## Facts

- The City of Minneapolis administered a civil service promotional process for *foreman of equipment repair* in the Department of Public Works, using written and oral exams plus efficiency and seniority ratings.
- After results were released, employees and the union complained that the written exam contained scoring errors and that some efficiency ratings were completed by supervisors who had not recently worked with the applicants.
- The union asked the Civil Service Commission for (1) all written exam questions and the answer key, (2) identification of the supervisor who rated each applicant, and (3) information showing when and for how long each applicant worked for the rating supervisor.
- The Commission acknowledged defects in the exam, provided only a portion of the questions, and identified rating supervisors, but refused to disclose the remaining questions and answers and refused to provide the requested work-history information.
- The union sought mandamus to compel disclosure, offering to keep exam materials confidential from future test-takers.

## Issues

1. Whether Minnesota’s Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) requires a public employer to provide the exclusive representative the full questions and answer key to a civil service promotional exam if the union agrees not to disclose them to future applicants.
2. Whether PELRA requires disclosure of information showing when and for how long each applicant worked for the supervisor who provided the efficiency rating.
3. Whether civil service commission rules restricting disclosure bar negotiation or disclosure under Minn. Stat. § 179.66, subd. 5.
4. Whether a dispute about the fairness of a specific promotional examination concerns “terms and conditions of employment” under PELRA.
5. Whether the Minneapolis Civil Service Commission is an agency or instrumentality of the city and thus a “public employer” under PELRA.
6. Whether mandamus is available to compel disclosure of the requested information.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the order issuing a writ of mandamus compelling disclosure.
- The court held PELRA required disclosure to the union of the full written exam and answer key, conditioned on the union’s non-disclosure to future test-takers.
- The court held PELRA also required disclosure of when and for how long each applicant worked for the supervisor who rated the applicant’s performance.
- The court rejected the argument that civil service commission rules barred disclosure under Minn. Stat. § 179.66, subd. 5.
- The court held disputes about the fairness of a specific promotional exam involve “terms and conditions of employment” and are negotiable under PELRA.
- The court held the Civil Service Commission is an agency or instrumentality of the city and therefore a “public employer” under PELRA.
- The court held mandamus was an appropriate remedy because the law imposed a clear duty to disclose and no plain, speedy, and adequate alternative remedy was shown.

## Legal Principles

- Under PELRA, a public employer must provide an exclusive representative information relevant and necessary to perform representational duties, including evaluating promotional procedures affecting employees.
- Promotional opportunities and the fairness of promotional examinations qualify as “terms and conditions of employment” under PELRA.
- Civil service commission rules restricting disclosure do not bar PELRA disclosure duties where those rules do not fall within Minn. Stat. § 179.66, subd. 5’s categories (statutes, certain statutorily promulgated rules, or home-rule charter ordinances/resolutions).
- A municipal civil service commission may be treated as an agency or instrumentality of the city and thus a “public employer” for PELRA obligations.
- Mandamus may compel a governmental body to perform a duty the law clearly and positively requires when no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists.

## Conclusion

The court required the city and its civil service commission to disclose complete promotional exam materials (subject to union confidentiality for future administrations) and related supervisor-rating work-history information, treating exam fairness disputes as negotiable employment conditions under PELRA and enforcing the disclosure duty through mandamus.


Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Loc. 49 v. City of Minneapolis, 233 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 1975)