February 2017

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: The Provision in the Parties MOU Set the Amount the Employer was to Pay Towards the Sick and Accident Benefit Program; The MOU Provided that If the Employer's Costs Were Less than the Agreed upon Amount, the Employer was to Pay the difference to the Union; The Union Used the Substantial Sums of Money it Received Pursuant to the MOU, for Administrative Expenses; An Agreement Which Gives an Employer Influence Over a Union’s Finances Provides the Employer With the Opportunity to Interfere With its Internal Decision Making and an Opportunity to Subvert the Union’s Independence;  thus, the Provision of the MOU that Required that the Employer Pay the Union the Difference Between the Actual Cost of the Benefit and the Amount the Employer Had Contractually Committed to Pay was an Illegal Subject of Bargaining; The Employer Cannot Be Found Guilty of Violating its Duty to Bargain in Good Faith by Repudiating its Agreement on an Illegal Subject; It is Inappropriate to Find That the Union Violated its Duty to Bargain in Good Faith By Seeking to Enforce the Terms of the MOU Because Both Parties are Equally Responsible For the Fact That the MOU Remained in Effect at the Time the Employer Filed its Charge.

C16 C-024 &

CU16 A-001

(no exceptions) 

Illegal Subject of Bargaining; § 10(1)(b); Employer Domination or Support of Union 

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Neither Employer Nor Union Violated Duty to Bargain by the Conduct Alleged in Their Charges; Parties Had Reached a Good Faith Impasse in Their Contract Negotiations and the Employer Was Legally Permitted to Implement its Last Offer; Union Did Not Engage in Regressive Bargaining, as the Employer Failed to Show any Situation Where the Union Presented Regressive Proposals as a Tactic to Avoid Reaching an Agreement; Employer Did Not Violate § 10(1)(a) by Banning Off-Duty Employees From Leafletting to Publicize the Parties’ Contract Dispute, or by Threatening Two Employees With Discipline For Partaking in the Activity; Area Where Employees Were Leafletting was a Work Area, and the Employer Was Permitted to Prohibit All Solicitation Within the Area During Both Working and Non-Working Hours.

City of Detroit (Department of Water and Sewerage) -and- AFSCME Council 25, Local 2920 -and- Regina Bryant-Daniels  

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Untimely filed Exceptions Disregarded; Date for Filing Exceptions is Date of Receipt by Commission, not Date of Posting; Failure to File Statement of Service is Further Cause to Disregard Exceptions; Charge Against Employer Untimely as Termination Occurred Six Years Prior to Filing; Commission Has Strict Six Month Statute of Limitations Period; Charging Party Failed to Allege Material Facts to Indicate a Breach of Duty of Fair Representation; Charging Party Failed to Allege that the Union Acted Arbitrarily, Discriminatorily, or in Bad Faith by Failing to Arbitrate a Grievance Challenging Her Termination; Fact that Individual Member Dissatisfied with Union’s Ultimate Decision Insufficient to Constitute Breach of Duty of Fair Representation; Union Did Not Violate PERA by Failing to Provide Charging Party Grievance Status Updates; The Union’s Failure to Communicate with Charging Party About the Grievance Did Not Breach the Duty of Fair Representation. 

C16 H-091 &

CU16 H-052

City of Detroit -and- Coalition of City of Detroit Unions -and- AFSCME Council 25

Matter Closed by Commission: During City of Detroit’s Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Court Issued Stay on All Proceedings Before Governmental Units; After Detroit Exited Bankruptcy, Commission Notified Parties They Should Contact the Commission if Issues Involving Unfair Labor Practice Charge Were Not Resolved During the Bankruptcy; Neither Party Provided Responses to Commission?. 

City of Detroit’s Bankruptcy Proceeding
 

City of Detroit (Department of Transportation) -and- AFSCME Local 312 -and- AFSCME Council 25

Matter Closed by Commission: During City of Detroit’s Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Court Issued Stay on All Proceedings Before Governmental Units; After Detroit Exited Bankruptcy, Commission Notified Parties They Should Contact the Commission if Issues Involving Unfair Labor Practice Charge Were Not Resolved During the Bankruptcy; Neither Party Provided Responses to Commission?. 

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party Failed to State a Valid PERA Claim; Establishment of Qualifications for Holding Union Office and the Conduct of Elections for Union Officers are Internal Union Matters Not Subject to PERA; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order May Warrant Dismissal of Charge. 

CU16 F-035 &CU16 F-036

(no exceptions) 

Failure to State Claim; Internal Union Matter; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order

City of Detroit (Water and Sewerage Dept) -and- Michigan AFSCME Council 25, AFL-CIO & its Affiliated Locals 207, 2920 & 2394

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: 2012 PA 436 Exempts a Local Government Placed in Receivership From Duty to Bargain for Five Years or Until the Time That Receivership is Terminated; At Time Respondent Allegedly Breached Duty to Bargain by Unilaterally Imposing New Work Rules, Respondent Was Under Control of Emergency Manager and in Receivership, Therefore, the Duty to Bargain Was Suspended. 

C15 E-060

(no exceptions) 

2012 PA 436; Receivership; Duty to Bargain; Unilateral Change