|
|
OAH 4-3600-20809-2 |
STATE
OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION
|
In the Matter of the PERA Salary Determinations Affecting
Retired and Active Employees of the City of Allen Johnson, et al., Petitioners |
ORDER |
This
matter came before Administrative Law Judge Bruce H. Johnson on the
Petitioners’ Motion to Join the City of
Elizabeth A. Storaasli, Dryer Storaasli Knutson & Pommerville, Ltd., appeared on behalf of the Petitioners. Jon K. Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of PERA.
Based upon all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Petitioners’ Motion to Add the City of
Dated: 10/14/09
__s/Bruce H. Johnson_______________
BRUCE H. JOHNSON
Administrative
Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
Petitioners are retired firefighters from the City of
Petitioners
argue that the City should be joined as a party to this proceeding under Minn.
R. Civ. P. 19, which allows joinder of persons needed for the just adjudication
of a matter. Petitioners allege that the
City is a necessary party because they received compensation pursuant to
collective bargaining agreements between the City and their unions. They allege that the relief requested by the
agency cannot be granted without retroactively affecting the contractual
compensation which had been promised to Petitioners by the City. If the relief is granted, Petitioners argue
they will have experienced a breach of their benefit of the contract between
the City and its unions. They argue that
if their benefits are reduced, they should have a remedy against the City
because they would have obtained substitute compensation pursuant to their
collective bargaining agreements. They
argue that their defenses, including reliance, statute of limitations, and estoppel,
all relate to actions or inactions by the City and require access to
information and data in the possession of the City. They argue that there is a risk of
inconsistent results if Petitioners compensation is reduced in this proceeding
and they have to initiate a new proceeding in district court to recover that
compensation. Finally, they allege the
failure to join the City will result in discovery hardship because of the
number of necessary subpoenas.
The ALJ has determined that the City need not be a party
for the ALJ to decide whether to grant the relief requested. Nor does the ALJ have jurisdiction to order
the City to participate as a party in this matter. The issues raised by Petitioners regarding
their contractual relationships with the City are beyond the scope of this
proceeding. The purpose of this
proceeding is to review PERA’s determinations regarding the legal status of
certain items of compensation, i.e., whether certain compensation constitutes
“salary” under the PERA definition.
Though certain of Petitioners defenses pertain to the action or inaction
of the City, neither the PERA Board nor the ALJ has authority to make findings
of fact against the City, or to order the City to pay compensation to Petitioners. Petitioners must seek redress in a different
forum for any claim they may have against the City. Although the City has records that may be
relevant to this proceeding, in particular the records and salaries that it
reported to PERA, that information is available to the parties via
subpoena. The City need not be a party
to this proceeding and the Petitioners’ motion is denied.
B.H.J.