What is PERB?

A. History

1. The Minnesota Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) was first established in 1971. At that time, PERB’s function was to hear and decide appeals of decisions of the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services (“BMS”), maintain a roster of arbitrators, and provide independent reviews to public employees who did not have access to a grievance procedure. Charges of unfair labor practices (“ULPs”) went through state district courts. ULPs are defined in the Public Employees Labor Relations Act (“PELRA”), Minn. Stat. § 179A.13, subd. 2:

Public employers, their agents and representatives are prohibited from:

(1) interfering, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in sections 179A.01 to 179A.25;

(2) dominating or interfering with the formation, existence, or administration of any employee organization or contributing other support to it;

(3) discriminating in regard to hire or tenure to encourage or discourage membership in an employee organization;

(4) discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because the employee has signed or filed an affidavit, petition, or complaint or given information or testimony under sections 179A.01 to 179A.25;

(5) refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit;

(6) refusing to comply with grievance procedures contained in an agreement;

(7) distributing or circulating a blacklist of individuals exercising a legal right or of members of a labor organization for the purpose of preventing blacklisted individuals from obtaining or retaining employment;

(8) violating rules established by the commissioner regulating the conduct of representation elections;

(9) refusing to comply with a valid decision of a binding arbitration panel or arbitrator;

(10) violating or refusing to comply with any lawful order or decision issued by the commissioner or the board;

(11) refusing to provide, upon the request of the exclusive representative, all information pertaining to the public employer’s budget both present and proposed, revenues, and other financing information provided that in the executive branch of state government this clause may not be considered contrary to the budgetary requirements of sections 16A.10 and 16A.11;

(12) granting or offering to grant the status of permanent replacement employee to a person for performing bargaining unit work for the employer during a lockout of employees in an employee organization or during a strike authorized by an employee organization that is an exclusive representative;

(13) failing or refusing to provide information that is relevant to enforcement or negotiation of a contract as soon as reasonable after receiving a request by an exclusive representative, not to exceed 30 days for information relevant to contract enforcement or 60 days for information relevant to contract negotiation absent mutual agreement by the parties, provided that a state agency may request and the commissioner may extend these timelines based upon estimated need and after consultation with the exclusive representative; or

(14) refusing to reassign a position after the commissioner has determined the position was not placed into the correct bargaining unit.

2. In 1991, the duties of PERB were transferred to the Department of Administration and the Board ceased to exist as a functioning entity.
3. In 2014, the Legislature reestablished PERB, which it tasked to investigate, hear, and resolve ULP charges arising in public employment. However, due to a lack of funding, PERB’s authority was delayed from 2015 to 2020. PERB then had a narrow window from 2020-2021 during which it again had jurisdiction over charges of unfair labor practices. In 2021, a law was passed to temporarily shift jurisdiction of ULP charges back to the state district courts.
4. In 2023, ULP jurisdiction again shifted back to PERB under Minn. Stat. § 179A.041, and PERB has had continuous jurisdiction over ULPs since that time.
5. PERB’s recent reestablishment and funding will make pursuing ULP charges easier, quicker, and cheaper than going through district court. Practically, this means that ULP charges are likely to be filed more often in order to gain leverage in collective bargaining, grievances, and disputes with unions.

B. Board Membership

1. PERB consists of three members:

a. One officer or employee of an exclusive representative of public employees. This member is appointed by the Governor.

b. One representative of public employers. This member is also appointed by the Governor.

c. One is a representative of the public at large. This member is appointed by the other two members.

2. Three alternate members are also appointed to serve in cases where a member has a conflict of interest.

C. Procedures and Process

1. Definitions

a. A “charge” is what the charging party files alleging a ULP.

b. A “complaint” is what PERB issues alleging a person/entity committed one or more ULPs—typically after the investigation finds the charge has a reasonable basis.

2. Filing the Charge and Initial Obligations

a. Charges must be filed in writing using PERB’s form, and must include a concise statement of allegations, citations to the alleged violated sections of PELRA, requested remedy, and proof of service on the charged party.

b. Upon receipt, PERB dockets the matter, assigns a case number, and serves it.

c. Within seven days of filing the charge, the charging party must submit supporting evidence, including any documentation.

d. The respondent must submit its response and supporting evidence to the investigator within 14 days of service.

3. If the ULP charge involves allegations that are parallel to a pending grievance, PERB will, upon a party’s request, “defer” processing the charge until the grievance process has concluded.

D. Investigation, Informal Resolution, the “Reasonable Basis” Screen, and Issuance of the Complaint

1. Once a charge is filed, PERB must investigate through a designated investigator. There is no required timeline for the investigation.
2. During an investigation, PERB staff may conduct informal conferences to clarify issues or explore voluntary resolution. PERB can also work with BMS to assign a mediator and pursue conciliation/mediation. 

3. If, after the investigation, the charge is found to have “no reasonable basis in law or fact,” PERB must advise the charging party and provide an opportunity to withdraw the charge.

5. Conversely, PELRA directs that unless PERB finds no reasonable basis, it “shall promptly issue a complaint” and set a hearing before a hearing officer.
   1. Limitations period: No complaint will be issued based upon any ULP occurring more than six months prior to the filing of a charge.
6. After PERB issues a complaint, the respondent (school district) has a right to file an answer within seven days after service of the complaint.

E. Hearing Mechanics

1. Hearings are before a qualified hearing officer and include presentation of evidence, witness testimony, and argument on the issues.
2. A full record of the hearing must be kept and transcribed.
3. The charging party bears the burden to prove the ULP allegation by a preponderance of the evidence.

F. After the Hearing: Recommended Decision, Exceptions, and Board Review

1. Following the hearing, the hearing officer will issue a recommended decision and order with findings of fact and conclusions.
2. If a ULP is found, the recommended decision will contain remedies; if not, the complaint is dismissed.
3. Available remedies for a ULP include requiring the party to cease and desist from the ULP or post a cease-and-desist notice in the workplace, or any other appropriate relief, including reinstatement, back pay, and any other remedies that make the charging party whole.
4. Unless overturned by PERB, the parties must comply with the recommended decision and order.
5. Parties may file “exceptions” to the hearing officer’s recommended decision and order within 30 days after service. In that case, PERB will review the recommended decision and order and may adopt, all, part, or none of it. PERB may also review the recommended decision and order upon its own motion. If PERB conducts a review, the parties have the opportunity to submit briefs and present oral argument to PERB.
6. PERB will retain jurisdiction over the case to ensure the parties’ compliance with its order.

G. Appeals and Enforcement

1. PERB decisions (including dismissals) may be reviewed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The appealing party must initiate the appeal within 30 days of the mailing of the Board’s decision.
2. Separately, there are district court enforcement mechanisms available to PERB and the charging party after final orders, including temporary relief and restraining orders.

H. What To Expect

1. Expect an increase in Union-initiated ULP charges.
2. For school districts, the most commonly alleged categories of ULPs include:

a. Interference, restraint, or coercion of employees’ rights under PELRA;

b. Domination or interference with the formation, existence, or administration of an employee organization (union);

c. Discrimination in regard to hire or tenure to encourage or discourage membership in a union; and

d. Refusal to meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative.

3. Although there will be more ULP charges, the vast majority will be resolved prior to a hearing.

a. For FY24-FY26 (current as of 3/19/26), PERB docketed 33 cases involving school districts. Of those 33 cases, 19 (58%) are listed as Withdrawn/Closed,” 2 are “Dismissed/Closed,” 11 remain “Open,” and only 1 case resulted in a Decision and Order.

i. The “Open” cases are at various stages. At least one has been deferred to the contractual grievance process. Several were recently filed and are still under investigation.

b. The PERB process is designed to encourage early voluntary resolution between the parties. Many of the withdrawals and dismissals are due to settlements.

This article is intended to provide general information with commentary. It should not be relied on as legal advice. If required, legal advice regarding this topic should be obtained from district legal counsel.

Maggie Wallner is a shareholder at Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, whose practice is focused on all aspects of education law. For more information, please contact her at (612) 337-9301 or mwallner@kennedy-graven.com.

© Maggie R. Wallner (2026). Used with permission.