(a) It is the public policy of this state and the purpose of sections 179A.01 to 179A.25 to promote orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees. This policy is subject to the paramount right of the citizens of this state to keep inviolate the guarantees for their health, education, safety, and welfare.
(b) The relationships between the public, public employees, and employer governing bodies involve responsibilities to the public and a need for cooperation and employment protection which are different from those found in the private sector. The importance or necessity of some services to the public can create imbalances in the relative bargaining power between public employees and employers. As a result, unique approaches to negotiations and resolutions of disputes between public employees and employers are necessary.
(c) Unresolved disputes between the public employer and its employees are injurious to the public as well as to the parties. Adequate means must be established for minimizing them and providing for their resolution. Within these limitations and considerations, the legislature has determined that overall policy is best accomplished by:
(1) granting public employees certain rights to organize and choose freely their representatives;
(2) requiring public employers to meet and negotiate with public employees in an appropriate bargaining unit and providing that the result of bargaining be in written agreements; and
(3) establishing special rights, responsibilities, procedures, and limitations regarding public employment relationships which will provide for the protection of the rights of the public employee, the public employer, and the public at large.
(d) Nothing in sections 179A.01 to 179A.25 impairs, modifies, or alters the authority of the legislature to establish rates of pay, or retirement or other benefits for its employees.
Notes of Decisions
Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 8× “In reversing the PERB, the Court of Appeals held that PERB committed error by failing to consider the job functions of the paraprofessionals in arriving at its decision.”
Allen v. Hennepin Cnty., 680 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “[Therefore, a]dequate means must be established for minimizing them and providing for their resolution.”
Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 655 F. Supp. 2d 948 (D. Minnesota 2009).
· cites it 2× “1 In addition, the Plaintiff brings a claim against the IFO for a claimed breach of its duty of fair representation, pursuant to the Public Employee Labor Relations Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections 179A.01 et seq. Id. at ¶¶ 55-63 (“PELRA”).”
Moore v. City of New Brighton, 932 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 179A.01 -.25 (2018). Because the filing of a civil complaint under PELRA requires a claimant to have first exhausted his administrative remedies-remedies that Moore did not seek-the city argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Moore's…”
Law Enf't Labor Servs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 449 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 4× “In order to implement PELRA’s underlying public policy of promoting orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees (Minn.Stat. § 179A.01 (1988)), the courts of this state have traditionally construed the statutory mandate broadly.”
Cnty. of Scott v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 461 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “The legislature in enacting the PELRA recognized that ‘[t]he relationships between the public, the public employees, and their employer governing bodies imply degrees of responsibility to the people served, need of cooperation and employment protection which are different from…”
Sonenstahl v. L.E.L.S., Inc., 372 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 179A.01 (1984). This language supports the trial court’s decision to disallow the mediator’s testimony, based upon policy reasons.”
Law Enf't Labor Servs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Mower, 469 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 179A.01 (1990). More specifically, if we were to find the amendment did allow unilateral contract modification, the contract in effect provision would be meaningless.”
— Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(1) — 4 cases
Cnty. of Scott v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 461 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
“The legislature in enacting the PELRA recognized that ‘[t]he relationships between the public, the public employees, and their employer governing bodies imply degrees of responsibility to the people served, need of cooperation and employment protection which are different from…”
— Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(2) — 2 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(3) — 1 case
Allen v. Hennepin Cnty., 680 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
“[Therefore, a]dequate means must be established for minimizing them and providing for their resolution.”
— Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(a) — 6 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(b) — 3 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(c) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(c)(1) — 2 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(c)(2) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 179A.01(c)(3) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.