Court Opinion

ID: 9736864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:08:42.905006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:55.134970
License: Public Domain

GARDEBRING, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the majority opinion, but would emphasize the need for grievance procedures because of two unusual circumstances in this case. First, prior to the commencement of this litigation there was apparently no written policy relative to additional psychological or physical examinations based on a concern for the officer’s fitness for duty. There are no Minnesota PELRA cases which deal with the issue of the way in which a matter of “inherent managerial policy” must be articulated pri- or to its application to a specific individual. While I would not go so far as to require that such a policy be formally promulgated, certainly fundamental fairness requires that, where the policy exists only in inchoate, unwritten form, its application to an individual should be subject to review through the grievance procedure.
Second, the nature of the testing in this instance also suggests the need for a third party review by way of the arbitration or grievance process. If the requested testing involved investigation of an officer’s pistol accuracy by means of testing at a pistol range, perhaps a grievance procedure would not be as appropriate; but here, because of the highly intrusive nature of psychiatric testing, the protection of the grievance process seems necessary.
Further, I believe the dissent wholly misses the mark by relying on a previous PELRA case which analyzes management’s duty to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment. See Law Enforcement Labor Services v. County of Hennepin, 449 N.W.2d 725 (Minn.1989). Neither County of Hennepin nor other recent PELRA cases, St. Paul Fire Fighters, Local 21 v. City of St. Paul, 336 N.W.2d 301 (Minn.1983), and University Education Association v. Regents of University of *664Minnesota, 353 N.W.2d 534 (Minn.1984), provide guidance in this situation. Respondent in this matter is not seeking additional bargaining or negotiation of the contract; rather, he is merely attempting to exercise the right to grieve, already guaranteed to him by a previously negotiated provision of the contract between the City of Winona and his union.
It may indeed be the case, as the dissent argues, that negotiation over a method to implement a policy of psychiatric testing is an inappropriate interference with managerial authority, but that is not the issue before us today. We are only asked to decide whether respondent may grieve an order, which, if disobeyed, will result in disciplinary action. The contract plainly so provides, and therefore the trial court must be affirmed, with the modification noted in the majority opinion.