December 2016

Unfair Labor Practice Charge Withdrawn: Parties Settled the Matter and Agreed to Withdrawal of Charge.

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Respondent Had No Duty to Bargain Over Union Contract Proposals That Applied to Prohibited Subjects of Bargaining; Some of the Union's Proposals Would Interfere With the Broad Discretion Afforded to School Districts to Make Decisions Concerning Teacher Placement, Layoffs and Recall, Which Are Prohibited Subjects of Bargaining Under § 15(3)(j) and (k) of PERA; The Union's Proposals to Require the Employer to Adopt Certain Procedures in Cases of Teacher Discipline and Discharge and Restricting the Employer's Authority to Discharge Contrary to the Bargaining Prohibitions Contained in § 15(3)(m) of PERA.  Although the Arbitrary and Capricious Standard Continues to Apply to the Evaluation of the Discipline of Employees Under the Teacher Tenure Act, MCL 38.71 Et Seq, § 15(3)(m) Prohibits Parties From Including in it Their Collective Bargaining Agreement.

City of Novi -and- Michigan Association of Public Employees

Petition for Unit Clarification Granted: The GIS/NEAMS Technician Position Was Not Historically Excluded From the Bargaining Unit and Shared a Community of Interest With Unit Members; Historical Exclusion Requires Agreement By the Parties; Petitioner Was Unaware of The Position's Existence Until, Six Years After Petitioner's Election As Bargaining Representative, The Employer Posted A Notice To Fill The Vacant Position; Acquiescence In A Position's Exclusion From The Bargaining Unit Does Not Occur Unless The Bargaining Unit Representative Is Aware of the Position's Existence; Unit Clarification Petition Was Appropriate To Determine The Bargaining Unit Status of the Position; Although There Were Differences Between GIS/NEAMS Technician And Bargaining Unit Positions, There Were Sufficient Common Factors To Find That They Shared a Community Of Interest. 

UC15 G-013

Kent County and Kent County Sheriff -and- Kent County Deputy Sheriff's Association

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Respondent Did Not Violate § 10(1)(a), (b), or the Principles in Weingarten by Restricting the Union from Recording an Investigatory Interview; Prohibiting Union from Recording Investigatory Interview Does Not Interfere or Prevent Union from Protecting Itself from Liability;  Whether Investigatory Interviews are Recorded is a Permissive Subject of Bargaining; Since Prohibition on Recording Investigatory Interviews Does Not Violate the Individual Unit Member’s Weingarten Rights, the Employer Entitled to Prohibit the Recording of Investigatory Interviews. 

C15 F-084

(no exceptions)

Weingarten; Permissive Subject of Bargaining; Recording Investigatory Interviews