949 N.W.2d 412
S.D.2020Background
- The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) sought a bargaining unit for Yankton PD including sergeants; the City argued sergeants are excluded under SDCL 3-18-1(2) as supervisory employees.
- YPD hiring: written test, timed obstacle course, informal interview (sergeant + patrol officer), then a formal panel interview of five members (four sergeants and one lieutenant) scoring candidates 1–5 with a two‑point variance rule.
- Chief Paulsen customarily follows the ranked list from the formal panel and makes conditional offers subject to background checks; he performs no separate independent vetting.
- Sergeants also prepare initial officer evaluations, schedule/assign squads, sometimes act as commanding officer on duty, and participate heavily in hiring interviews.
- Department of Labor concluded sergeants are ineligible for the bargaining unit because they have authority to hire or effectively recommend hiring; the circuit court reversed on the hiring issue but agreed sergeants lack suspension/discipline authority.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Department’s determination that sergeants are ineligible because they exercise independent judgment in hiring or effectively recommending hires.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FOP) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court must reject certain circuit court findings/conclusions | Circuit court correctly corrected Department errors; its factual findings stand | Court of appeals review applies; this Court reviews Department de novo and is not bound by circuit court presumption | Court declined to defer to circuit court and reviewed Department’s decision on the merits |
| Whether sergeants have authority to hire or effectively recommend hiring under SDCL 3‑18‑1(2) | Sergeant scoring is routine/ministerial; rubric and two‑point rule constrain independent judgment | Sergeants exercise independent judgment in informal and formal interviews; Chief follows panel rankings without independent investigation | Held: sergeants exercise independent judgment and thus are excluded from bargaining unit membership |
| Whether sergeants have authority to suspend or discipline or effectively recommend suspension/discipline | (FOP) argued sergeants lack such authority | (City) sought affirmance on additional supervisory activities | Court did not reach this issue on the merits because hiring authority alone sufficed to exclude sergeants |
Key Cases Cited
- Stricker v. Swift Bros. Constr. Co., 260 N.W.2d 500 (S.D. 1977) (discussed use of federal/NLRB authorities but held not controlling for SD statute construction)
- Terveen v. S.D. Dep’t of Transp., 861 N.W.2d 775 (S.D. 2015) (standard of review for administrative appeals)
- Skjonsberg v. Menard, Inc., 922 N.W.2d 784 (S.D. 2019) (appellate review and scope of review of administrative decisions)
- Reck v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 932 N.W.2d 135 (S.D. 2019) (statutory construction principles)
- Armstrong v. State, 939 N.W.2d 9 (S.D. 2020) (when statutory language is unambiguous court declares meaning as written)
- Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mo. Red Quarries, Inc., 853 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussed limits of rigid scoring rubrics and when discretion/independent judgment exists)