Court Opinion

ID: 9720380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:28:36.935806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:16.950766
License: Public Domain

HARTEN, Judge
(dissenting).
Because the practical effect of the majority holding is that a management decision to subcontract services will inevitably qualify as a grievance, I respectfully dissent.
The trial court agreed with the arbitrator that appellant’s decision to subcontract is arbitrable because that decision generated a grievance within Article XIII of the collective bargaining agreement. Article XIII defines a grievance essentially as a dispute as to “the interpretation or application of the terms and conditions of employment insofar as such matters are contained in [the agreement].’’ (Emphasis added.) *436There is no language in the agreement covering or limiting appellant’s right to subcontract. Article IV, subdivision 4 states, “[A]ll management rights and management functions not expressly delegated in [the agreement] are reserved to the [appellant] School Board.”
In my view, appellant’s decision to subcontract is not meant to accommodate a grievance under the agreement. General Drivers Union Local 346 v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 704, 288 N.W.2d 524, 528 (Minn.1979) indicates that the effects of a decision to subcontract such as severance pay and pension may be negotiated. That does not mean that the management decision to subcontract is either negotiable or arbitrable. General Drivers focuses upon the negotiability of the effects of a subcontracting decision, not the decision itself.
If the decision to subcontract is itself an effect of subcontracting within General Drivers, the management right to subcontract becomes illusory because it is made subject to the grievance procedure. I read the effects of subcontracting language of General Drivers to refer to the consequences of a subcontracting decision. This construction avoids circularity, to-wit: management reserves the right to subcontract; subcontracting involves the loss of jobs in the bargaining unit; loss of jobs automatically affects the terms and conditions of employment for employees whose jobs were lost; terms and conditions of employment are subject to grievance within the bargaining agreement; and management’s reservation of the right to subcontract is nullified.
The arbitrator’s decision and award, approved by the trial court, sustained the grievance upon a finding that appellant’s decision to subcontract violated the agreement. It ordered appellant to reinstate the discharged employees with back wages less other earnings received, thereby nullifying appellant’s decision to subcontract. I would reverse the trial court and vacate the arbitrator’s decision and award.