January 2017

Technical, Professional and Officeworkers Association of Michigan -and- Daniel Lee Renner

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 I-053

(no exceptions)               

Waverly Educational Support Personnel -and- Erin Symonds -and- Maureen Chartrand -and- Nickey Hadley -and- Cathleen Patino -and- Shawn Gleason

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Respondent Did Not Violate its Duty of Fair Representation by Failing to Take Additional Steps to Provide Employees With a Private Place to Mark Their Ballots, or by Permitting the Uniserv Director and Respondent’s President to be Near the Ballot Box; Charging Parties Failed to Show the Purpose of the Insurance Election or How the Vote Impacted Them; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order May Warrant Dismissal of Charge. 

CU16 H-044, CU16 H-046, CU16 H-047, CU16 H-048, CU16 H-049,  (no exceptions)

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

City of Detroit (Water and Sewerage Dept)       -and- AFSCME Council 25 and its Affiliated Locales 207, 2920 & 2394 -and- Great Lakes Water Authority 

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: In a Federal Action Against Respondent,  the Commission was Enjoined by the U.S. District Court from Finding that Actions by Respondent that had been Ordered or Specifically Permitted by the Court's Orders were Unfair Labor Practices; During the Pendency of that case, the Court found that the Commission had Jurisdiction to Adjudicate the  Unit Placement of the Plant Technician and Office Support Specialist Positions; In a Unit Clarification Case, the Commission Determined that those Two Positions should be Included in the Bargaining Unit Represented by Charging Party; None of the Other Claims Raised by Charging Party were Regarding the Unit Placement of the Two Positions and Could Not be Resolved by the Commission. 

(no exceptions)   

City of Detroit -and- Detroit Firefighters Association, Local 344, International Association of Fire Fighters

Unfair Labor Practice Found: The Employer Breached it's Duty to Bargain By Refusing or Failing to Timely Provide Information Requested By The Union; Respondent's Contention That The Union's Request For Information Concerning Calculation of Lump Sum Payments Was Not Clear, Cannot Excuse The Delay in Providing The Requested Information When The Claim That The Request Was Unclear Was Not Made Until 8 Months After The Request Was Made; An Unreasonable Delay In Providing Relevant Information is as Much a PERA Violation as Not Providing The Information at All; The Employer's Belated Claim That Certain Medical Records Were Not Relevant to a Union Member's Claim For Disability Benefits Does Not Justify The Employer's Refusal to Provide Those Records to The Union; Similarly, The Employer Breached Its Duty By Refusing to Provide Information Requested By The Union Regarding The Transfer of Control of Bargaining Unit Employees' Retirement System to MERS; The Employer Has a Duty to Disclose Information Requested By a Labor Organization as Long as There Exists a Reasonable Probability That The Information Will Be of Use to The Union in Carrying Out its Statutory Duties; Respondent Also Breached Its Duty to Bargain By Repeatedly Failing to Credit Unit Members Sick Leave Bank Based on Hours Worked; That Failure Constituted a Repudiation of Respondent's Contractual Obligations When it Failed or Refused to Take Any Immediate or Effective Remedial Action to Cure a Widespread Problem.  

C09 L-0265

(no exceptions) 
 

City of Detroit -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; The Parties submitted a stipulation stating that the matter was resolved by the Bankruptcy Court.