Court Opinion

ID: 9702119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:55:38.402887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:33.018136
License: Public Domain

CRIPPEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Under PELRA, fringe benefits must be negotiated by public employers, but “retirement contributions or benefits” may not be negotiated. The trial court’s decision rests on the view that the legislature has used “encompassing language” in its declaration about retirement contributions and benefits, words that cover all benefits enjoyed upon retirement.
There is no disagreement that the exclusion at issue is equivocal. It may be read as suggested by the trial court. On the other hand, it is reasonable to view the topic of retirement contributions or benefits as one confined to the matter of pension plans, contributions to pension funds, and pension entitlements. Our task is to identify the “common and approved usage” of the legislature’s words, and any “special meaning” acquired by technical words and phrases. Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (1986). Because the words are reasonably open to two interpretations, we are free to consider the purpose of the law and the effects of particular interpretations. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1986).
I acknowledge several considerations favoring the broad interpretation adopted by the trial court. Concern for public pension costs extends to all benefits after retirement. The legislature has prescribed the appropriate manner and form of contracting for public employee health insurance benefits, and there may be advantages in a uniform state law on post-retirement health insurance benefits for public employees. The Iowa Supreme Court in 1982 decided that public employment collective bargaining was inappropriate for pensions and other benefits after retirement. This year, a Minnesota state senator endorsed the trial court’s decision in this case, claiming an original legislative intent to bar negotiation on all benefits after retirement. Although these considerations get due attention, in my opinion there are numerous and compelling reasons to reach a different result.
1. Both in common usage and in a technical sense, retirement plans for employees are arrangements for pension or annuity payments after retirement. See e.g., 42 U.S.C.A. § 418(b)(4) (West Supp. 1987) (a state or local public employee retirement system “means a pension, annuity, retirement, or similar fund or system”).
2. The Iowa Supreme Court dealt with a statute excluding from collective bargaining the subjects of “all retirement systems.” See City of Mason City v. Public Employment Relations Board, 316 N.W.2d 851, 854 (Iowa 1982). In contrast, PELRA deals with a less expansive topic of retirement contributions and benefits.
3. The Minnesota statute is distinctive because of its reference to contributions as well as benefits. If a reference to retirement benefits might invite an encompassing interpretation, the reference to contributions more commonly suggests the contributions of an employer and an employee for a pension plan.
4. The Minnesota state senator’s observations as a legislator in 1973 are more persuasive than his reflections 14 years later. Representative Moe said in 1973 that the exclusion was meant to “take the negotiation of pension benefits” out of collective bargaining. AFSME Councils 6, 14, 65 and 96 v. Sundquist, 338 N.W.2d 560, 576 (Minn.1983).
5. When examining this exclusion in 1983, the Minnesota Supreme Court repeatedly observed that its subject was one of public pensions. Id. at 575-76. “Public pension issues,” the court said, “are not subjects which may be collectively bargained.” Id.'at 576. See also id. at 575 n. 4.
6. The pension exclusion is aimed at promoting uniformity of benefits for all public employees. Id. at 576 (citing City of *249Mason City, 316 N.W.2d at 854). Representative Moe observed in 1973 that the exclusion was needed to prevent decentralized and discordant administration of public pensions. Sundquist, 338 N.W.2d at 576. Although the legislature has enacted a uniform public employee pension program, it has not chosen to adopt a uniform plan for health insurance benefits for retired public employees. The insurance topic is left subject to local government control. Minn. Stat. §§ 471.616 and 471.617 (1986). 1987 legislation provides for a state administered health insurance plan, but the act does not establish uniformity; participation is optional for local employee groups. Minn. Stat. § 43A.316, as enacted by 1987 Minn. Laws ch. 404, § 89; Minn. Stat. § 43A.316, subd. 5.
7. In addition to the legislative purpose for uniformity of pension benefits, the supreme court has recognized legislative aims for preserving to itself the determination of these benefits, and the particular aim to maintain control over costs. Sundquist, 338 N.W.2d at 576. Representative Moe agreed in 1973 that the pension exclusion was designed to preserve and maintain the role of the legislature in determining benefits. Id. In its 1987 enactment, the legislature specifically provided that the cost of employee participation after retirement in a state administered health insurance plan is a subject for collective bargaining between the employee and the local public employer. Minn. Stat. § 43A.316, subd. 7. The legislature has shown no will to dominate the subject of health insurance benefits for retired public employees.
8. Iowa’s broad interpretation of an exclusion from collective bargaining for public employees is compelled by the unique view in that state that the provisions for mandatory negotiations are to be narrowly construed. See City of Mason City, 316 N.W.2d at 856; Charles City Community School District v. Public Employment Relations Board, 275 N.W.2d 766, 773 (Iowa 1979). In contrast, the Minnesota Supreme Court has observed that the scope of mandatory negotiation must be broadly construed because of the purpose in PELRA to resolve public labor disputes through negotiation. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. City of Minneapolis, 302 Minn. 410, 415, 225 N.W.2d 254, 257 (1975).
In 1984, another trial judge in Minnesota’s 10th Judicial District determined that the arguments advanced in Sundquist for a pension benefit exclusion did not support extension of the statute to health insurance benefits after retirement. City of Stillwater v. Minnesota Teamsters Local No. 320, Local No. 517, No. 53809 (Washington County Dist. Ct. Feb. 8, 1984). For the many reasons cited here, I believe that judgment was correct. An analysis of these numerous considerations should lead us to reverse the decision of the trial court in this case.