June 2015

Northern Michigan University -and- Michigan AFSCME Council 25 and its Affiliated Local 1094 -and- Mark David Kugler

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order May Warrant Dismissal of Charge; Charge is Untimely as Suspension and Reprimand Occurred More Than Six Months Prior to Filing; Allegations Against Employer for Improper Suspension and Requiring Employee to Undergo Fitness for Duty Exam Do Not Constitute PERA Claim; No Breach of Duty of Fair Representation by Union for Failing to File Timely Grievance over Suspension or by Other Conduct.

Suburban Mobility Authority Regional Transportation -and- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1564 -and- Steed Coates

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order is Reason for Dismissal of Charge; Charging Party Failed to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Under PERA Against Employer or Union.

Muskegon Public Schools -and- Michigan Education Association -and- Jan O. Martin

Unfair Labor Practices Not Found: Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order May Warrant Dismissal of Charge; No PERA Claim Against Employer; No Breach of Duty of Fair Representation by Union; Nothing to Establish That Union Acted Arbitrarily, Discriminatorily or in Bad Faith; Dissatisfaction with Union Efforts or Decision Insufficient to Constitute Breach.

Kalamazoo County and Kalamazoo County Sheriff -and- Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Deputies Association -and- Robert Schreiner, Sarah Swafford, Don Boven, and Greg Shutes

Unfair Labor Practice Found and Not Found: Respondent Employers Violated § 10(1)(a) of PERA by Permitting Sergeants (Who are Supervisors as Commission Defines That Term) to Bargain on Behalf of Non-Supervisors and Represent Non-Supervisors in Grievances; Employers Interfered with Employees' Section 9 Rights and Interfered with Administration of Labor Organization in Violation of Section 10(1)(b); Respondent Union Did Not Violate PERA by Making Membership in the Fraternal Order of Police a Condition of Union Membership, by Refusing to Permit Charging Parties to Participate in Executive Board Election, or by Excluding Them from Running for Union Office; These Were Internal Union Matters and Not Within Scope of Union's Duty of Fair Representation; Respondent Union Did Not Violate § 10(2)(a) by failing to Stop Employees from Harassing Charging Parties for Exercising Their § 9 Rights.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 337 -and- Michael Williams

Motion for Reconsideration Granted: Charging Party was Employed by a Privately Owned Company and Not a Public Employee Covered Under PERA; Motion Granted to Clarify Basis of ALJ's Recommended Order that Commission Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

Michigan State Government
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
Bureau of Employment Relations

This page last updated 7/2/2015