State v. Teamsters Local 320

• Decision Date: 24 January 2022
• Docket Number: A21-0794
• Citation: 971 N.W.2d 82
• Parties: State of Minnesota, MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH, Respondent, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

971 N.W.2d 82

State of Minnesota, MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH, Respondent,

v.TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320, Appellant.

A21-0794

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed January 24, 2022

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Joseph Weiner, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Kevin M. Beck, Joseph A. Kelly, Patrick J. Kelly, Kelly & Lemmons, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Gaïtas, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.^*

GAÏTAS, Judge

In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether two court reporters, both terminated by their appointing judges for "disruptive and disrespectful conduct," are entitled to arbitrate their terminations. An arbitrator determined that they are entitled to arbitration under both the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in effect at the time of the terminations and Minnesota law. But the district court vacated the arbitrator's decision, concluding that state law forecloses arbitration when an appointing judge terminates a court reporter's employment. Appellant Teamsters Local 320 (the union), which represents court reporters employed by respondent Minnesota Judicial Branch (the MJB), challenges the district court's decision. We affirm.

FACTS

Since 2000, the union has represented all official court reporters employed by the MJB. "The Court Employees Court Reporter Unit consists of court reporters not otherwise excluded who are employed by a judicial district ...."¹ Minn. Stat. § 179A.101, subd. 1(e) (2020). In 2019, the union and the MJB entered into a CBA that would be effective from July 2019 to June 2021 (the 2019-2021 CBA).

Two district court judges terminated their court reporters for "disruptive and disrespectful conduct" in September 2019.² Following the terminations, the union filed administrative complaints under the 2019-2021 CBA and requested arbitration. The MJB moved to dismiss the complaints, asserting that the terminations were not arbitrable. Both parties briefed the issue before an arbitrator, whose inquiry was "specifically limited to whether the employees [could] proceed to an arbitration" under the terms of the CBA.

The arbitrator determined that the terminations were arbitrable. He distinguished between the MJB, which is identified as the "employer" under the CBA, and the appointing judges. According to the arbitrator, the CBA and state law allow an appointing judge to "remove a reporter from their courtroom." But the arbitrator reasoned that an appointing judge has no authority to terminate a court reporter's "employment with the [MJB]," which is the party to the CBA. The arbitrator concluded that the administrative complaint process under the CBA—including the requirement for binding arbitration—applies to the MJB. According to the arbitrator, "while a Judge may well have the right to remove a court reporter from his or her courtroom, the question of whether they remain employed by the employer is an arbitrable question."

The MJB moved the arbitrator to reconsider this decision and submitted evidence to support its position that the appointing judge has complete authority to terminate a court reporter's employment. The evidence included a declaration by a former MJB human resources assistant regarding the bargaining process between the MJB and the union in 2001 and the MJB's past practices when judges terminated their court reporters’ employment. Additionally, the MJB offered audio recordings of state legislative sessions addressing relevant state statutes. The arbitrator rejected this evidence because it was "not raised in the original motion [to dismiss]" and denied the MJB's request for reconsideration.

Subsequently, the MJB filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision in the district court³ pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 572B.23 (2020). The district court vacated the arbitrator's decision, determining that the terminations were not arbitrable under state law.

The union appeals.

ISSUE

Are court reporters who have been terminated by their appointing judges entitled to arbitrate the terminations under the 2019-2021 CBA and Minnesota law?

ANALYSIS

The union argues that court reporters employed by the MJB have a right to arbitrate their terminations under the 2019-2021 CBA and Minnesota law. Acknowledging that a judge has authority to remove a court reporter from the judge's employment, the union maintains that a court reporter removed by a judge remains an MJB employee and is entitled to arbitrate any termination by the MJB.⁴ On the other hand, the MJB contends that a judge's decision to terminate a court reporter ends the court reporter's employment with the MJB and that neither the CBA nor Minnesota law provides for arbitration.

Before turning to these arguments, we identify our standard of review. "Determining whether a party has agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute is a matter of contract interpretation that [appellate courts] review de novo." Glacier Park Iron Ore Props., LLC v. U.S. Steel Corp. , 961 N.W.2d 766, 771 (Minn. 2021) ; see also Johnson v. Piper Jaffray, Inc. , 530 N.W.2d 790, 795 (Minn. 1995). "In reviewing an arbitrator's decision, the arbitrator is the final judge of both law and fact, but this court's review of the determination of arbitrability is de novo." Phillips v. Dolphin , 776 N.W.2d 755, 758 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 16, 2010). Because we are reviewing the arbitrator's decision on arbitrability, which requires us to interpret the terms of the 2019-2021 CBA, we apply a de novo standard of review.

For background, we briefly summarize the relevant Minnesota statutes. Several Minnesota statutes address the employment of court reporters appointed by judges. Section 486.01, which is included in a chapter concerning court reporters, provides that "[e]ach judge ... may appoint a competent stenographer as reporter of the court, to hold office during the judge's pleasure, and to act as the judge's secretary in all matters pertaining to official duties." Minn. Stat. § 486.01 (2020).

The Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA), Minn. Stat. §§ 179A.01 -.25 (2020 & Supp. 2021), also applies to court reporters who work for district court judges. PELRA, which was enacted in 1984, established collective bargaining rules and rights for Minnesota public employees. 1984 Minn. Laws ch. 462. MJB employees were not initially covered under PELRA. Court employees, excluding court reporters, were first given collective bargaining rights in 1999. 1999 Minn. Laws ch. 216, art. 7, §§ 4, at 1352-53; 7, at 1354; 9, at 1355-56. Court reporters were included one year later. 2000 Minn. Laws. ch. 345, § 2, at 332.

Under PELRA, "[a]ll contracts must include a grievance procedure providing for compulsory binding arbitration of grievances including all written disciplinary actions." Minn. Stat. § 179A.20, subd. 4. But PELRA also directly addresses removal of a court reporter by a judge. Section 179A.101 states, "Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or any other law to the contrary, judges may appoint and remove court reporters at their pleasure." Minn. Stat. § 179A.101, subd. 1(f).

With the applicable law in mind, we next consider the rights of court reporters under the 2019-2021 CBA. Specifically, we turn to the question of whether the CBA requires arbitration of a judge's termination decision.

I. The 2019-2021 CBA does not require arbitration of a judge's decision to terminate an appointed court reporter's employment.

A party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute that the party did not contractually agree to arbitrate. Glacier Park , 961 N.W.2d at 771. To determine whether a party agreed to arbitrate a dispute, courts examine the contract language. Id.

The 2019-2021 CBA identifies an arbitrable claim—called an "administrative complaint"—as a "dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this agreement." It also specifies what is not subject to arbitration: "powers granted to the Appointing Authority under statute or this contract are not subject to the Administrative Complaint Process." And it further states that "[n]othing contained in this Administrative Review Procedure abrogates or diminishes the Appointing Authority's right to appoint Employees or to remove an Employee from serving at the pleasure of the Appointing Authority."

The MJB argues that the plain language of the CBA excludes a judge's termination decision from arbitration. It contends that the CBA explicitly preserves a judge's right to remove a court reporter at will.

The union acknowledges that the CBA recognizes the continuing authority of a judge to remove a court reporter. According to the union, however, a judge's decision to remove a court reporter is different from the MJB's termination of the court reporter.

To resolve this disagreement over the terms of the CBA, we must interpret the meaning of the word "remove" as used in the CBA. Does it mean termination of employment, as the MJB contends? Or does it mean something short of termination, such as no longer using a court reporter's services?

"We interpret and enforce a CBA as we do other contracts." Minn. Teamsters Pub. & Law Enf't Emps. Union, Local 320 v. County of St. Louis , 726 N.W.2d 843, 847 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 25, 2007). "The primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties." Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood , 683 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Minn. 2004). A court first considers the language of the contract. Id. When the language of the contract is unambiguous, it should be given its plain meaning. Savela v. City of Duluth , 806 N.W.2d 793, 796-97 (Minn. 2011). Contract language is ambiguous if it is "reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning." Hoyt v. Brokaw , 359 N.W.2d 310, 311 (Minn. App. 1984). To determine whether a contract is ambiguous, courts should not read words and phrases in...