May 2019

University of Michigan -and-University of Michigan Skilled Trades Union

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found on Motion for Summary Disposition – Employer (Respondent) Did Not Violate § 10(1)(a) and (e) of PERA By Entering Into a Contract with a Private Entity to Perform Bargaining Unit Work at Employer’s Facility. The Performance of Work by Individuals Outside the Bargaining Unit Was Covered by the Parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Charging Party Exercised Its Right to Bargain Over the Subject of Subcontracting, and By Entering Into Various Articles of the Agreement, Employer Satisfied Its Obligation to Bargain Over This Issue During the Term of the Contract.  Given This Conclusion, Waiver Argument Need Not be Addressed.  Furthermore, Employer Did Not Repudiate the Parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement by Entering Into the Private Entity Contract.  Contract Language is Ambiguous and Parties Have a Bona Fide Dispute Over Whether the Restrictions on the Use of Employees of Third-Party Contractors in an Article of the Agreement Extend to the Private Entity Contract and, as Such, Charging Party Should be Left to Its Contractual Remedy.

C18 G-072

(no exceptions)

Unfair Labor Practice Found on Motion for Summary Disposition – There is a Reasonable Probability That the Home Addresses, Home and Cell Phone Numbers, and Personal Email Addresses of Charging Party’s Bargaining Unit Members Would be of Use to the Union in Carrying Out Its Statutory Duties. A Union Might Need to Contact Members of Its Bargaining Unit for Reasons Outside and/or Separate from the Collection of Dues, i.e., Grievance Investigation, Providing Information Regarding Contract Negotiations, etc. It is a Long-Held Principle Under the Act That an Employer, in Order to Satisfy Its Bargaining Obligation Under §10(1)(e) of PERA, 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. The 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.

C18 H-078

(no exceptions)

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found on Motion for Summary Disposition – The parties had a bona fide dispute over the Employer’s right to require candidates for a vacant position to demonstrate that they met the qualifications for the positions before they were awarded a position and began their trial period. The bona fide dispute over the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement should be resolved through the grievance arbitration procedures contained in the contract.  The parties negotiated a provision which covered the filling of vacant bargaining unit positions. While the provision did not specifically mention a testing process for candidates before they could be awarded a vacant position, the union may have already exercised its right to bargain over an issue by entering into a contract provision which does not explicitly address the issue in dispute, but which covers the subject.

C18 K-114

(no exceptions)

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party Failed to Allege that His Termination was Connected to His Status as a Union Member or to His Engagement in Any PERA Protected Activities; Absent an Alleged Violation of PERA, Commission Has No Jurisdiction; Charging Party Failed to Establish that the Union’s Motives for not Advancing His Grievance to Arbitration Were Improper or Arbitrary; A Decision Made by a Union With Respect to the Handling of a Grievance is not Irrational Simply Because it Turns Out to Have Been the Wrong Decision or a Mistake.

C18 F-059

(no exceptions)

Order on Remand: Court of Appeals Concluded that Commission Erred by Failing to Consider Whether  the 61^st District Court Delegated the Clerk of the Court's Supervisory Authority to the Chief Deputy Court Clerk When the Clerk of the Court Was Absent and Remanded the Matter for Further Factual Determinations; Court of Appeals Upheld MERC’s Finding that the Position of Urinalysis Lab Manager Did Not Qualify as a Supervisor.