Police grievance arbitrations play a major role in whether police officers keep or lose their jobs following discipline imposed by the police department they work for. In May 2020, Minneapolis, Minnesota and the rest of the nation erupted after watching one Minneapolis Police Department (“MPD”) officer with numerous prior misconduct complaints murder George Floyd, which drew attention to the police discipline process. Cell phone footage showed one officer murdering Mr. Floyd with three other MPD officers standing by watching. The video footage sparked large protests against police brutality and systemic racism across the country. This Article focuses on the statutes and statutory changes governing police grievance arbitrations in Minnesota, which is relevant to jurisdictions around the country.
Police grievance arbitrations were at the forefront of conversations on social media and in the Minnesota Legislature in 2020. Police union labor contracts with cities, specifically the disciplinary grievance appeals process that is required in police contracts, have come under intense public scrutiny. The grievance procedure gives police officers the right to appeal any disciplinary action, including written reprimand, suspension, transfer, demotion, or discharge if the employee has completed the required probationary period. This practice is commonplace across the country.
Grievance arbitrations created an “immunity” culture within police departments and made it difficult for police chiefs to change police department cultures across the state. There is a clear conflict between the motivation and interests held by a city’s mayor and police chief, and those held by the police union leaders. This Article will explore police grievance arbitration practices in Minnesota and whether the Police Accountability Act (“PAA”) will likely make a difference in arbitrations going forward.