Across, the nation, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed relating to COVID-19, and many of them involve challenges to vaccine mandates. These cases often rely on both the US Constitution and complicated statutory schemes. In the following recent case, the focus was the City of St. Paul’s failure to negotiate with its unionized workers before mandating COVID-19 vaccines, e.g., there was no opportunity to seek a testing option.

Public Employee Labor Relations Act Applies

On June 2, Judge Leonardo Castro of the Minnesota District Court for the County of Ramsey issued a final ruling protecting city workers from the employee COVID-19 vaccine mandate by the City of St. Paul. The case was brought by the St. Paul Police Federation, the International Association of Firefighters Local 21, and other labor unions, all of whom sued the City.

Judge Castro noted that, “The question before this Court is limited in scope. Plaintiffs ask this Court to decide if the City’s failure to meet and negotiate on the City’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy constitutes an unfair labor practice under the Public Employee Labor Relations Act (PELRA).”

Unfair Labor Practice

The City had entered collective bargaining agreements (CBA) with all of the plaintiffs, and each CBA had a similar managerial rights clause which recognized the City’s rights to, “to operate and manage its affairs in all respects in accordance with applicable laws and regulations . . ..” The City announced its mandate policy in October 2021, that all of its employees would have to complete COVID-19 vaccination by December 31, 2021. The policy, “applies to all City Workers, defined as employees, volunteers, commission members and interns of the City.” Employees were allowed to request medical accommodation or religious exemption, but those exceptions were not at issue in Castro’s ruling. At issue was the fact that workers were not allowed an “opt-out” with negative COVID-19 tests. And failure to get vaccinated made employees subject to discipline up to termination. The union plaintiffs argued the City was engaged in an unfair labor practice due to their failure to negotiate implementation of the policy with workers’ representatives.

Case Not About Efficacy of Vaccines

The workers claimed that since the policy affects the terms and conditions of employment, the City was required under PELRA to negotiate in good faith. Also, if an impasse was reached, the City was required to submit the case to arbitration.  In a footnote, Judge Castro said that this case was “not about the wisdom of the Policy or the efficacy of COVID vaccination” and not about constitutional, civil, religious, or human rights, as the unions did not raise these claims.

Disciplinary Actions are a Term of Employment

St. Paul is subject to Minnesota’s PELRA provisions as a public employer, and the law’s purpose is, “to promote orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees.” The law required that public employers meet and negotiate terms and conditions of employment. Minnesota’s Supreme Court has held that disciplinary actions are a “term and condition of employment, and therefore are a mandatory subject of bargaining.”

Inherent Managerial Authority?

St. Paul did not “strongly dispute” that the vaccine policy is a change to terms and conditions of employment. The City knew that is had some requirement to negotiate and confer prior to implementing the policy. And it is clear from the record that while the parties met numerous times to talk about the policy, “the City never engaged in a negotiation on the Plaintiffs’ request to have a testing option in lieu of vaccination.”  This case involves overlap between the City’s ability and authority to implement policies and their duty to negotiate a term of employment.

St. Paul Makes Technical Argument

The City claimed that the Policy falls under the “selection” and “direction” of workers. That is, they are selecting and directing all employees to meet a new minimum “standard” if they want to keep their jobs. Judge Castro states that this interpretation of “selection” stretches the concept of inherent managerial authority “too far.” Noting that the city could refrain from hiring someone who is not vaccinated, he says, “it is not within a public employer’s purview to unilaterally change the existing minimum qualifications of current employees and require their compliance in order for them to keep their jobs. To allow this would be to greatly dilute the purpose and spirit of PELRA.

Failure to Negotiate Means Workers Would Forfeit Bodily Autonomy

In a key quote, Castro posits that,

“If Plaintiffs’ members are not allowed to negotiate the Policy implementation, they will be required to be involuntarily vaccinated by way of needle injection. It is difficult for this Court to imagine what could be more intrusive and more destructive to the employer-employee relationship than requiring employees to forfeit their bodily autonomy in the name of maintaining their livelihood.”

He went on to rule that a permanent injunction is needed to preclude “great and irreparable harm” and that PELRA itself calls for injunctive relief. And by refraining from negotiation, “the City engaged in an unfair labor practice.” Further, he offers that as essential workers police officer and firefighters are not allowed to strike—their only choice would be involuntary vaccination or finding another job. As the judge who granted a preliminary injunction noted, “the vaccination cannot be ‘undone.’” Finally, Castro notes that a permanent injunction is the correct remedy, that the City must negotiate the Policy, and that if negotiations fail the matter must go to arbitration.