909 N.W.2d 713
S.D.2018Background
- Winslow, a member of a county collective bargaining unit, alleged her State’s Attorney subjected her to a hostile work environment beginning in late 2015 and sought to use the CBA grievance process.
- She submitted a written request (Dec. 2015) to appear before Fall River County Commissioners; alleges no response. She resigned April 1, 2016, and filed a formal grievance April 6, 2016, requesting an executive‑session hearing.
- County counsel informed Winslow the CBA grievance procedure applied only to current employees and declined to schedule a hearing because she was no longer an employee; Winslow did not respond to counsel’s letter.
- The Union filed a petition on Winslow’s behalf with the SD Department of Labor alleging the County committed an unfair labor practice under SDCL 3‑18‑3.1 by refusing the grievance hearing.
- The Department concluded Winslow’s claim did not implicate unfair labor practice law (no showing the conduct targeted collective bargaining rights) and granted summary judgment for the County; the circuit court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dept. of Labor had jurisdiction to hear Winslow’s petition alleging an unfair labor practice under SDCL 3‑18‑3.1(1) | Winslow: denial of a CBA grievance hearing interfered with rights guaranteed by law and thus is an unfair labor practice | County: Winslow was not an employee when she sought the hearing; the claim does not concern statutory labor rights protected by chapter 3‑18 | Court: Department lacked jurisdiction to decide an unfair labor practice because petition did not allege conduct within the statute’s scope; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Knapp v. Hamm & Phillips Serv. Co., 824 N.W.2d 785 (S.D. 2012) (defines administrative‑jurisdiction components and review standard)
- Martin v. Am. Colloid Co., 804 N.W.2d 65 (S.D. 2011) (discusses agency scope of authority)
- Moore v. Michelin Tire Co., 603 N.W.2d 513 (S.D. 1999) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Goetz v. State, 636 N.W.2d 675 (S.D. 2001) (rules of statutory construction: plain meaning controls)
- Council on Higher Educ. v. S.D. Bd. of Regents, 645 N.W.2d 240 (S.D. 2002) (chapter 3‑18 allows public employee collective bargaining)
- Bon Homme Cty. Comm’n v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Local 1743A, 699 N.W.2d 441 (S.D. 2005) (collective bargaining framework under state law)
- Sisseton Educ. Ass’n v. Sisseton Sch. Dist. No. 54‑8, 516 N.W.2d 301 (S.D. 1994) (SDCL 3‑18‑3 requires employers to negotiate terms and conditions of employment)