April 2019

Charge Dismissed: Charging Party’s § 10(1)(e) Allegation of a One-Day Change in Break Time Schedules Is a Single Contractual Breach, Not Re-Writing of Contract or Repudiation. Change Was Not Substantial; Nor Did It Have Significant Impact on Bargaining Unit. While There May Be Evidence of a Hostile Work Environment, Working for an Unpleasant, Mean-Spirited or Otherwise Unfair Manager Does Not, by Itself, Establish a PERA Violation. Charging Party Failed to Establish that Foreman Engaged in Conduct That Would Tend to Restrain or Coerce a Reasonable Employee in the Exercise of PERA Rights in Violation of § 10(1)(a). Nor do Allegations of Retaliation Based on the Filing of Numerous Grievances Against Foreman Rise to the Level of a § 10(1)(c) Violation as There was Nothing to Show that Action was Predicated on Anti-Union Animus or Hostility Toward Protected Rights. Also, no Adverse Employment Action was Taken and It Was Agreed That No Discipline or Other Negative Treatment Resulted.

C17 L-105

(no exceptions)

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Failure to Respond to Order to Show Cause May Warrant Dismissal of Charge; Dissatisfaction with Union’s Efforts and Decisions Insufficient to Constitute Breach of Duty of Fair Representation; Duty Does Not Embrace Matters Involving the Internal Structure and Affairs of Labor Organizations that Do Not Impact Upon the Relationship of Bargaining Unit Members to Their Employer; Allegations Appear to Encompass Internal Union Matters; Even if the Implementation of Increase in Membership Dues Violated Union’s Own Constitution or Bylaws, Charging Party Has Not Articulated How Such Actions Violate PERA.

CU18 I-030

(no exceptions)

University of Michigan (Hospital/Medical Center) -and- Michigan Nurses Association

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Respondent Did Not Violate Duty to Bargain by Unilaterally Changing the Schedules for Nurse Practitioners Employed in the Cardiovascular ICU and the Accompanying Step-Down Unit; Charging Party Failed to Identify any Provision in the Contract or MOU Which Would Constitute a Restriction of Respondent’s Authority to Make Changes to the Number of Shifts That Nurse Practitioners Would be Required to Work; Commission Has Repeatedly Found That a Unilateral Change in Working Hours by a Public Employer Does Not Constitute a PERA Violation Where There is Contract Language Giving Management the Right to Establish Work Schedules.

C18 F-052

(no exceptions)

Duty to Bargain; Repudiation; Management Rights

Henry Ford College -and- Henry Ford Community College Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Local 1650 -and- Henry Ford Community College Support Staff Association (HFSSA)

Petition for Unit Clarification Denied: Petition Filed by Local 1650 to Add Newly Created Success Navigator Position to its Bargaining Unit Denied; Similarities Between Duties of Success Navigators and Other Positions Within the HFSSA Unit Established a Community of Interest; Commission Deferred to the Employer’s Good Faith Decision to Place the Position Within the HFSSA Unit.

UC17 C-004

Unit Clarification; Community of Interest

Plymouth-Canton Community Schools -and- Plymouth-Canton Education Office Personnel Local 6172, AFT Michigan -and- Lisa A. Faur

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party Failed to Provide any Factually Supported Allegation Against the Union Which, if Proven, Would Establish That it Violated PERA by Deciding to Not Arbitration Charging Party’s Grievance; Charging Party Failed to Establish a Breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by the Employer; Mere Fact That an Employer Discharges an Employee Does Not Establish a Violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement; ALJ Did not Err by Failing to Conduct an Evidentiary Hearing; Commission Rule 165 Authorizes the ALJ to Summarily Dispose of a Case.

Petition for Election Dismissed: Petition Not Appropriate Because the Unit of Guest Services Employees Proposed by Petitioner Represented a Fragment of a Larger Residual Unit Which Included Positions Within the Patient Services Job Series; Fact That Employees Have Different Job Duties or Functions Does Not Necessarily Mean That They Lack a Community of Interest.

Commission Directed Election: Election to Sever the Employer’s Act 312-Eligible Employees from an Existing Unit Represented by the Incumbent Union That Also Included Jail Division Deputies Appropriate; Determination of Act 312-eligibility is a Two-Part Test; First, the Employee Must Be Subject to the Hazards of Police Work and, Second, the Department Employer Must Be A Critical-Service Department Engaging Such Employees and Having as Its Principal Function the Promotion of the Public Safety, Order and Welfare So That a Work Stoppage in That Department Would Threaten Community Safety; Some Deputies in the Jail Division of the Sheriff’s Department, are not Act 312-eligible Because Their Duties Could Be Adequately Handled by Others if They Engaged in a Strike; Remaining Jail DivisionDeputies Not Critical Service Employees as They Are Not Actually Engaged in Law Enforcement and There Is No Indication in the Statutory Language or Legislative History That the Legislature Intended to Include Such Employees Within the Scope of Act 312.