The class-action grievance regarding MnDOT’s assertion that a population of Fair Labor Standards Act “exempt” employees continues; the Step 2 grievance meeting was held on March 10th. If it feels as though this issue has been dragging on for an unusually long time, that’s because it has. (True to form, the state actually just asked for an extension for its response.)
A significant factor in the extended timeline for this grievance has resulted from the state’s conduct that seems to suggest that they do not think the underlying question is a contract issue in the first place, despite their citation of specific contract language to defend their position. While MnDOT is finally hearing the grievance and treating it as the contract interpretation issue that it always was, they also took it upon themselves to unilaterally interpret the contract and ignore MGEC’s vociferous objection to their misinterpretation over the course of months. Adding to that, MnDOT took its own employees into the state’s court of administrative hearings, claiming that these employees owed a debt to the employer. MGEC does not think there is any “debt”, only wages paid for people who did nothing more than respond the employer’s need for work to get done as well as contractually protected holiday pay. In response to the state’s court actions, MGEC paid for legal representation for each of these employees to argue to the administrative law judge that the issue is in dispute is actually a question of contract interpretation, and that Minnesota law demands that issues of contract interpretation can be solved in only one place: the grievance procedure found in the contract itself. Represented by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, MnDOT found itself boxed in and agreed to suspend the collection activities in the court of administrative hearings until an arbitrator can decide whether, in fact, anyone owes anything. We will abide by whatever an arbitrator decides, which takes us back to the recent Step 2 grievance meeting.
While we hope MnDOT realizes its position is nonsensical, we nonetheless are preparing to make our case in front of an arbitrator. The contract also provides for mediation as well as arbitration; generally, mediation is a process that can bring understanding to a dispute and can lower the temperature so the parties can work better together. Whichever path we take to resolve this issue, MGEC is committed to defending our contract.