## Facts

- Faculty at the University of Minnesota’s Duluth and Waseca campuses were represented by the University Education Association and the Minnesota Education Association as exclusive bargaining representatives under Minnesota’s public-sector labor statute.
- The unions and the Regents began negotiating a first collective bargaining agreement in February 1981 and held 22 bargaining sessions.
- The parties reached an agreement covering most aspects of the employment relationship for July 1, 1981, through August 31, 1983, but did not resolve certain disputed topics.
- The unions sued in February 1982, alleging unfair labor practices based on the Regents’ refusal to negotiate over several subjects.
- By the time of appeal, three disputed subjects remained: (1) promotion and tenure criteria (including weighting and review), (2) faculty evaluation criteria (including weighting and review), and (3) the academic calendar.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Regents, concluding the disputed subjects were nonnegotiable inherent managerial prerogatives under PELRA.

## Issues

1. Whether PELRA required the Regents to meet and negotiate over the criteria, weights, and review of promotion and tenure decisions.
2. Whether PELRA required the Regents to meet and negotiate over the criteria, weights, and review of faculty evaluations.
3. Whether PELRA required the Regents to meet and negotiate over issues relating to the academic calendar.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Regents.
- The court held that promotion and tenure criteria (including weighting and review) are inherent managerial policy and not mandatory subjects of bargaining.
- The court held that faculty evaluation criteria (including weighting and review) are inherent managerial policy and not mandatory subjects of bargaining.
- The court held that the academic calendar is inherent managerial policy and not a mandatory subject of bargaining.
- Because there was no statutory duty to bargain on these matters, the Regents’ refusal to negotiate did not constitute an unfair labor practice.

## Legal Principles

- Under PELRA, public employers must bargain in good faith over “terms and conditions of employment,” but retain exclusive authority over “inherent managerial policy,” including the employer’s functions and programs, organizational structure, and selection and direction of personnel.
- When a disputed proposal substantially affects core educational policy and academic governance, it is treated as inherent managerial policy rather than a negotiable term or condition of employment.
- Promotion and tenure standards, and the weighting and review mechanisms used to apply them, are central to academic quality and the institution’s control over faculty composition, placing them outside mandatory bargaining.
- Faculty evaluation standards, and their weighting and review, are tied to academic judgments about teaching, scholarship, and service and therefore fall within managerial authority reserved by statute.
- Although the academic calendar affects work scheduling, decisions setting the calendar are sufficiently connected to educational planning and program structure to be classified as inherent managerial policy.

## Conclusion

The court held that PELRA does not require the University’s governing board to bargain over promotion and tenure criteria, faculty evaluation criteria, or the academic calendar because those subjects are inherent managerial policy; accordingly, refusing to negotiate on those topics is not an unfair labor practice.


Univ. Educ. Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 353 N.W.2d 534 (Minn. 1984)