February 2018

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Commission Reversed ALJ’s Finding that Respondent Violated § 10(1)(e) When it Unilaterally Ceased Providing Performance Wage Increases to Certain Employees After the Union Became Certified as Their Exclusive Representative; Respondent Not Obligated to Implement Discretionary Wage Increases Provided for by Salary Plan as Commission Precedent Holds that Where Wage Increases in the Past Were Discretionary, Employer is Not Required to Give a Wage Increase to Maintain Status Quo; MERC Not Obligated to Follow NLRB Case Law, Especially Where NLRB Precedent Conflicts with Commission Precedent and Other NLRB Precedent.

Duty to Bargain; Status Quo

Wayne County Treasurer -and- AFSCME Council 25, Local 1659 -and- Khalid Rizvi

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party Failed to Provide Factual Basis Which Would Support a Finding that Respondent Employer Discriminated or Retaliated Against Him for Engaging in, or Refusing to Engage in, PERA Protected Activities; No Factually Supported Allegations that Would Establish that Respondent Union Acted Arbitrarily, Discriminatorily or in Bad Faith; Fact that a Member is Dissatisfied With His/Her Union’s Efforts Insufficient to Constitute a Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation.

C17 K-092 & CU17 K-031

(no exceptions)

City of Farmington Hills and Teamsters Local 214

Petition for Election Granted:  Establishment of a Separate Bargaining Unit Was Not Contested;  All on-call Part-Time Firefighters, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and District Chiefs Employed by Employer, Excluding Full-Time Positions, are Eligible to Vote in that Election.

Representation; Uncontested Petition for Election

AFSCME Council 25 and its Affiliated Local 101 -and- Kenneth H. Montroy

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Respondent’s Decision to Not Arbitrate Charging Party’s Grievance Was Not Arbitrary When Proceeding to Arbitration Would Have Been Unlikely to Succeed; Respondent Did Not Violate its Duty of Fair Representation When it Decided Not to Speak to Charging Party’s Former Supervisor or Co-Workers When Charging Party Did Not Give Respondent any Reason to Believe these Parties Would Support His Assertions; Respondent’s Failure to File a Separate Grievance Over Charging Party’s Subsequent Termination Did Not Violate its Duty of Fair Representation; Respondent’s Obligations Under the Duty of Fair Representation Ended When its Arbitration Panel Reviewed Respondent’s Grievance and Made a Good Faith, Reasoned Decision the Grievance Did Not Warrant Arbitration.  

CU15 L-044

(no exceptions)