August 2019

City of Harper Woods & Anthony Abdullah & Sandra Hernden

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Parties Failed to State a Valid PERA Claim and Failed to City Any Section of PERA that the Employer Allegedly Violated; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order May Warrant Dismissal of Charge.

19A0088CE &190089CE

(no exceptions)

Michigan Order of Fraternal Police Labor Council & Sandra Hernden & Anthony Abdallah; Harper Woods Patrol Union & Sandra Hernden 

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Commission’s Authority Under § 10(2)(a) Limited to Determining Whether the Union Complied with its Duty Of Fair Representation and Does Not Extend to Assessing Whether the Union Obtained the Best Deal for its Members; Issues Raised by Charging Parties About Conduct of January 2019 Election Moot as the Union and Employer Agreed to Hold a Second Contract Ratification Election; Mootness Precludes Adjudication of Claim Where the Actual Controversy No Longer Exists.

19A0090CU, 19A0093CU & 19A0094CU

(no exceptions)

Detroit Transportation Corporation -and- Derek Turner 

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Commission Has No Jurisdiction Over Breach of Contract Claims Brought by Individual Employees; Record Fails to Establish That the Union Breached its Duty of Fair Representation; No Basis Upon Which to Conclude That the Union Failed to Properly Represent Charging Party; Based Upon Explicit Language in the CBA, the Union’s Decision Not to File Charging Party’s Grievance to Ensure That His Seniority was Restored Following His Return to Work Cannot be Considered Arbitrary; Employer Began Prohibiting Charging Party From Making Job Assignment and Shift Selections in Accordance With His Seniority Two Years Before He Filed the Charge; Commission Has Strict Six Month Statute of Limitations Period.

C18 F-058 & CU18 F-022

(no exceptions)

Duty of Fair Representation; Commission Jurisdiction; Statute of Limitations

Great Lakes Water Authority -and- Association of Municipal Engineers -and- Srnivasa Prasad

City of Flint & AFSCME, Council 25 and its Affiliated Local 1600 

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondent Engaged in Unlawful Direct Dealing in Violation of § 10(1)(a) and (e) When It Negotiated and Entered Into Individual “Settlement Agreements” With a Union-Represented Employee That Purported to Resolve All Claims Related to Such Employees’ Wage Reallocation; Conduct Occurred Without Union’s Participation and Knowledge.  Fact that Employee Asked to Meet with Employer and Agreed to Exclude Union is Irrelevant; Question is Whether Employer Violated Duty to Bargain Exclusively with Union; Employer’s Purpose was to Undercut Union’s Role in Grievance Process and Undermine its Bargaining Representative Status.  Employer Can’t Require Signed Releases from Individual Employees Before Releasing Non-Confidential Information from Personnel Documents to the Union.  Respondent Violated Its Duty to Bargain in Good Faith Under PERA by Failing to Provide Relevant Information Requested by Charging Party in a Timely Fashion.

C18 F-064

(no exceptions)

Pontiac School District -&- Pontiac Educational Secretaries Association -&- Marcy Johnson

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging  Party Was Granted an Extension of Time to File Exceptions But Failed to File Within the Time Period, Violative of Commission Rule 176; Charging Party Failed to File a Motion For Retroactive Extension Showing Good Cause as to Why Her Exceptions Were Not Timely Filed; Charging Party Failed to Submit a Statement of Service Under Commission Rule 182 Attesting That Her Exceptions Were Timely Served Upon Respondents.

Rule 176; Rule 182; Motion for Retroactive Extension

City of Detroit (Dept of Transportation) -&- Michigan AFSCME Council 25, Local 312 -&- Charles Crump 

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Record Did Not Establish That Any Failure to Act by the Union Regarding Charging Party’s Grievance Was Based on an Unlawful Motive or Was Otherwise Discriminatory; A Union is Not Expected to Always Make the Right Decisions, so Long as it Acts in Good Faith; Charging Party Failed to Provide any Credible Evidence to Establish That His Discharge was a Breach of the CBA; Mere Fact That an Employer Discharges an Employee Does Not Establish a Violation of the CBA.

University of Michigan Health System -and- University of Michigan House Officers Association

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondent Violated § 10(1)(c) When it Enacted a Transition to an On-line Orientation for New Hires Based on Anti-Union Animus, Wherein Charging Party Would No Longer Be Able to Address Incoming House Officers in Person at the Orientation; Upon Contract Expiration, Parties can Address Issue in Bargaining; Exclusion of a Surgery Resident from the Bargaining Unit Did Not Violate PERA as Such Resident Participated in Program Sponsored by an Outside Entity That Did Not Meet the Criteria to be Designated as a House Officer; Charging Party Established a Prima Facie Case of Retaliation with Respect to the Recession of the Association’s Executive Director’s Intranet and Email Access; Respondent Did Not Violate § 10(1)(a) When it Announced That the Holiday Block Would be Five Days as Opposed to the Traditional Six Days; Surrounding Circumstances Relevant to Charging Party’s Allegations Involve a Department Head’s Incorrect Interpretation of a Contract Provision Which Had Been Relied Upon to Provide a Longer Holiday Block.  

C18 F-054

(no exceptions)

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Respondent Did Not Violate § 10(1)(a) by Requiring a Member of Charging Party’s Bargaining Unit to Attend a Disciplinary Meeting at Which a Respondent Administrator Questioned the Bargaining Unit Member About a Prior Incident with Another Administrator; Respondent Did Not Interfere with the Charging Party Bargaining Unit Member’s Exercise of Her § 9 Rights by Interviewing the Member Regarding an Incident with an Interim Associate Dean; Statements and Conduct Attributed to the Interim Dean and Associate Provost Did Not Establish a Violation of § 10(1)(a) by Respondent; Respondent Did Not Commit a Weingarten Violation by Prohibiting Charging Party’s Union President from Attending a Meeting or Engage in Direct Dealing in Violation of § 10(1)(a) and (e) by Offering a Professor a Settlement Agreement at that Meeting; Meeting was Not Determined to be an Investigatory Interview as Contemplated by Weingarten and, Therefore, Respondent Did Not Violate PERA by Refusing to Allow the Charging Party Union President to Attend the Meeting; Charging Party was Determined to Have Failed to Meet Its Burden of Proving that the University Engaged in Direct Dealing with a Bargaining Unit Member in Violation of §10(1)(a) and (e).

C18 E-042 & C18 E-044

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party’s Fail to Plead Any Facts That, If Proven True, Could Establish a Claim Under PERA; Charging Party’s Belief as It Related to a Contract Clause Purportedly Relied Upon by Respondent to Justify Its Actions Was Misplaced and Was Grounded, Incorrectly, on the Idea that the Absences Referenced by Respondent in Sending Charging Party to a “Return to Work Examination” Were the Absences He Had Accrued After Being Reinstated; Respondent’s Pleadings and Letters Sent to Charging Party Notifying Him of Its Requirement that Charing Party Appear for the Examination Indicate that the Examination Requirement Was Predicated on the Fact that Charging Party Had Been Away from Work for More than Two Years While His Grievance Remained Pending; Charging Party’s Claim that Respondent’s Action Was a Result of His Prior “Successful Grievance” Was Only Supported by the Close Proximity of Time Between His Return to Work and the Actions That Led to His Termination; Temporal Proximity Alone is Not Sufficient to Establish a § 10(1)(c) Violation.

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party Failed to State a Claim Upon which Relief Could Be Granted; Respondent Employer Did Not Unlawfully Interfere with Charging Party’s § 9 Rights by Looking at and Copying a Document that was Given to It by Charging Party’s Union Steward; Charging Party’s Allegation that Respondent Employer Showed the Document to Other Employees Does Not Allege a Claim Against the Employer Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted; Charging Party’s Allegation That Respondent Employer Unlawfully Took Possession of Charging Party’s Property Against Charging Party’s Will in Violation of the LMA Does Not State a Claim Under Which Relief Can be Granted; Charging Party has Not Alleged a Breach of the Respondent Union’s Duty of Fair Representation; While an Exclusive Representative is Obligated to Serve the Interest of the Employees, the Duty of Fair Representation is Confined to Matters of Employment and Its Terms and Conditions; Charging Party Failed to Allege Facts Which Would Support a Claim that the Actions of Charging Party’s Union Steward Affected Charging Party’s Relationship with the Employer or the Terms and Conditions of Employment.

19-A-0020-CE & 19-A-0065-CU