MERC Decisions Pending Before the Michigan Supreme Court

NAME  SUBJECT MATTER

SUPREME COURT # 

COA #  MERC CASE

Shelby Township -and- Command Officers of Michigan

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondent had a Duty to Bargain with Charging Party over the Calculation Method and the Total Amount of the Employees’ Health Care Contribution; Respondent Violated Its Duty to Bargain with Charging Party by Unilaterally Requiring Employees’ to Pay a Larger Share of Health Insurance Costs Than Required by § 4 of Act 152; Respondent Breached Its Duty to Bargain by Unilaterally Requiring Employees to Pay Health Care Costs Based on a Rate That Included Health Care Costs for Both Employees and Retirees.  The Calculation of the Employee Share of Health Care Costs under Act 152 Cannot Lawfully Include Retiree Health Care Costs.  Pursuant to Act 54 Respondent was Authorized to Increase Employees’ Share of Health Care Costs by the Amount of the Increase in the Cost of the Employees' Benefits.  Respondent Breached its Duty to Bargain by Passing on the Increase in a Rate Based on Health Care Costs for Employees And Retirees.

 

153074

323491

issued December 15, 2015

C12 D-067

 issued August 18, 2014

Saginaw Education Association -and- Michigan Education Association -and- Kathy Eady-Miskiewicz -and- Matt Knapp -and- Jason LaPorte -and- Susan Romska

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondents Violated § 10(2)(a) by Restricting Charging Parties’ Right to Resign Union Membership to the Month of August.  The August Window Period for Union Membership Resignations Restricts Charging Parties’ Right to Refrain from Union Activity.  Under§ 10(2)(a), the Commission Has Jurisdiction Over Matters in Which a Labor Organization Restrains or Coerces Public Employees in the Exercise of Rights Guaranteed in § 9 of PERA, Including the Right to Refrain from Protected Activities.  The ALJ’s Recommendation That We Order Respondents to Eliminate the August Window Period from Their Bylaws Is Not an Unconstitutional Impairment of Contractual Rights.  Given the Information Provided by Respondents to Its Membership regarding Resignation from the Union, Respondents Did Not Violate Their Duty of Fair Representation by Failing to Actively Publicize Information regarding the Resignation Process.  A Union Must Give Specific Notice to the Union of His or Her Intention to Resign before the Resignation Is Effective.  Union Members’ Failure to Pay Dues Is Not Sufficient to Provide Unions With Notice of Resignation.

155906, 155907,155908,

155909,155910, 

155911, 155912,155913

329419, 329426, 329428, 329430, 329425, 329427, 329429,329431, 

issued May 2, 2017

CU13 I-054, CU13 I-055, CU13 I-056, CU13 I-057, CU13 I-058, CU13 I-059, CU13 I-060, CU13 I-061,

issued September 23, 2015

Standish Sterling Educational Support Personnel Association, MEA -and- Mark Norgan

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondent Violated PERA By Restricting Charging Party’s Resignation to One Month Period In August; Respondent Violated PERA By Failing To Immediately Allow Charging Party To File Objections And Pay A Reduced Agency Fee For The 2013-2014 Membership Year; PA 349 Allows An Employee To Resign His Or Her Union Membership At Will, And Immediately Assert Objections To Paying That Part Of An Agency Fee That Is Not Used For Collective Bargaining Expenditures And Have The Amount Of The Fee Reduced Accordingly; Charging Party’s Resignation From The Union, Although Outside The Window Period, Was Sufficient To End His Membership.  

155906, 155907,155908,

155909,155910, 

155911, 155912,155913

331398, 

issued May 2, 2017

CU14 B-002,

issued January 15, 2016

Grand Blanc Clerical Association, MEA, and Michigan Education Association -and- Mary Carr -and- Battle Creek Educational Secretaries Association, MEA and Michigan Education Association -and- Alphia Snyder

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Under § 10(2)(a), Commission Has Jurisdiction Over Matters in Which a Labor Organization Restrains or Coerces Public Employees in the Exercise of Rights Guaranteed in § 9 of PERA, Including the Right to Refrain from Protected Activities;  Commission Also has Jurisdiction to Find PERA Violation when a Labor Organization Threatens Use of a Debt Collector, and in the Future, Would be Considered a Violation § 10 (2)(a);  Charging Parties’ Membership Obligation to Respondents, Including Obligation to Pay Dues, Ended at Point Charging Parties Provided Respondents Notice of Their Resignations; The ALJ’s Recommendation That We Order Respondents to Eliminate the August Window Period from Their Bylaws Is Not an Unconstitutional Impairment of Contractual Rights. 

155906, 155907,155908,

155909,155910, 

155911, 155912,155913

331762 & 331875, 

issued May 2, 2017

CU14 C-020 & CU14 C-009, issued February 11, 2016

Teamsters Local 214 -and- Pauline Beutler

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: ALJ Erred by Concluding that Commission Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over the Matter; Under § 10(2)(a), Commission Has Jurisdiction Over Matters in Which a Labor Organization Restrains or Coerces Public Employees in the Exercise of Rights Guaranteed in § 9 of PERA, Including the Right to Refrain from Protected Activities; Charging Party’s Resignation Letter was Effective to End Her Union Membership and Union has not Acted to Restrict Resignation or to Prevent it from Being Effective, Therefore, No Basis to Find that Respondent Restrained Charging Party from Exercising her Right to Refrain from Union Membership; By Signing the Checkoff Authorization and Assignment, Charging Party Acknowledged the Voluntary Nature of the Authorization and that Her Payment of Union Dues was Not Conditioned on Her Present or Future Union Membership; Charging Part, thus, Waived Her Right to Refrain from Financially Supporting the Union Until She Terminates That Obligation in Accordance with Signed Agreement with Union;  Financial Obligation Limited to Period Prior to Resignation and Beginning of Next Window Period Following Termination of Union Membership; Respondent Did Not Collect Any Dues From Charging Party After Her Resignation from the Union, and Did Not Violate § 10(2); PA 53 Did Not Invalidate Charging Party’s Checkoff Authorization and Assignment Because PA 53 Did Not Alter the Obligation of Employees to Pay Dues Pursuant to a Lawful Agreement. 

156514

330854, 

issued August 10, 2017
 

CU13 I-037, issued December 11, 2015
updated 10/17/17