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.
March 2024
Name | Subject Matter | Date Issued | Case Number(s) | Topic(s) |
Northeast Michigan Community Mental Health -and- Office of Professional Employees International Union, Local 459 | Unfair Labor Practice Found: A Bargaining Unit Member Engaged in Protected Concerted Activity Under Section 9 by Complaining About a Missing COVID Bonus Payment and by Filing a Grievance Challenging Her Termination Under the Terms of the CBA; Charging Party Satisfied its Burden of Establishing by a Preponderance of the Evidence That the Imposition of the Performance Improvement Plan Was Motivated by the Bargaining Unit Member’s Protected Activities, as well as Respondent’s Denial of Her Supplemental Employment, to be Violations of Section 10(1)(a) and (c). | March 19, 2024 (no exceptions) | 22-D-1024-CE | Protected Concerted Activity; 10(1)(a); 10(1)(c) |
University of Michigan, (Medical Center) -and- AFSCME Council 25, Local 1583 -and- Jajuan Stevenson | Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: ALJ Acted With Impartiality and Properly Conducted Hearing in Accordance With Commission’s Rules; Numerous Allegations of Charging Party Occurred Outside of the Commission’s Strict Six Month Statute of Limitations Period; Record Devoid of Evidence to Suggest That Charging Party Was Subjected to Discrimination or Retaliation For Filing Grievances; Charging Party Failed to Meet His Burden of Proving That Either the Employer or the Union Violated PERA. |
March 15, 2024 | 21-H-1581-CE & 22-B-0245-CU | Duty of Fair Representation; Statute of Limitations; Retaliatory Employment Action in Violation of 10(1)(a) |
Board of Education of the Beecher Community School District -and- Beecher Education Support Professional Association, MEA/NEA | Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Commission Found That Because Bonuses Were Incorporated Within Wages, the Issue of a Bonus Was “Covered By” the Contract, and Therefore, the District Did Not Violate 10(1)(e); Issues Regarding Ambiguous Language Should Be Before An Arbitrator, Not the Commission. |
March 12, 2024 | 22-C-0620-CE | Covered By Doctrine |