May 2015

Community Mental Health Authority for Clinton, Eaton & Ingham Counties -and- Avis Maria Stubbs

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party Failed to Allege Facts to Demonstrate that Respondent Acted Arbitrarily, Discriminatorily, or in Bad Faith by Reassigning her to a Different Position; Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Under PERA; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order Warrants Dismissal of Charge.

Duty of Fair Representation; Failure to State Claim; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order

Wayne County -and- Michigan AFSCME Council, AFL-CIO

Unfair Labor Practice Found- Respondent Breached Duty to Bargain in Good Faith with Respect to Nonsupervisory Bargaining Unit by Amending Retirement Ordinance During Fact Finding Without Giving Prior Notice to Charging Party; Employer and Union had Good Faith Dispute Over Contract Interpretation with Regard to Collective Bargaining Agreements for Supervisory Unit and Sergeants and Lieutenants Unit; Commission had No Jurisdiction Because Good Faith Dispute Over Contract Interpretation Must be Resolved by Mandatory Binding Procedure for Dispute Resolution Provided in Agreement; Charging Party Failed to Demonstrate Meeting of Minds Necessary to Show Past Practice Amending the Contract; Respondent had Duty to Notify Charging Party of Change in Retirement Ordinance, but in Light of Discretionary Nature of Thirteenth Check, Charging Party's Prior Knowledge of the Change, and its Failure to Demand Bargaining Over the Amendment to the Retirement Ordinance, a Bargaining Order is Not Appropriate.

Repudiation; Duty to Bargain; Good Faith Dispute; Past Practice; Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining. Fact Finding

Ogemaw County and the Ogemaw County Sheriff -and- Teamsters Local 214

Petition for Unit Clarification Dismissed: Petitioners Failed to Establish that Effective Collective Bargaining Became Impossible or that the Split of Act 312-Eligibile and Non-Eligible Employees into Separate Units is the Inevitable Outcome of Statutory Changes; Although Preference is for Separate Units of Act 312-Eligible and Non-Eligible Employees, Neither PERA nor Act 312 Includes any Prohibition on Mixed Unions; Unit Clarification is Appropriate for Resolving Ambiguities in Unit Placement, Not for Upsetting an Agreement of the Parties or Established Practice Concerning Unit Placement; The Fact that One Group Within a Bargaining Unit finds a Particular Contract Offer Unacceptable does not Mean that the Employees Within the Unit Lack a Community of Interest.

Unit Clarification; Act 312 Eligibility; Community of Interest; 2011 PA 54

Detroit Public Schools -and- Steven Zenoni

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party Failed to Allege Facts to Indicate Respondent's Misconduct was Connected to Assertion of his § 9 Rights; Weingarten Does Not Require Employer to Conduct a Meeting Before Imposing Discipline; Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Under PERA; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order Warrants Dismissal of Charge.

Summary Disposition; Weingarten Rights; Failure to State Claim; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order

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

This page last updated 6/9/2015