In the Matter of a Petition for Determination of an Appropriate Unit and Certification as Exclusive Representative.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-0369

In the Matter of a Petition for Determination of an Appropriate Unit
and Certification as Exclusive Representative.

Filed January 20, 2026
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Bureau of Mediation Services
File No. 24PCE2002

Thomas A. Jacobson, Alexandria City Attorney, Katelyn K. Steffel Spangrud, Assistant
City Attorney, Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Cass Donahue, P.A.,
Alexandria, Minnesota (for relator City of Alexandria)

Timothy J. Louris, Emily L. Marshall, Jacob C. Harksen, Louris Marshall O’Brien, P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 49)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Kelly Kemp, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Bureau of Mediation Services)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Ede, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
This dispute concerns the composition of a new labor-union division among a subset
of City of Alexandria public- works employees. The Minnesota Bureau of Mediation
Services (BMS) commissioner favored the bargaining-unit arrangement proposed by the
union as the appropriate unit over the one proposed by the city. The city appeals the
commissioner’s appropriate-unit determination, arguing that the decision is arbitrary and
2
capricious and that its findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. Because the
commissioner’s decision logically follows from applying the relevant legal criteria to the
circumstances and is adequately supported by the record, we affirm.
FACTS
The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49, petitioned the Minnesota
Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) to certify a proposed bargaining unit as the exclusive
representative of the City of Alexandria’s public works department’s streets and
stormwater division. Local 49 described the proposed bargaining unit this way:
All employees employed by the City of Alexandria,
Minnesota, in the Public Works Department, streets and
stormwater Division, who are public employees within the
meaning of Minn. Stat. [§] 179A.03, [s]ubd. 14, excluding
clerical, supervisory employees within the meaning of Minn.
Stat. [§] 179A.03, subd. 17, and confidential employees
with[in] the meaning of Minn. Stat. [§] 179A.03, subd. 4.
The city proposed a broader unit of all eligible employees of the public works department
rather than just the streets and stormwater division. The disagreement required a BMS
decision as to whether the proposed unit was “appropriate” under the Public Employment
Labor Relations Act, codified in Minnesota Statutes sections 179A.01 to 179A.25 (2024).
A BMS hearing officer conducted a hearing where the city and Local 49 argued for
their positions about which composition of employees should best represent the employees
of the public works department. Each supported its position with exhibits and testimony
expounding on the department’s organization and the responsibilities of its employees. We
summarize the relevant portions of the lengthy factual record as follows.
3
The public works department is composed of two divisions: the streets stormwater
division (streets) and the parks facilities division (parks). The streets division repairs the
city’s streets and sidewalks, maintains its stormwater facilities, and cleans its ponds. The
parks division maintains the c ity’s parks and trails. Each division employs one or more
nonsupervisory public works maintenance workers, public works maintenance operator s,
and public works mechanic-operators. Those three positions under each division have the
same essential functions and minimum qualifications, but streets division employees
receive some on-the-job training to operate division-specific vehicles, like road graders and
jet trucks.
Public works maintenance workers perform manual and semi-skilled tasks to
maintain and repair public works facilities. The city classifies the position as grade 5 with
206 points, resulting in an annual pay range between $50,208.44 to $62,760.55. Only one
maintenance worker was employed in the public works department at the time of the
hearing, and she worked in the parks division.
Public works maintenance operators perform semi-skilled and skilled tasks to
maintain and repair public works facilities. The city classifies the position as grade 10 with
347 points, resulting in an annual pay range between $62,868.79 to $78,585.99. The
position requires the same minimum qualifications as maintenance workers but also
requires a Class A commercial driver’s license and experience in maintenance or operating
construction equipment.
Public works mechanic-operators perform unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled tasks
to provide preventative maintenance and repairs to public works department’s vehicles and
4
equipment. They may also be assigned the duties of a maintenance operator. The city
classifies the mechanic-operators position as grade 13 with 438 points, resulting in an
annual pay range between $71,949.90 and $89,937.37. Its minimum qualifications exceed
those of the other two positions, requiring an associate’s degree in mechanics or a related
field, relevant state certification, repair experience, and other credentials. At the time of the
hearing, the public works department employed one mechanic-operator, and he was
assigned to the streets division.
The public works department in total has 16 employees, 10 of whom are assigned
to streets. The streets division employees report directly to a division director, while parks
division employees report to their own division director. The division directors report to
the city administrator. The mechanic-operator testified that his direct supervisor is the
streets division director, who assigns him work even when his duties involve repairing
parks facilities equipment. Each division director conducts performance reviews and other
employee-management functions for his division. The divisions collaborate on projects
like snow removal and maintaining the city ballpark, but each division director still directs
his own employees during these collaborations.
The streets and parks divisions are housed in adjacent buildings that share a parking
lot and garbage dumpsters. The employees in both divisions have access to both buildings
and can clock in and out at either one. Streets d ivision employees typically clock in and
spend up to an hour at the streets building before dispersing to work on projects throughout
the city. The mechanic-operator spends most of his time in the streets building’s shop.
5
Some public-works-wide training, such as forklift training and CPR training, are held in
the parks building.
The BMS commissioner later issued his Unit Determination Order, declaring Local
49’s proposed unit as the appropriate bargaining unit. The city unsuccessfully asked the
commissioner to reconsider, and it now appeals by certiorari.
DECISION
The city appeals from the BMS commissioner’s order determining the appropriate
bargaining unit. We may reverse or modify an administrative agency’s decision if it
prejudices a relator’s substantive rights by being “arbitrary or capricious” or “unsupported
by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted[.]” Minn. Stat. § 14.69(e),
(f) (2024). But we presume agency decisions to be correct in recognition of their expertise,
and we defer to their judgment. Rsrv. Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824 (Minn.
1977). The Public Employment Labor Relations Act authorizes the BMS commissioner to
determine the appropriate unit after a representative petitions the BMS to do so. Minn. Stat.
§ 179A.04, subd. 2 (2024); see also Minn. Stat. § 179A.02 (2024). The commissioner must
make his determination applying the criteria of Minnesota Statutes section 179A.09 (2024).
Minn. Stat. § 179A.04, subd. 2. The city argues that the commissioner’s decision to
approve Local 49’s proposed bargaining unit was arbitrary or capricious and lacked
substantial evidentiary support. We address both arguments.
I
We are unconvinced by the city’s argument that the commissioner’s decision was
arbitrary or capricious by departing from prior BMS decisions without explanation. An
6
agency’s departure from its norms or prior decisions without explanation might indicate
that it is acting inappropriately based on its will rather than appropriately on its judgment.
In re Denial of Contested Case Hearing Requests, 993 N.W.2d 627, 648, 653 (Minn. 2023).
And this sort of departure can interfere with the public’s right to be informed of government
actions affecting the public interest and reveal that the agency decision was arbitrary and
capricious. Id. at 653. The city argues that the commissioner’s decision is arbitrary and
capricious particularly because his “evaluation of the community of interest factors was
inconsistent with prior Bureau decisions” and included explanations that “run[] counter to
the evidence.” It bases this argument on the following statutory requirement outlining the
criteria the commissioner must apply when determining the appropriate unit:
[T]he 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.

Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. The argument fails for the following reasons.
A. Principles and Coverage of Uniform Comprehensive Position
Classification and Compensation Plans of the Employees
The commissioner’s appropriate-unit determination rested in part on his conclusion
that one of the appropriate-unit criteria is neutral, and the city challenges that conclusion
as arbitrary and capricious. The challenged factor involves the “principles and the coverage
of uniform comprehensive position classification and compensation plans of the
7
employees.” Id. The city contends that the commissioner arbitrarily determined this factor
to be neutral for four reasons, none convincing.
The city argues first that the commissioner’s conclusion relies on a factual error. It
asserts that, although Local 49’s proposed unit included maintenance workers in the streets
division, the only maintenance worker actually employed at the time of the hearing was
assigned to the parks division. But the statute focuses the commissioner’s attention
abstractly on position classifications and compensation plans of the employees, id., and it
does not limit that consideration to the impact only on current employees. The
commissioner properly considered how the proposed determination might be appropriate
based on the classification and compensation plan of a maintenance worker hypothetically
assigned to the streets division.
The city argues second that the commissioner’s reasoning on this factor departed
from prior BMS decisions, which it says found this factor to weigh against a proposed unit
that both included employees with different classifications and excluded employees with
the same classification. The city also assails the reasoning as arbitrary or capricious
because the commissioner failed to support the departure with citations to legal authority
or to the record. The commissioner’s lack of citation is immaterial; what is required is the
commissioner’s “reasoned analysis” for the decision. In re Rev. of 2005 Ann. Automatic
Adjustment of Charges for All Elec. & Gas Utils., 768 N.W.2d 112, 120 (Minn. 2009). And
the commissioner included various circumstances to support its decision, including the fact
that the city’s police department established precedent for having two bargaining units
within a single department. This reasoning satisfies us that the alleged departure from BMS
8
decisions in other cases resulted here from circumstances unique to this case rather than
from an arbitrary imposition of will.
The city argues third that the BMS errantly reasoned that Local 49 “provided
evidence” that the employees inside its proposed unit are similarly classified by the city
regarding compensation. But the stipulated hearing exhibits and the testimony of city
officials detail the classification and compensation of the positions in Local 49’s proposed
unit, show how they fit into the city-wide classification plan, and reflect what the plan aims
to achieve. The commissioner’s interpretation of these materials as showing similarities in
the employees’ classification and compensation is sufficiently reasoned to defeat the claim
of arbitrariness.
And the city argues fourth that the commissioner failed to consider how including
some public works employees but excluding others with the same classification might
hamper the city’s ability to manage and compensate them and threaten the department’s
team dynamic. But the commissioner did consider these potential concerns. His order
acknowledges testimony from the city’s human resources director discussing these issues
and other evidence the city provided on this point. That the commissioner did not weigh
these concerns in a manner that led to the city’s preferred outcome does not render his
decision arbitrary or capricious.
B. Relevant Administrative and Supervisory Levels of Authority

The city wrongly asserts that the order reflects an inconsistent decision on the
criterion requiring the commissioner to consider “relevant administrative and supervisory
levels of authority.” Minn. Stat. § 179A.09, subd. 1. The city offers three BMS decisions
9
to support its proposition that employees do not share a community of interest if they have
different direct supervisors who in turn share the same, higher-level supervisor or an
organization-wide grievance procedure. See Anoka County & AFSCME, Council 5, BMS
Case No. 22-PCE-1956 (Aug. 4, 2022); Law Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc. & Anoka County, BMS
Case No. 21-PCE-0336 (Feb. 24, 2021); Anoka County & Law Enf’t Lab. Servs., Inc., BMS
Case No. 22 -PCE-0989 (June 2, 2022), rev’d on other grounds, 3 N.W.3d 586 (Minn.
2024). The proposition fails to consider the hierarchical nature of local-government
structures in which many employees have different immediate supervisors who themselves
share a common senior supervisor. The commissioner’s decision in this case is consistent
with the city’s cited cases because the streets division employees share a direct supervisor,
and their community of interest is not based on having a common supervisor higher up the
line of command.
The city offers an uncompelling comparison to City of Bloomington & AFSCME,
Council 5, BMS Case Nos. 12-PCE-1115, 12-PCE-1116, at 4 (Sept. 6, 2012). In that case,
the BMS rejected a union’s proposal for two bargaining units within a city’s public works
department even though the employees in each unit had their own first-line supervisor,
reasoning that the employees shared a department-wide supervisor. Id. Two details
distinguish that case from this one. The first is that the city’s public works department lacks
a department- wide supervisor. The city administrator does not so function because the
commissioner did not find that he directly supervises department employees. And the
second is that the commissioner here was considering onl y one proposed bargaining unit,
not two, as was the Bloomington case. Id. at 1. The city’s case comparison fails.
10
C. Geographic Location
The city unpersuasively maintains that t he commissioner’s findings on the
geographic-location criterion depart from its prior decisions. It relies on Anoka County &
AFSCME, Council 5 for the proposition that the BMS weighed this factor against a
proposed unit of employees who work in multiple locations. 22-PCE-1956, at 9. But in that
case the BMS dealt with a proposed unit of library employees working at nine facilities
across the county. Id. at 9–10. Where the employees in a proposed unit “work from the
same work location and work throughout [the city],” the BMS weighs this factor favoring
the proposed unit. IBEW, Local 160, & City of Truman, BMS Case No. 20-PCL-1339, at 4
(Aug. 17, 2020). The decision here is consistent with this approach, as the commissioner
found that the streets division employees were assigned projects in the streets building but
worked on the projects throughout the city. Adopting the city’s recasting of facts to assume
that public works employees divide their time between the divisions’ buildings would
require us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.
II
The city challenges the commissioner’s findings on the criteria just discussed and
others as unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. We consider an argument that
an agency’s findings are unsupported by substantial evidence by considering whether the
record provides a reasonable basis for the agency’s conclusions. In re NorthMet Project
Permit to Mine Application Dated Dec. 2017 , 959 N.W.2d 731, 749 (Minn. 2021). We
have carefully considered the agency’s findings on the challenged criteria, and we conclude
that they are sufficiently supported by substantial evidence. The commissioner identified
11
the evidence it relied on for each factor and explained how the evidence informed its
reasoning. And the evidence the commissioner cites in support exists in the record and is
accurately depicted in its order. The commissioner’s order rests on substantial evidence.
Most of the city’s argument here indirectly asks us to draw our own factual findings
from the evidence and to reach conclusions the commissioner did not reach. This is not our
role. It is true, as the city asserts, that the commissioner’s order recites facts without always
explaining its conclusions on some of the “other relevant factors.” But given that those
criteria did not affect the determination, the asserted shortcomings resulted in no prejudice
and therefore cannot provide a basis for reversal. See In re Denial, 993 N.W.2d at 653–54.
The city adds policy arguments on managerial authority, but the proper focus is on whether
the commissioner appropriately applied the required statutory criteria. Because the city
fails to establish its claim that the commissioner instead rendered an arbitrary decision
unsupported by substantial evidence, the commissioner’s determination stands.
Affirmed.