In the Matter of a Petition for Clarification of an Appropriate Unit.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1088

In the Matter of a Petition for Clarification of an Appropriate Unit.

Minnesota Association of Professional Employees,
Relator,

vs.

State of Minnesota, et al.,
Respondents,

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 5,
Respondent.

Filed May 3, 2021
Vacated
Ross, Judge

Bureau of Mediation Services
File No. 20PCL1368

Justin D. Cummins, Cummins & Cummins, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Hillary A. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondents State of Minnesota, et al.)

Josie Doris Hegarty, South St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 5)

Considered and decided by Connolly , Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
SYLLABUS
Under Minnesota Statutes section 43A.07, subdivisions 2–3 (2020), the
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget, not the Bureau
of Mediation Services, has exclusive jurisdiction to review unit-reclassification petitions.
2
OPINION
ROSS, Judge
The Minnesota Department of Management and Budget reclassified a
state-employee position following a job audit that determined that the position had changed
substantially over time. The Minnesota Associa tion of Professional Employees , which
represented the bargaining unit that previously included the position, petitioned the Bureau
of Mediation Services to reconsider the department’s decision. Because the Bureau of
Mediation Services lacked jurisdiction to decide this petition, we vacate its decision.
FACTS
The state created the Telephone Equipment Distribution Program Specialist position
in the 1980s and, for the purpose of collective- bargaining-unit alignment, designated it
within the Community Services Program Specialist 1 class. The Minnesota Department of
Management and Budget delegated the authority to perform job audits to the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, see Minn. Stat. § 43A.36, subd. 1 (2020), which audited
the position in 1998. Based on that audit, which concluded that the position’s purpose,
responsibilities, and context had not substantially changed, the human-services department
left the position’s classification unchanged. But in 2017, the human- services department
consolidated job classifications, which resulted in the position “mov[ing] laterally” into a
different class—the Human Services Program Specialist class.
The supervisor overseeing the position announced a vacancy in 2019, prompting a
review of job responsibilities by the management- and-budget department, which

3
determined that the position’s duties had transformed “due to changes in technology and
changes within the division.” The management-and-budget department then conducted an
audit to assess the extent of the changes and to determine whether to reclassify the position.
The audit found that the position had changed substantially since 1998 and that a
new coordinator oversaw the employees holding the position. This meant that these
employees no longer fulfilled some of the previous duties of the position—developing,
assessing, and modifying promotional strategies and outreach plans. Without these
responsibilities, the position had evolved to require only technical, nonprofessional skills.
The management- and-budget department therefore reclassified the position from the
Human Services Program Specialist class to the State Program Administrator Technical
Specialist class. This reclassification moved the position from one bargaining unit t o
another, specifically, from the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE)
to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
Seeking to retain the position, in November 2019 MAPE petitioned the Bureau of
Mediation Services (BMS) to review the management -and-budget department’s
reclassification decision. BMS characterized MAPE’s appeal as a dispute about whether
the position had changed substantially. Finding that it had, BMS concluded that the
management-and-budget department appropriately reclassified it.
This appeal follows.
4
ISSUE
Did the Bureau of Mediation Services have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner
of the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget’s reclassification decision?

ANALYSIS
MAPE challenges BMS’s affirmance of the management-and-budget department’s
reclassification of the state’s Telephone Equipment Distribution Program Specialist
position. But we need not reach MAPE’s substantive arguments if BMS lacked jurisdiction
to decide MAPE ’s petition contesting the reclassification. BMS’s subject -matter
jurisdiction is a matter of statutory construction, which we consider de novo. See In re
Clarification of an Appropriate Unit, 880 N.W.2d 383, 386 (Minn. App. 2016). For the
following reasons, we hold that BMS lacked jurisdiction, and we therefore vacate the BMS
decision.
The legislature defines BMS’s distinct duties related to job classification an d
assignment to bargaining units:
The Commissioner [of BMS] shall assign state
employee classifications . . . and supervisory positions to the
appropriate units when the classifications or positions . . . have
been significantly modified in occupational content subsequent
to assignment under these sections . . . . All the employees in a
class, excluding supervisory and confidential employees, shall
be assigned to a single appropriate unit.

Minn. Stat. § 179A.10, subd. 4 (2020); see also Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subd. 5 (2020)
(defining “[c]ommissioner” as BMS commissioner). BMS is also responsib le for
“determining the appropriate unit,” a duty that requires it to “consider the principles and
the coverage of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of
5
the employees, professions and skilled crafts, and other occupational classifications.”
Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1 (2020). A “position” refers to a job, or “a group of duties
and responsibilities assigned or delegated by competen t authority, requiring the full -time
or less than full-time employment of one person.” Minn. Stat. § 43A.02, subd. 31 (2020).
A “class” is “one or more positions sufficiently similar with respect to duties and
responsibilities.” Id., subd. 11 (2020). A “unit” refers to a grouping of classifications for
compensation purposes or, in other words, a bargaining unit, Minn. Stat. § 179A.10,
subd. 2 (2020), which an employee organization exclusively represent s, Minn. Stat.
§ 179A.03, subd. 8 (2020). In short, bargaining units consist of various classifications, each
of which includes various positions.
BMS’s authority is distinct from duties assigned to the management- and-budget
department. BMS’s authority is limited to assigning the higher -level organizational
component of classifications to bargaining units and to assigning specified, supervisory
positions to appropriate bargaining units. Minn. Stat. § 179A.10, subd. 4. These statutorily
designated duties do not include the lower -level organization of assigning positions to
classifications. Instead, “[t]he commissioner [of the department of management and
budget] shall . . . assign[] . . . all positions in the cla ssified service to job classes.” Minn.
Stat. § 43A.05, subd. 1 (2020). The legislature also empowers the management-and-budget
commissioner, among other things, to create new classes, to allocat e new positions to an
appropriate class, and to reclassify a position. Minn. Stat. § 43A.07, subd. 2.
Despite the express statutory job-assignment classification power in the department
of management and budget and the absence of express statutory power to BMS to
6
determine job classification, MAPE contends that BMS has the power to review the
department’s reclassification decision. It bases this contention on BMS’s power to
“determine[s] appropriate units,” which “[e]ach . . . consists of the classification s or
positions assigned to [them]. ” Minn . Stat. §§ 179A.04, subd. 2, .10, subd. 2 (2020) .
Because the department’s reclassification decision incidentally moved the position to a
different unit, argues MAPE, reviewing the department’s decision falls to BMS. It is true,
as MAPE asserts, that BMS’s petition -subject-matter duties include reviewing issues
related to “certification or decertification as the exclusive representative of an appropriate
unit.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.04, subd. 1 (2020); see also Minn. R. 5510.0910 (Minnesota
Administrative Rules referring to “unit clarification petition[s]”). But the duties regarding
units plainly differ from duties regarding position-classification decisions.
We are not persuaded to a different conclusion by MAPE’s reliance on the BMS
rule that refers to BMS petitions for “a determination of the [BMS] commissioner regarding
an appropriate unit involving [] inclusions or exclusions of positions or job classifications
in an appropriate unit.” Minn. R. 5510.0310, subp. 24 (emphasis added). BMS’s authority
to review position placement within bargaining units is limited to supervisory positions.
Minn. Stat. § 179A.10, subd. 4. MAPE unconvincingly attempts to cast its BMS petition
as a bargaining-unit-composition issue, suggesting on appeal that MAPE was no longer the
appropriate bargaining unit after MMB r emoved the Telephone Equipment Distribution
Program Specialist position from it. This attempt flows from the statute that affords BMS
jurisdiction to review bargaining -unit compositions. See Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1.
But this issue is new and not within the scope of this appeal, as MAPE premised its petition
7
entirely on the department’s position reclassification, not on the appropriateness of MAPE
as the bargaining unit.
We add that the legislature did not leave interested persons without a remedy.
The appropriate course for challenging the classification is to petition the
management-and-budget department. See Minn. Stat. § 43A.07, subd. 3 (explaining how
to trigger a reclassification review). We also add that BMS had the opportunity to decide
this issue as we have without delving into the merits. As a matter of procedure, the
department contested MAPE’s BMS petition by insisting th at BMS lacked jurisdiction.
And as a matter of substance, BMS had previously already recognized the distinction we
have outlined here and concluded that “[t]he Bureau does not have jurisdiction to review
position assignments to classifications.” In re Petition for Clarification of an Appropriate
Unit Univ. of Minn., Unit 6, Minneapolis , BMS Case No. 02-PCL-1141 (May 28, 2003).
The record sheds no light as to why BMS addressed MAPE’s petition in substance instead
of rejecting it on jurisdictional grounds or why it did not even address the department’s
jurisdictional objection.
DECISION
We conclude that BMS lacked jurisdiction to decide MAPE’s
position-reclassification petition. We therefore vacate the BMS decision without
addressing its merits.
Vacated.