Johnson v. Village of Plymouth
Decision Date | 16 August 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 41425,41425 |
Citation | 281 Minn. 232,161 N.W.2d 306 |
Parties | Bruce JOHNSON, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF PLYMOUTH et al., Appellants. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
An order appointing an employer's representative on an adjustment panel created under Minn.St. 179.57, subd. 2, to review the discharge of a municipal employee, is not appealable under Rule 103.03(d, f), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, and will not be reviewed as a discretionary appeal under Rule 105 or by writ of prohibition.
Herbert P. Lefler, Village Atty., Minneapolis, Peterson & Popovich, St. Paul, for appellant.
William Merlin, Minneapolis, for respondent.
This matter is before the court on a motion by plaintiff to dismiss the defendants' appeal. Defendants have countered with a petition for a writ of prohibition or for leave to secure a discretionary review under Rule 105, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.
This action has been brought to recover damages arising out of plaintiff's discharge from his position as a police officer with the village of Plymouth. The issues are (1) the appealability of orders appointing a representative of the village to sit on a review panel for the purpose of making findings and recommendations prescribed by Minn.St. 179.57, subd. 4; and (2) whether the defendants are entitled to a writ of prohibition restraining the district court from enforcing the orders referred to or (3) in the alternative, whether the court should grant defendants a right of discretionary review pursuant to Rule 105.
On March 11, 1968, the village adopted a resolution suspending plaintiff and directing the village attorney to investigate and prepare formal charges against him, as well as authorizing a hearing. A further resolution was adopted on April 8, 1968, dismissing plaintiff from service. Thereupon, the president of the municipal employees' union advised the village that the union had appointed a representative to act as a member of an adjustment panel to review plaintiff's discharge. He also asked the village to select its own representative pursuant to §§ 179.57 and 179.571 of the Public Employees Labor Relations Act. The village acknowledged the request but declined to participate. It alleged that plaintiff was employed at the pleasure of the village and that the controversy did not involve a 'grievance arising out of the interpretation of or adherence to terms and conditions of employment' within the meaning of § 179.571. Pursuant to the terms of § 179.57, the union then requested the district court to appoint a representative for the village which the court proceeded to do. On May 3, 1968, a formal order was entered, the relevant provisions of which are as follows:
'Said appointment, whether by the Court or by the Village, shall constitute, also, an appointment pursuant to M.S.A. § 572.10, so that the panel shall follow procedures of the Uniform Arbitration Act.'
The village having failed to act by May 10, a second order was entered as follows:
It is from these two orders that the village appeals.
1. In response to plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal, the village argues that the orders may be reviewed under Rule 103.03(d) and (f). 1 The question then is whether orders appointing a representative to a review panel and directing the panel to follow the procedures of the Uniform Arbitration Act, Minn.St. c. 572, constitute 'an order involving the merits of the action or some part thereof' or 'an order which, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.' We hold the appeal does not come within the purview of any of these provisions of the rules and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Port of Portland
...be entirely defeated." To the same effect, see, e. g., Roeder v. Huish, 105 Ariz. 508, 467 P.2d 902 (1970); Johnson v. Village of Plymouth, 281 Minn. 232, 161 N.W.2d 306 (1968); Clark County v. Empire Elec., Inc., 96 Nev. 8, 604 P.2d 352 (1980), and Harris v. State Farm Mutual Automobile In......
-
City of Rochester v. Kottschade
...(1972) (declining to review "an order denying a stay of arbitration sought under" the prior Act); see also Johnson v. Vill. of Plymouth , 281 Minn. 232, 161 N.W.2d 306, 308 (1968) (declining to review orders appointing panel members and stating that the orders "neither involve the merits of......
-
Maietta v. Greenfield
...arbitrate by objecting to the trial court's confirmation of the arbitration award.' Id. 467 P.2d 904. See also Johnson v. Village of Plymouth, 281 Minn. 232, 161 N.W.2d 306 (1968), where an order directing arbitration was held nonappealable under identical provisions of the Minnesota Unifor......
-
Johnson v. Village of Plymouth
...for League of Minn. Municipalities, amicus curiae. OPINION OTIS, Justice. These proceedings are a sequel to Johnson v. Village of Plymouth, 281 Minn. 232, 161 N.W.2d 306. Plaintiff, not a veteran, was suspended from the police force of the village of Plymouth. He was first granted a hearing......