Minn. Dep't of Corr. v. Knutson

• Decision Date: 29 June 2022
• Docket Number: A21-0300
• Parties: Minnesota Department of Corrections, Respondent, v. Nathan Knutson, Appellant, Bureau of Mediation Services, Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Minnesota Department of Corrections, Respondent,
v.
Nathan Knutson, Appellant,

Bureau of Mediation Services, Appellant.

No. A21-0300

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 29, 2022

Court of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Leah M. Tabbert, Joseph Weiner, Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.

Marshall H. Tanick, Teresa J. Ayling, Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant Nathan Knutson.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Lindsay K. Strauss, Megan McKenzie, Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant Bureau of Mediation Services.

SYLLABUS

1. The appellant employee and the Minnesota Department of Corrections were not parties to an agreement to arbitrate that triggers the appeal procedures of the Minnesota Revised Uniform Arbitration Act.

1

2. The decision of a Bureau of Mediation Services arbitrator appointed under the grievance procedures for state managers and employees under Minnesota Statutes section 43A.33, subdivision 3 (2020), is a quasi-judicial decision subject to certiorari review.

3. The Bureau of Mediation Services is not a proper party to this appeal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

OPINION

CHUTICH, JUSTICE.

This appeal requires us to determine the appropriate method of judicial review for decisions made under Minnesota Statutes section 43A.33, subdivision 3 (2020), a statutory provision allowing certain state employees to appeal adverse employment actions to the Bureau of Mediation Services (Bureau) for a hearing before an arbitrator. Appellant Nathan Knutson used this provision to successfully appeal his discharge from employment at the Minnesota Department of Corrections (Department). When the Department sought certiorari review of the arbitrator's decision at the court of appeals, Knutson challenged whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction. In a precedential opinion, the court of appeals held that determinations under section 43A.33 are quasi-judicial administrative decisions subject to certiorari review by the court, and that the Bureau was a proper party to the appeal.

Knutson now challenges this decision, contending that the Minnesota Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (Uniform Arbitration Act), Minnesota Statutes Chapter 572B, mandates that review be undertaken in the district court because he is a party to a unilateral

2

arbitration agreement with the Department. The Department argues that certiorari review at the court of appeals is required because it did not agree to arbitration with Knutson and no other avenue for judicial review exists. The Bureau agrees that certiorari review is appropriate but asserts that it is not a proper party to the Department's certiorari appeal. We conclude that (1) Knutson and the Department did not agree to arbitrate so the Uniform Arbitration Act does not apply, (2) the section 43A.33 decision is reviewable by certiorari because it is a final, quasi-judicial disposition of the rights of Knutson and the Department that is not otherwise reviewable, and (3) the Bureau is not a proper party to the certiorari appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals in part but on different grounds, reverse in part, and remand to the court for consideration of the merits of the Department's appeal.

FACTS

Nathan Knutson worked for many years for the Minnesota Department of Corrections in a managerial role. Early in 2020, the Department investigated Knutson for alleged employee misconduct. The Department concluded that Knutson had committed employee misconduct and terminated his employment. In his managerial role, Knutson was not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Minn. Stat. § 43A.18, subd. 3(c) (2020). He was entitled to statutory civil-service protection, however, under Minnesota Statutes, sections 43A.001-.55 (2020), and the State of Minnesota's Managerial Plan. The Managerial Plan is a handbook prepared by Minnesota Management &Budget, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 43A.18, subdivision 3, to establish the "total compensation and terms and conditions of employment" for all managerial employees.

3

Minnesota Statutes section 43A.33, subdivision 3, provides a grievance procedure in the event of certain adverse employment actions. Specifically, if an employee is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, subdivision 3(b) entitles the employee to contest a discharge, suspension, or demotion by filing a notice of appeal with the Bureau of Mediation Services. Upon receipt of the employee's written notice of appeal, subdivision 3(d) requires the Commissioner of the Bureau to provide a list of potential arbitrators to hear the appeal "according to the rules of the Bureau of Mediation Services."

Knutson timely filed a notice of appeal with the Bureau of Mediation Services, and the Bureau provided a list of potential arbitrators. The parties selected arbitrator Richard A. Beens from the list. Beens reviewed the Department's investigation, found that Knutson's termination was not supported by just cause, and concluded that Knutson's behavior only warranted a suspension.^[1] Beens accordingly reduced Knutson's discharge to a one-month suspension and ordered that he be reinstated with back pay.

The Department of Corrections sought certiorari review of this decision at the court of appeals.^[2] Knutson argued that the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear the

4

appeal because certiorari review only applies to final agency decisions, and the decision was not an agency decision. Moreover, Knutson contended that the decision was an arbitration decision for which judicial review should first be sought in district court according to the Uniform Arbitration Act. The Department disagreed, asserting that the decision by Beens "is a final quasi-judicial administrative decision . . . reviewable by writ of certiorari." The Department also asserted that the Uniform Arbitration Act did not apply to the decision because the Act applies only to agreements to arbitrate, and Knutson and the Department had not agreed to arbitrate his claim. The Bureau contended that the decision by Beens was not...