MERC Decisions Pending Before the Michigan Court of Appeals

Name Subject Matter MERC Case # COA #

Interurban Transit Partnership -and- Amalgamated Transit Union Local 836

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondent Violated § 10(1)(a) by Issuing a Thirty-Day Unpaid Suspension to a Bargaining Unit Member for His Conduct at a Meeting of Respondent’s Board of Directors; Bargaining Unit Member was Engaged in Protected Concerted Activity Under PERA; Respondent Violated § 10(1)(a) and (c) by Applying a Section of the Parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement in a Discriminatory Manner; Respondent Failed to Provide a Legitimate Explanation for its Sudden Decision to Change its Interpretation and Application of the Contract Provision Granting Leave Time to Non-Union Officer Members; Respondent’s Denial of Charging Party’s Request for Union Leave Motivated by Anti-Union Animus. 

C16 A-004,

issued July 12, 2017
 

339518
Wayne County -and- AFSCME Local 3317

Commission Denied Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration: Suspension of a Public Employer's Duty to Bargain Does Not Affect the Commission's Jurisdiction Over Unfair Labor Practice Charges Against that Public Employer; Nothing in the Language of Act 436 Discusses Unfair Labor Practices or the Commission's Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Whether an ALJ has the Authority to Hold a Hearing on an Unfair Labor Practice Charge Depends on Whether the Charge States a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted Under PERA; The Commission is Precluded From Acting in a Manner Contrary to the Requirements of § 16 of PERA and Commission Rule 161(7); Commission Rule 161(7) Provides that Any Review of the ALJ's Order by the Commission Must Await the Filing of Exceptions to the ALJ's Decision and Recommended Order.

D16 K-0900,

issued 7/12/17

339493

Clarkston Community Schools and Clarkston Education Association and Michigan Education Association -and- Ron Conwell

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondents Violated Charging Party's Right to Refrain From Financially Supporting s Labor Organization Under § 9 of PERA; Respondents' Actions in Extending Union Security Agreement in their 2012 Collective Bargaining Agreement to Successor Agreements Entered in 2014 and 2015, Violated the Prohibition Against Requiring an Individual to Pay Fees to a Labor Organization as a Condition of Continuing Public Employment Under § 10(3); Since the Union Security Provision was Extended After the Effective Date of Act 349, the Provisions in the 2014 and 2015 Collective Bargaining Agreements Were Unenforceable Under § 10(5); By Violating § 10(3) Respondents Liable for Civil Fine of $500 Each; By Maintaining the Union Security Agreement in Collective Bargaining Agreements Entered Long After the Effective Date of Act 349, the Employer Violated § 10(1)(a), and the Unions Violated § 10(2)(a); Respondent Unions Further Violated § 10(2)(a) When They Sent a Letter to Charging Party Telling Him That He Was Required to Pay an Agency Fee for the 2015-2016 School Year and Impliedly Threatening to Initiate Proceedings to Terminate His Employment if He Refused to Pay the Agency Fee. 

C15 K-148 & CU15 K-039,

issued September 18, 2017

340470

61st District Court -and- Grand Rapids Employees Independent Union -and- Association of Public Administrators of Grand Rapids

Petition for Unit Clarification Denied: Chief Deputy Court Clerk and Urinalysis Laboratory Manager Not Supervisory Positions and Were Correctly Placed in GREIU Bargaining Unit; Chief Deputy Court Clerk’s Supervisory Authority Found to be Routine and Administrative; Urinalysis Laboratory Manager’s Supervisory Authority Also Found to be Routine; No Indication That Urinalysis Laboratory Manager Possessed the Effective Authority to Make Recommendations in Matters Related to Hiring, Firing, or Discipline; Fact That an Employee has Input Into, or Makes Recommendations Concerning Personnel Decisions Does Not Mean That the Employee has Effective Authority to Hire, Transfer, Suspend, etc., Other Employees and is Insufficient to Establish Supervisory Authority. 

UC16 F-009,

issued January 12, 2018

342107 

Hurley Medical Center -and- Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 459

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Commission Reversed ALJ’s Finding that Respondent Violated § 10(1)(e) When it Unilaterally Ceased Providing Performance Wage Increases to Certain Employees After the Union Became Certified as Their Exclusive Representative; Respondent Not Obligated to Implement the Discretionary Performance Increases Provided for by the Plan as Commission Precedent Holds that Where Wage Increases in the Past Were Discretionary, Employer is Not Required to Give a Wage Increase Without Bargaining with the Union; MERC Not Obligated to Follow NLRB Case Law, Especially Where NLRB Precedent Conflicts with Commission Precedent.

C16 D-042,

issued February 14, 2018

342595

Michigan State University -and- Michigan State University Administrative Professional Supervisors Association

Petition for Unit Clarification Granted:  When an Employer Seeks to Remove Existing Position From Established Bargaining Unit, the Question is Whether, Because of the Change in Duties, the Position no Longer Shares a Community of Interest With That Established Unit; Although There are Differences Between Neighborhood Director Position and Engagement Center Manager Position Which Formerly Belonged to Petitioner’s Bargaining Unit, the Duties Added to Neighborhood Director Position Did Not Substantially Change the Nature of the Engagement Center Manager Position or Alter its Community of Interest With the Bargaining Unit. 

UC16 G-011,

issued March 26, 2018

343317

Ann Arbor Education Association -and- Jeffrey L. Finnan -and- Cory J. Merante

Union Violated § 10(2)(a) by Demanding That Charging Parties Pay an Agency Fee after They Resigned Their Union Memberships; Demanding That a Public Employee Pay an Agency Fee Unlawfully Restrains or Coerces That Employee in the Exercise of His or Her § 9 Right to Refrain from Financially Supporting a Labor Organization; Union Security Provision in the Union's Collective Bargaining Agreement Did Not Condition Charging Parties' Continued Employment on Payment of Agency Fees and Therefore Did Not Violate § 10(3); Union Security Provision Was Not Lawful under § 10(5) Because it Did Not Violate § 10(3).

CU15 K-040 & CU16 B-006,

issued April 13, 2018

343608 & 343577

MEA -and- Ann Arbor Education Association -and- Ronald Robinson  

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Unions Violated §10(2)(a) By Demanding That Charging Party Pay Agency Fees After He Resigned from Union Membership; In the Absence of a Lawful Union Security Clause, Demanding That a Former Union Member Pay Agency Fees Unlawfully Restrains or Coerces That Employee in the Exercise of His §9 Right to Refrain from Financially Supporting a Union; Union’s Intent in Attempting to Enforce the Union Security Clause Immaterial in Determining Whether the Union Violated Employee’s §9 Rights; Union Security Provision in Collective Bargaining Agreement Did Not Condition Charging Parties’ Continued Employment on Payment of Agency Fees and Therefore Did Not Violate §10(3); Union Security Provision Not Lawful Under §10(5) Because it Did Not Violate §10(3).

CU16 B-008, issued April 17, 2018 343570
Updated 7/11/2018