City of Inver Grove Heights
Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services
No. 10-PN-1058 (2010)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local No. 84 (union) (plaintiff) was the bargaining representative for 26 police officers employed by the City of Inver Grove Heights (city) (defendant). In 2010, the union and the city successfully negotiated all parts of a new collective-bargaining agreement, with two exceptions: (1) wage increases and (2) health insurance plans. Accordingly, consistent with Minnesota law, the commissioner of the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services appointed an arbitrator to resolve the two issues. Regarding wage increases, the union claimed that a 1.5 percent increase was appropriate, but the city claimed that no increase was appropriate. Regarding health insurance plans, there were several different plans at issue. The main dispute was over whether the city should continue to pay the entire premium costs of the most expensive plans or whether employees would be required to begin paying for some of the premiums. At the time of the negotiations, the 2008 recession had affected the city’s revenue, but the city would be able to cover the wage increases. Moreover, the Consumer Price Index showed inflationary rises in the cost of living. Additionally, health insurance costs had risen dramatically throughout the country. The rise in costs was driven in part by utilization of health insurance. Where employees were required to pay for part of the premiums, use of the insurance was generally lower.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schiavoni, Arbitrator)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.