*1 of retire- respondent’s share distribution commence at time was to

ment benefits Trial court did not retirement.

appellant’s finding respondent was not entitled by

err early retirement portion appellant’s discre- Trial did not abuse its

bonus. denying respondent’s request by

tion by not err

attorney fees. Trial court did contempt

refusing appellant to find

court. part. and reversed part

Affirmed PUBLIC TEAMSTERS

MINNESOTA EM- ENFORCEMENT LAW

AND UNION, NO. LOCAL PLOYEES

Appellant, Bastían, Minneapolis, appel- Gary W. lant. WASHINGTON,

COUNTY OF Paul, Bergstrom, respon- D. Peter St. Respondent. dent. No. CX-87-823. Grundoefer, Paul, L. St. for ami- Thomas League of Minnesota cus curiae Cities. of Minnesota. Appeals Court Paul, Flicker, Margaret J. St. for amicus 6, 1987. Oct. Counties. Ass’n Minnesota curiae 18, 1987. Dec. Review Granted Park, Corwin, Louis Gregg M. St. Minnesota Coun- curiae AFSCME amicus cils.

Heard, and decided considered LANSING, P.J., and CRIPPEN MULALLY,*JJ.

OPINION MULALLY, Judge. summary judgment appeal

This from court’s determination challenges the trial law, topic that, of health a matter of as em- benefits for insurance scope of col- from the ployees excluded bargaining under lective Act Employment Labor Relations Public (PELRA). We affirm.

* Const, pursuant by ap- Minn. art. Acting judge Appeals pointment as Court of *2 sion of

FACTS “retirement contributions or bene fits” legislative demonstrates a intent “to Appellant Minnesota Public Teamsters pension remove issues from the Union, Employees and Law Enforcement permissible bargaining.” AFSCME Coun (Union) rep- is No. 320 the exclusive Local 6, 14, cils 65 and AFL-CIO v. Sund employees for and essential resentative quist, (Minn.1983)(cit 576 respondent employed by probation officers ing 635, 6)). 1973 Minn. Laws ch. How § County Washington (County). For sev- ever, the case only pen AFSCME involved provided years past, County the the eral (union sion contributions. Id. chal hospitalization and insurance cov- medical lenged statute that increased em erage and current retired union both ployees’ existing pension contributions to applied to the employees. As retired em- by 2%). Thus, although funds the supreme part was not ployees, the insurance the court made agreements pen broad references to bargaining negotiat- “all collective issues,” did it not have occasion to by County and the ed the Union. consider whether health insurance for re County the modified and limited employees pension tired ais issue. past practice providing health insur- employees. ance for retired Union discussing legislative intent, The de- the su- issue, negotiation preme manded the over which court in quoted AFSCME the author “ the refused. The Union then of the 1973 amendment: ‘The purpose of brought action, asking for a declarato- amendment is to take the ry judgment that medical insurance for re- out of pre- benefits the bill and employees tired is a mandatory present serve the regard situation with to PELRA, under as a “term and keep benefits that is to them ” employment.” condition of On cross-mo- within the realm of the legislature.’ Id. summary judgment, tions for (quoting at 576 Rep. Statement Donald motion, Moe, court denied Union’s conclud- House Committee on Governmental ing (March 13, that “health insurance Operations, 1973)). benefits re- The court persons non-negotiable tired is a item explanation also cited Moe’s that ex- “the bargaining.” collective clusion necessary prevent the decen- tralized and discordant administration of

ISSUE public pensions, and to maintain legislative significant Do insurance discretion over benefits retired matters of bud- getary policy.” Appellant, however, constitute Id. “retirement contribu- argues cost, tions or benefits”? these concerns for uni-

formity of packages, benefit ANALYSIS control do not extend to health insurance employees, PELRA, nothing Under which is public employer more than “a fringe continuation of a employees’ representative exclusive applies workers,” fit that to all have a and which obligation nego- mutual to meet and provided private good through tiate in carri- faith insurance over “terms and condi- ers, legislature. not the tions employment.” Minn.Stat. 179A.07, subd. The § statute de- Respondent cites AFSCME and state- fines “terms and employ- conditions of ments made in Moe, now-Senator ment” as “the employment, hours of arguing that these statements compensation including fringe therefor ruling trial court’s and the extension of except benefits retirement contributions AFSCME health insurance for retired or employer’s personnel employees. In hearings committee aon bill

policies affecting working conditions of that would amend definition of “retire- employees.” subd. 19 benefits,” ment contributions or Senator (emphasis added). Moe stated that the intent in 1973 had been Minnesota previ- Court has “to exclude from consideration retire- ously determined express exclu- ment benefit.” Statement Sen. Donald Moe, Op- supported on Government The trial court Committee instead its con- Senate by citing clusion 28, 1987). Referring AFSCME and the su- erations, to the (April preme court’s reliance on a AFSCME case, that “in Moe stated present Senator 1982 Iowa City case. See Washington County deci- my opinion, the Public Employment Relations appropriate.” Id. sion was (Iowa 1982). case, N.W.2d 851 In that proposed in The amendment 1987 would relevant statute excluded “all retirement *3 that, future, change statute so in the the systems” scope from the of collective bar- contributions or benefits” “retirement gaining. pro- Id. at 853. When the union paid not include “insurance benefits would posed employ- health insurance for retired by public employers on behalf of retired mandatory topic ees as a negotiation, the 257, up age H.F. employees 65.” 75th Supreme Iowa Court held that the statute Thus, (Minn.1987). at 1 such insur- Sess. negotiations “any proposal excluded from a term or ance benefits would constitute directly augments supplements that or the employment and would condition be sub- public employee a benefits would receive Although bargaining. to collective ject system under a retirement under the other legislative passed chambers the bill both provisions of the Id. at [Iowa statutes].” session, during the senate and the 1986-87 The court concluded that other differed, and the ad- house bills interpretation ignore “would and work to journed taking without final action on the strong public defeat policy underlying a Thus, deci- bill. whether the trial court’s systems pensions uniform retirement legislatively public in over- in employees this ease will be this state.” Similarly, Court in open question. ruled is still an policy identified AFSCME considerations parties argue importance the of an prohibition negoti- against that the case, Washington in earlier decided concerning pension systems. ations See 1984, involving the March Still- AFSCME, (citing 338 N.W.2d at 576 AFSCME, against appellant and Lo- water permit employers to contain the need to cal # on the issue of whether medical rising impor- cost of nego- employees for retired is a benefits legislative participation in the tance of There, item. the court concluded tiable government policy, making significant supreme court’s decision in uniformity promotion and the specifically did not address the AFSCME disparate prevention of the existence of issue, holding and that AFSCME’s different funds based between benefits “pension” benefits are excluded from bar- employees’ upon the skill and success gaining compel finding did not a that medi- bargaining representatives). cal/hospital precluded. benefits are properly de- conclude the trial court We support, Incorporated the court cited Vil- present in its termined that the statute lage Lynbrook v. New York State Pub- health insurance benefits form excludes Employment Relations persons from the of collective 399 N.E.2d N.Y.2d N.Y.S.2d reach in the sector. We leg- conclusion the evidence on this because present The trial in court case distin- islative intent demonstrates guished Lynbrook, grounds on the that the excluding retirement benefits from all applying New York court was a definition bargaining, scope of collective and because involving negotiation of insurance bene- language reason- plain statute dependents employees fits for both be- interpreta- ably supports the trial court’s retirement, and after fore while this case meaning contri- of “retirement tion solely employ- involves for retired benefits We also observe and benefits.” butions statute, ees. The court also noted that the New bargaining proposal, and court Lynbrook York stated that the histo- in the case standard of review ry provided guidance, from those significantly little while here there different were making case, that in significant legislative history. this and we hold determination, appropriately- trial court er benefits after year, retirement. This a Lynbrook. opinion In our Minnesota state senator distinguished endorsed the trial case, court’s decision an applied claiming properly statute original legislative intent bar language present with its consistent on all Although benefits after retirement. legislative intent. attention, get

these considerations due my opinion compel- there are numerous and DECISION ling reasons to reach different result. Affirmed. usage 1. Both in common and in a tech- sense, nical plans retirement CRIPPEN, J., dissents. arrangements are annuity or CRIPPEN, Judge, dissenting. payments after retirement. e.g., See 418(b)(4) (West 1987) (a U.S.C.A. Supp. PELRA, dissent. respectfully I Under state or local employee retirement negotiated by pub- must be fringe benefits system *4 pension, “means a annuity, retire- but “retirement contribu- employers, ment, or system”). similar fund or may negotiated. benefits” not be tions or on The court’s decision rests view 2. Supreme The Iowa Court dealt awith legislature “encompass- has used excluding statute bargain- from collective ing re- language” in its declaration about ing subjects of sys- “all retirement benefits, and tirement contributions words tems.” City See Mason v. Public of enjoyed upon that cover all benefits retire- Employment Relations 316 851, (Iowa 1982). contrast, ment. N.W.2d 854 PELRA expansive deals with a topic less of disagreement is no that the exclu- There retirement contributions and benefits. equivocal. may It sion at issue is be read 3. The Minnesota statute is distinctive suggested by as the trial court. On the of because to reference as hand, contributions it is reasonable other to view well as If benefits. a reference to retire- topic retirement contributions or of might ment benefits encompass- invite an pen- fits as one confined to matter of ing interpretation, the to reference contri- funds, plans, pension contributions to commonly suggests butions more the con- pension and entitlements. Our task tois employer employee tributions of an and an identify approved usage” the “common and pension plan. for a words, legislature’s “special meaning” acquired by technical words 4. The Minnesota state senator’s obser phrases. 645.08(1) (1986). Stat. Minn. legislator § vations as a in 1973 are more reasonably open Because words are to persuasive than his 14 years reflections interpretations, two Representative we are free consider later. Moe said 1973 law and the effects exclusion was meant to “take the particular interpretations. pension Minn. benefits” out of col Stat. (1986). bargaining. 6, lective AFSME 645.16 Councils § 14, Sundquist, 65 and 96 v. 338 N.W.2d I acknowledge several considerations fa- 560, (Minn.1983). 576 voring interpretation adopted by the broad 5. examining When exclusion public pension trial court. Concern for 1983, Supreme re- Court costs extends all benefits after retire- peatedly observed that its was one prescribed ment. The has public pensions. Id. at 575-76. “Public appropriate manner form of contract- issues,” said, pension the court “are not ing public for employee health insurance subjects may which collectively be bar- benefits, may and there be advantages in a gained.” Id.'at 576. See also at n. id. 575 uniform post-retirement state on law health 4. public insurance benefits for employees. Iowa Court 1982 decided pension 6. The exclusion is aimed public employment bargain- collective promoting uniformity of benefits for all ing inappropriate pensions for public employees. (citing and oth- Id. at 576 City of 854). Repre- tiation. 316 N.W.2d at International City, Brotherhood in 1973 that Moe observed City Minneapolis, sentative Teamsters v. prevent decentral- 410, 415, needed to 254, exclusion was Minn. 225 N.W.2d public discordant administration ized and 1984, judge another trial in Minneso at 576. pensions. Sundquist, ta’s 10th Judicial District determined that a uni- legislature has enacted Although the arguments in Sundquist advanced program, it employee pension form benefit exclusion did not plan for adopt a uniform has not chosen to extension of the statute to health insurance for retired health insurance benefits benefits after retirement. City Stillwa left topic is sub- employees. The insurance ter v. Minnesota Teamsters Local No. control. Minn. ject government to local Local No. No. (Washington (1986). 1987 471.616 and 471.617 Stat. §§ 8, 1984). Dist. Ct. Feb. For the a state adminis- legislation provides many here, reasons cited I believe that plan, but the act tered health insurance judgment analysis was correct. An uniformity; participation does not establish these numerous considerations should lead employee groups. optional local us to reverse the decision of the trial court enacted Minn. Stat. as § in this case. 89; Minn. Stat. Minn. Laws ch. § 43A.316, subd. 5. legislative purpose In addition to the uniformity the su- preme recognized has aims preserving to itself the determination *5 particular aim to

of these Sundquist, over costs.

maintain control Representative Moe

338 N.W.2d 576.

agreed exclusion designed preserve and maintain the determining

role of the enactment, legis- fits. its 1987 CARLIN, Jeffrey Paul specifically provided lature the cost of petitioner, Appellant, employee participation in a after retirement plan state is administered health insurance subject bargaining for collective between OF PUBLIC COMMISSIONER employee public employer. and the local SAFETY, Respondent. legis- Minn. Stat. 7. The subd. No.

lature C7-87-939. has shown no will to dominate health for re- insurance benefits Appeals Court of of Minnesota. public employees. tired interpretation 8. Iowa’s broad of an ex- Oct. pub- clusion from collective unique compelled by view in provisions that state that the

mandatory negotiations narrowly are to be City, construed. See 856;

N.W.2d at City Community Charles Employment

School District v. Public Re- (Iowa

lations

1979). contrast,

Court has observed that the of man-

datory negotiation broadly must be con-

strued because of the in PELRA to disputes through nego-

resolve labor