Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 179A.09 (2026)

Unit Determination

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Criteria.

In determining the appropriate unit, the commissioner shall consider the principles and the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the employees, professions and skilled crafts, and other occupational classifications, relevant administrative and supervisory levels of authority, geographical location, history, extent of organization, the recommendation of the parties, and other relevant factors. The commissioner shall place particular importance upon the history and extent of organization, and the desires of the petitioning employee representatives.

Subd. 2.Prohibitions.

The commissioner shall not designate an appropriate unit which includes essential employees with other employees.

Subd. 3.Dividing units.

If a designated appropriate unit contains both peace officers subject to licensure under sections 626.84 to 626.863 and essential employees who are not peace officers, the commissioner, at the request of a majority of either the peace officers or the other essential employees within the unit, shall divide the unit into two separate appropriate units, one for the peace officers and one for the other essential employees.

Subd. 4.Unit mergers.

At any time upon the request of an exclusive representative for bargaining units other than those defined in section 179A.10, subdivision 2, the commissioner must designate as a single unit two or more bargaining units represented by the exclusive representative, subject to subdivision 2 as well as any other statutory bargaining unit designation.

Subd. 5.Position classifications.

For the purpose of determining whether a new position should be included in an existing bargaining unit, the position shall be analyzed with respect to its assigned duties, without regard to title or telework status.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Cnty. of Scott v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 461 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cnty. of Scott v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 461 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 26× “Appellant contends the Board improperly interpreted and applied Minn.Stat. § 179A.09 (1988) in reaching its decision.”

Anoka Cnty., Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enf't Labor Servs., Inc., Brooklyn Ctr., Minnesota (Minn. 2024). · cites it 124× “Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1 (2022). 1 The Bureau must consider these statutory factors when making an appropriate unit determination under PELRA.”

Anoka Cnty., Anoka, Minnesota v. Law Enf't Labor Servs., Inc., Brooklyn Ctr., Minnesota, ... (Minn. 2024). · cites it 120× “Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1 (2022). 1 The Bureau must consider these statutory factors when making an appropriate unit determination under PELRA.”

Educ. Minnesota-Chisholm v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 695, 649 N.W.2d 474 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “See generally Minn.Stat. § 179A.09 (2000) (criteria for unit determination).”

Sch. Serv. Employees Local No. 284 v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 270, 499 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 10× “See Minn.Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1 (1990). Therefore, the task force did not err in refusing to delay its decision until the instructional assistants were hired and voted.”

Minnesota Teamsters Pub. & Law Enf't Emp.'s Union, Local No. 320, Minneapolis v. Cnty. of McLeod, 509 N.W.2d 554 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1 (1992). The county argues that the Commissioner exceeded his authority by determining that Schultz, although a supervisory employee, could be a member of the union’s bargaining unit.”

Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council No. 14 v. Cnty. of Scott, 530 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 2 (1992) (“The commissioner shall not designate an appropriate unit which includes essential employees with other employees.”

Petition for Decertification of an Exclusive Rep. Certain Employees of the Univ. of Minnesota, Unit 9, Crookston v. Univ. of Minnesota, 730 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Finally, the university argues that the BMS erred by failing to consider the factors in Minn.Stat. § 179A.09 (2004) in determining that the UMC faculty was not an appropriate unit for decertification purposes.”

Educ. Minnesota-Chisholm v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 695, 662 N.W.2d 139 (Minn. 2003). “That section states that the “ ‘[a]ppropriate unit’ or ‘unit’ means a unit of employees determined under sections 179A.09 to 179A.11. For school districts, the term means all the teachers in the district.”

In Re Petition for Decertification, 730 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Finally, the university argues that the BMS erred by failing to consider the factors in Minn.Stat. § 179A.09 (2004) in determining that the UMC faculty was not an appropriate unit for decertification purposes.”

In re Clarification of an Appropriate Unit, 555 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 18× “Minn.Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1 (1994). The BMS made no reference to this section or the listed criteria in making its determination.”

Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Plymouth, 513 N.W.2d 831 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 2 (1992) (nonessential employees cannot be in same bargaining unit as essential employees).”

Show all 14 citing cases →

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.