Bureau of Services for Blind Persons
Michigan Career & Technical Institute
Michigan High-Speed Internet Office
Michigan Rehabilitation Services
Workers' Disability Compensation Agency
Black Leadership Advisory Council
Michigan Community Service Commission
Executive Order 2020-107 established Michigan Workforce Development Board
MiSTEM convenes a statewide network of leaders in education, business and local communities to empower the next generation of innovators.
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Commission
formerly MI Compensation Appellate Commission
Search is currently unavailable. Please try again later.
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(s) | Topic(s) |
|
City of Detroit (Dept of Transportation) -and- Amalgamated Transit Union Division 26 |
Unfair Labor Practice Found: Commission Affirmed the ALJ's Determination That Respondent Violated Section 10(1)(e)by Failing to Bargain in Good Faith With the Union Regarding the Proposed Switch From Weekly Pay to Bi-Weekly; ALJ Erred When He Recommended that the Employer "Return the Bargaining to a Weekly Pay Schedule" and "Make Whole the Employees in the Bargaining Unit for Any Monetary Losses They Have Suffered by Reason of the City's Implementation of a Bi-Weekly Pay Schedule" Because No Implementation Had Occurred as of the Close of the ALJ Record; No Basis For Motion to Reopen the Record Because Facts Asserted All Involve Events that Occurred Subsequent to the Close of the Hearing. |
9/14/2021 | Duty to Bargain; 10(1)(e); Demand to Bargain; Covered by Contract; Ripeness; Motion to Reopen Record | |
|
City of Detroit (Law Department) -and- UAW 221, Public Attorneys Association |
Unfair Labor Practice Found: Commission Found That the Employer's Admitted Refusal to Implement a 2% Contractual Pay Increase was a Repudiation of the Contract, in Violation of Section 10(1) (e); Commission Also Found That the Change in Work Schedules/Shifts Did Not Constitute a Repudiation of the Contract Because There was a Bona Fide Dispute Over Both the Meaning and Applicability of Contract Terms; Commission Concluded That the Issue Should Be Handled Through the Parties' Grievance Procedure; Commission Also Rejected Employer's Economic Exigency Defense. | 9/9/2021 | 20-D-0755-CE | Duty to Bargain; 10(1)(e); Repudiation; Covered By Doctrine; Economic Exigency |