June 2019

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondent Unlawfully Restrained or Coerced Charging Party in the Exercise of Charging Party’s § 9 Right to Refrain from Financially Assisting a Union by Demanding That Charging Party Complete a Union Membership Application and Pay Respondent a Service Fee. A Reasonable Employee, When Told by His Bargaining Agent That He or She Must Do Something as a “Term of His Employment,” Without Any Further Explanation, Would Conclude That Either the Union or His Employer Would Take Some Action If He or She Failed to Do So. The Determination of Whether a Statement Constitutes Unlawful Coercion or Restraint Does Not Depend on Whether the Employee Was in Fact Coerced, But Whether a Reasonable Employee Would Interpret the Statement as a Threat.

CU18 F-023

(no exceptions)

§ 10(2)(a), Act 349, Hudson Packet, Restraint, Coercion, Union Security Agreement

Anchor Bay Education Association, MEA/NEA
-and- Ryan Zerkel
-and- Frances Matlock
-and- Matthew Duffield

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charge Failed to State a Claim under PERA; Union’s Duty of Fair Representation Extends to Union Conduct in Representing Employees in Their Relationship with Their Employer but 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; Union May Lawfully Exclude Non-Members from Union Meetings; Union Does Not Breach Its Duty of Fair Representation by Failing to Adequately Communicate with a Member Unless that Failure Results in Some Actual Harm to the Member; Charging Parties Failed to Establish That They Suffered Actual Harm as the Result of Their Exclusion from Union Meetings, the Union’s Alleged Failure to Adequately Communicate the Tentative Agreement’s Insurance Options, Nor Did They Articulate How the Union’s Actions Restrained or Interfered with Their Exercise of Their § 9 Rights.

CU18 J-035

(no exceptions)

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Commission Has No Jurisdiction Over Breach of Contract Claims Brought by Individual Employees. Charging Party Asserts That The Employer Refused to Allow Her to Have a Union Representative Present at a Meeting with Management. The Pleadings Filed by Charging Party in This Matter Do Not Set Forth Any Facts Which, if True, Would Establish That the Employer Violated Her Right to Union Representation. There Is No Allegation That the Meeting Was Investigatory in Nature or Any Indication That Charging Party Reasonably Believed That Discipline Would Result From That Discussion. In Regard to The Charge Against the Union, The Mere Fact that a Member is Dissatisfied With Their Union’s Efforts Is Insufficient to Constitute a Proper Charge of a Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation. To Whatever Extent Charging Party Disagreed With the Union’s Decision-Making Generally or Its Handling of the Grievance, There is No Factually Supported Allegation Which Would Suggest That the Union Acted Arbitrarily, Discriminatorily, or in Bad Faith in Connection With This Matter.

19-A-0092-CE &
19-A-0095-CU

(no exceptions)

Dewitt Educational Support Personnel Association, Michigan Education Association
-and- Kimberly Stepanski

Unfair Labor Practice Found: Respondent Violated § 9(1)(b) and 10(2) by Rejecting Charging Party’s Revocation of Her Financial Obligation and Restricting Her Right to Resign Her Membership at Will. The Fact That Only One Billing Statement Was Sent to Charging Party Does Not Obviate the Fact That the Union’s Attempt to Collect Dues From Charging Party Under Such Circumstances Constituted a Violation of § 10(2)(a). Charging Party is Not, However, Entitled to an Order Requiring the MEA to Further Modify Its Bylaws. Pursuant to a Remedial Order, The MEA Previously Amended Their Bylaws. The ALJ Has No Authority to Make a Determination Regarding Whether Such Change Specifically Conforms to the Remedial Order Previously Issued and It Would Not Be Appropriate to Consider the Legality or Appropriateness of Any Additional Changes to The Article of the Bylaws Which May Have Been Proposed by Respondent During the Course of the Instant Litigation. The Determination of Whether to Grant the Relief Requested by Charging Party Rests Solely on the Language of the MEA Bylaws as They Are Presently Comprised.

CU13 J-065

(no exceptions)

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: The Essence of the Charge Alleged That the Union Violated PERA by Failing to Follow Its Constitution, By-Laws, and Internal Rules Regarding Alleged Misconduct Committed by a Member of the Union and Reported by Charging Party. The Duty of Fair Representation Does Not Embrace Matters Involving the Internal Structure and Affairs of Labor Organizations Which Do Not Impact Upon the Relationship of Bargaining Unit Members to Their Employer. Internal Union Matters Are Outside the Scope of PERA and Are Left to The Members Themselves to Regulate. The Duty of Fair Representation Applies Only to Those Policies and Procedures Which Have a Direct Effect on the Terms and Conditions of Employment.

19-C-0471-CU

(no exceptions)

Summary Disposition, Failure to State a Claim, Internal Union Matter, Duty of Fair Representation

Unfair Labor Practice Found: While Testing/Interview Materials of Respondent Were Protected From Disclosure, That Fact Did Not Excuse Respondent’s Disregard of Its Duty to Provide Information With Both Completeness and Reasonable Promptness. Respondent’s Delay in Providing the Information It Did Provide, and Respondent’s Failure to Provide Its Justification as to Why It Would Not Provide the Information Ultimately Deemed Protected Were Unreasonable: An Employer Subject to PERA, in Order to Satisfy Its Bargaining Obligation Under § 10(1)(e) of the Act, Must Supply in a Timely Manner Information Requested by the Union Which Will Permit the Bargaining Representative To Engage in Collective Bargaining and Police the Administration of Its Collective Bargaining Agreement. Information Relating to Terms and Conditions of Employment, Such as Wages, Job Descriptions, and Other Information Pertaining to Bargaining Unit Employees, is Presumptively Relevant, and Will Be Ordered Disclosed Unless the Employer Rebuts the Presumption. Employer Has a Duty to Disclose the Requested Information as Long as There Exists a Reasonable Probability That the Information Will be of Use to the Union in Carrying Out Its Statutory Duties. The Employer May Rebut the Presumption by Demonstrating a Legitimate Confidentiality Interest Which Would be Damaged by Disclosure of the Information.

C17 G-067

(no exceptions)

§ 10(1)(e), Information Request, Presumptively Relevant, Confidentiality

Election Directed: Commission Has Never Found the Position of Jail Administrator to be an Executive, and, Therefore, Exempt from Collective Bargaining. Public Act 232, the State’s Correction Code, and Rules Cited by the Employers Do Not Bestow upon the Jail Administrator a Sufficient Degree of Autonomy Similar to the Level Found in the Positions of Sheriff, Undersheriff, City Assessor, or Any of the Other Myriad of Positions That the Commission Has Considered as Executive Positions by Nature of Statute or Charter. While a Representation Matter is Treated as a Non-Adversarial Proceeding, to the Extent That There Is a Burden of Proof, It Falls Upon the Party That is Attempting to Deny the Right to be Represented for Purposes of Collective Bargaining to an Employee Covered by PERA. It is Up to That Party to Present Evidence That Inclusion of the Position Would Be Improper Under the Act. When Faced with the Question of Whether a Particular Position is An Executive, The Commission is Concerned With the Scope of Its Responsibilities, the Extent of Its Authority, and the Interchangeability of Its Functions with Other Executives. The Commission Applies the Executive Exclusion Cautiously So as to Fulfill PERA’s Purpose of Providing Employees with an Opportunity to be Represented and Bargain Collectively. The Record Does Not Establish That Jail Administrator is an Executive Position.

R18 G-050

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: ALJ Erred by Concluding that Respondent Violated § 10(1)(a) of the Act and, as such, The Commission Must Reverse the ALJ’s Decision and Recommended Order and Dismiss the ULP Charge. Charging Party’s Contention that WSU Associate Vice President Made a Statement in a Management-Union Meeting that Constituted an Unlawful Threat Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. An Employer’s Remarks Must be Analyzed in Light of the Context in Which They Occurred, as Well as to Their Content, to Determine Whether They Constitute an Implied or Express Threat. The Vice President’s Statement That She Could Require Employees to Attend Events Was Not a Threat Which Interfered With the § 9 Rights of Employees. At Most, It Was a Prediction of What Would Happen if Employees Chose Not to Volunteer for Recruiting Events. There Is No Dispute That the Collective Bargaining Agreement Allows the Employer to Assign an Admission Counselor to Cover an Event When No Counselor Volunteers to Cover the Event.