Court Opinion

ID: 9524774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:56:59.955916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:51.809107
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
One of the stated purposes of PELRA is to recognize the public employees’ right to engage in representative bargaining with their employers. The statute also recognizes the attendant right of such employees to have their grievances aired through their bargaining representative. The majority decision in this case effectively denies Patz-wald and other substitute drivers these and other rights specifically granted them by PELRA.
The majority opinion indicates that because substitute drivers were not intended to be included in the collective bargaining unit, they cannot benefit from the grievance procedure established by the exclusive representative of that unit and the school district. This renders substitute drivers such as Patzwald without a practical method of resolving their legitimate grievances. To suggest that the substitute drivers form a separate bargaining unit ignores the practical difficulties involved in establishing another unit and the gross inefficiency that would result from the duplication of bargaining efforts.
The majority concedes in a footnote that all drivers receive the same rate of pay, perform the same maintenance functions, are supervised by the same person and operate the same equipment. The opinion then indicates that the proper focus of a bargaining unit determination is the “nature of the employment relationship and not the resulting terms of employment.” Disregarding this exercise in semantic gymnastics, it is clear that substitute drivers have the same job responsibilities and job-related problems as the regular drivers and are in basically the same employment position. The interests that both regular and *123substitute drivers seek to promote through collective bargaining are identical. A conclusion that substitute bus drivers are not within the appropriate bargaining unit is simply not justified by the facts.
Finally, PERB stated that the sole issue before it was whether Patzwald was a public employee within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 179.63(7) (1980). The review of the PERB decision in district court was also necessarily limited to an examination of the merits of the statutory status of Patzwald. The majority decision, however, views the public employee issue as irrelevant and instead has chosen to pass on the contractual status of Patzwald as a member of the bargaining unit. Because PERB and the district court were concerned only with the statutory question, they did not address the issue of whether Patzwald was a member of the unit by contract. If the majority is correct in its decision that Patzwald’s status as a public employee is irrelevant, the appropriate disposition of this case would be to remand to PERB for a review of the BMS decision that substitute drivers were not members of the unit as a matter of contract. By deciding the contract question before the lower court and the agency have addressed that issue, the majority is short-circuiting the appellate process that is designed to assure full development of the record and the issues. The premature decision of a question not addressed by the agency also deprives this court of the benefit of the application of the agencies’ expertise to the problem.
I would remand the case to PERB for a decision on the contract issue.