The web Browser you are currently using is unsupported, and some features of this site may not work as intended. Please update to a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox or Edge to experience all features Michigan.gov has to offer.
|Name||Subject Matter||Date Issued||Case Number||Topic(s)|
|City of Detroit (Water & Sewerage Dept.)
-and- Sanitary Chemists and Technicians Association
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Evidence Did Not Establish that Respondent Violated § 10(1)(a)(c) or (e) of PERA. There Was No Repudiation of the Master Agreement as Such Agreement Had Expired, and the Terms and Conditions of the Employment of Charging Party’s Members Were Subject to the CET. Respondent Did Not Refuse to Arbitrate a Grievance Over the Layoffs with Charging Party as Charging Party Failed to File a Grievance Over the Layoffs. Respondent’s Duty to Bargain Over the Impact of Its Reorganization Decisions Was Conditioned on an Appropriate Request to Bargain by the Union and Charging Party Did Not Make a Demand to Bargain Over the Issue. There Was Insufficient Evidence to Establish That the Layoffs of Charging Party Members Were Illegally Motivated by Anti-union Animus. Charging Party Failed to Demonstrate Anti-Union Animus on the Part of the Employer, or that a Causal Nexus Existed Between the Employees’ Concerted Activity and Their Layoffs. Charging Party Failed to Offer any Evidence That the Layoffs had a Chilling Effect on Such Individuals Subsequent Union Activity or That of the Remaining Employees.
|§ 10(1)(a), § 10(1)(c), Anti-Union Animus, Causal Nexus, § 10(1)(e), Repudiation, Duty to Bargain, Reorganization, Statute of Limitations|
|Birmingham Public Schools -and-Birmingham Education Association, MEA /NEA||
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Bargaining Unit Member’s Evaluations, Which Were Conducted by Respondent, Did Not Violate Either § 10(1)(c) or 10(1)(a); Member’s Objection to Assignment and Reassignment Was Personal to Her and Involved Her Subjective Impressions as to the Desirability of One Position Over Another; Insufficient to Meet the Definition of an Adverse Employment Action for Purposes of § 10(1)(c); Charging Party’s Allegation that Respondent’s Failure or Refusal to Allow Bargaining Unit Member to Transfer to Another School Violated § 10(1)(c) Properly Dismissed; Neither Member’s Assignment to Kindergarten nor Respondent’s Failure to Grant Such Member an Interview for a Vacant Position Constituted a Threat Directed at Her Exercise of Her Right to File and Pursue a Grievance in Violation of § 10(1)(a).
|§ 10(1)(a), Protected Activity, § 10(1)(c), Adverse Action, Threats|