaged in unfair labor practices prohibited by PELRA.¹ In Count I, the Local claimed that the City had engaged in three types of prohibited unfair labor practices:

(1) interfering, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in sections 179A.01 to 179A.25 ;

(2) dominating or interfering with the formation, existence, or administration of any employee organization or contributing other support to it; [and]

(3) discriminating in regard to hire or tenure to encourage or discourage membership in an employee organization[.]

Minn. Stat. § 179A.13, subd. 2(1)–(3).

The City moved for summary judgment on all counts. It is important for the analysis that follows to understand the legal position that the City took. The City acknowledged—indeed, asserted affirmatively—that its actions had eliminated the Local.² In its statement of undisputed facts in support of summary judgment, the City represented that, "[a]s a result of the restructuring, the FEOs were laid off and the [Local] was dissolved." The City further asserted that the Local’s claim concerning the City’s promotion of a nonunion POC firefighter to the new assistant-chief position was meritless because PELRA did not apply after the Local members "were no longer public employees and Firefighters Union Local 4725 no longer existed." The City reemphasized this assertion in its reply memorandum, stating that its decision to promote "cannot be construed as an act meant ‘to encourage or discourage membership in an employee organization,’ especially one that no longer exists."

The City’s representation that its actions had eliminated the Local was supported by testimony from two City officials. During the fire chief’s deposition, he was asked whether "there would be a union left without any members" employed by the City. He responded, "No." The fire chief also stated that it was "correct" to say that "the restructuring ... eliminate[d] the union" and, as a result, "the union would no longer exist." Similarly, the City administrator stated during his deposition that it is "a fair presumption" and "logical" to say that "the union would be eliminated" if "their positions were eliminated" by the City.

The Local cross-moved for partial summary judgment. Relevant to this appeal, on Count I, the Local argued, among other things, that the City’s actions had violated section 179A.13, subdivision 2(2), of PELRA by "interfering with the ... existence or administration" of the Local.

In response, the City argued that, even though the Local had been eliminated, the City’s actions were lawful under—indeed, authorized by—another provision in PELRA, Minn. Stat. § 179A.07, subd. 1, which deals with "matters of inherent managerial policy." Such matters include "the organizational structure, selection of personnel, and direction and the number of personnel." Id. The City argued that decisions by a public employer on these matters, such as those that prompted this lawsuit, may well interfere with the existence of employee organizations like the Local, but are nonetheless allowed by PELRA. Therefore, urged the City, a decision on a matter of inherent managerial policy is not an unfair labor practice.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on Counts II, III, and IV, which are not before us. On Count I, the district court granted summary judgment in part, determining that the City’s actions were within its authority under Minn. Stat. § 179A.07, subd. 1. The district court also denied summary judgment in part, concluding that fact issues existed as to whether the City had violated PELRA by failing to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment, which are subjects of mandatory negotiation under another provision of PELRA, Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subd. 19.

The City moved for reconsideration of the partial denial of summary judgment on Count I, arguing that the Local had not properly raised the issue of mandatory negotiation under section 179A.03, subdivision 19. The district court granted the City’s motion for reconsideration and ordered complete summary judgment in favor of the City.

The Local appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed on Counts II, III, and IV, but reversed on Count I. Firefighters Union Local 4725 v. City of Brainerd , 920 N.W.2d 232, 245 (Minn. App. 2018). On Count I, the court of appeals reached only the issue of whether the City had violated section 179A.13, subdivision 2(2). Considering the "plain language" of the statute, the court of appeals held that the "City violated Minn. Stat. § 179A.13, subd. 2(2), when, during the midst of an operating bargaining agreement, it unilaterally eliminated all FEO positions, effectively dissolving [the Local]." 920 N.W.2d at 239. The court of appeals concluded that it is not a matter of inherent managerial policy for a public employer "to reorganize a department when the reorganization interferes with the existence and administration of a union." Id. at 240. Therefore, the court of appeals remanded to the district court "to fashion an appropriate remedy." Id.

The City petitioned for review, presenting a single issue: "Does a departmental reorganization that results in the dissolution of a bargaining unit constitute a statutorily authorized exercise of a public employer’s inherent managerial authority ... or is it an unfair labor practice, as the Court of Appeals determined below?" The Local requested conditional cross-review on issues related to Counts II, III, and IV. We granted the City’s petition but denied the Local’s request for conditional cross-review.

ANALYSIS

This case concerns the relationship between two provisions in PELRA: an unfair labor practices provision, Minn. Stat. § 179A.13, subd. 2(2), and the inherent managerial policy provision, Minn. Stat. § 179A.07, subd. 1. Both provisions have been part of PELRA since it was enacted in 1971.³ Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that we review de novo. 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis , 837 N.W.2d 287, 290 (Minn. 2013).

This appeal arises from cross-motions for summary judgment on Count I. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Commerce Bank v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. , 870 N.W.2d 770, 777 (Minn. 2015). Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01 ; see Senogles v. Carlson , 902 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017). Here, we see no genuine issue of material fact—and the parties have identified none—that would prevent us from interpreting and applying the statutes.

I.

PELRA designates certain "practices" of public employers that are "specified...