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.
June 2006
Name | Subject Matter | Date Issued | Case Number |
City of Burton –and- Teamsters Local 214 |
Direction of Election – Positions of Controller and Department of Public Works Director Not Executives; Neither Position is Charter-Created; Positions Lack Autonomy, Direct Access to Council, Have No Significant Role in Formulating Policy, or Significant Authority Over Expenditure of City Funds; Positions May be Included in Unit of Administrative and Supervisory Employees. |
6/29/06 |
R05 K-142 |
City of Ann Arbor –and- American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 25 |
Unit Clarification Petition Dismissed - Neither GIS Coordinator nor Traffic Engineer Position Shares Community of Interest with Employees in Petitioner’s Unit; Maximum Salary for GIS Position Substantially More Than Top Range Paid to Unit Positions; Reporting Requirements for GIS Different Than Other Unit Employees; GIS Coordinator Works Most Closely with Supervisors and Managers Outside Petitioner’s Unit; Traffic Engineer Position is Not Newly Created, Has Been Historically Excluded and Has Not Undergone Recent, Substantial Change. |
6/29/06
|
UC05 B-005 |
Saginaw Valley State University –and- Saginaw Valley State University Support Staff Association, MEA/NEA |
Unit Clarification Petition Granted- Positions of Coordinator Construction Projects & CADD and Operations Coordinator Not Excluded From Petitioner’s Unit As “Administrative.” No Explicit or Implicit Agreement to Exclude Positions from Unit; Standards for Exclusion Must be Clear on the Record; No Extreme Divergence of Community of Interest Warranting Exclusion from Unit. No Other Unit Seeks to Represent Employees and Accretion Consistent with Objective of Avoiding Fractionalization of Multiple Bargaining Units. |
6/29/06
|
UC03 B-09 |
Detroit Public Schools |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – No Support in Record that Head Custodian Worked Overtime Belonging to Charging Party or Others; Collective Bargaining Agreement Was Not Violated by Imperfect Division of Overtime; Contract Language Stating “Equally as Possible” Does Not Require Perfection; Union Did Not Breach Duty of Fair Representation; No Evidence That Its Investigation was Irrational, Unreasoned, Indifferent, Reckless, Or Conducted in a Manner That Was Arbitrary, Discriminatory, or in Bad Faith. |
6/28/06
|
C03 K-241 & CU03 K-049 |
City of Pontiac |
Unfair Labor Practice Found - Failure to Timely Notify Union of Rejection of Tentative Agreement Constitutes Breach of Duty to Bargain; Employer had Duty to Expeditiously and Decisively Notify Union of Decision to Reject Agreement and Provide Its Reasons for Doing So in Order to Facilitate Further Bargaining. |
6/28/06 |
C04 G-189 |
Oak Park Public Safety Officers Association –and- City of Oak Park |
Unfair Labor Practice Found – Union Breached Duty to Bargain in Good Faith by Unlawfully Insisting that Non-Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining Reach Impasse and by Submitting Related Proposals to Act 312 Arbitration; Equivalent Standard to Inextricably Intertwined is that There Must be Significant Impact on Fire Fighter Safety; Number of Firefighters at Scene Not Number per Shift Impacts Safety; Manning Proposal is Mandatory Subject of Bargaining When There is Competent Evidence That Proposal Has Demonstrable and Significant Relationship to Safety of Employees; Must be Competent Evidence that Manning Proposal Has Impact on Risk of Injury or Harm to Member(s) of Bargaining Unit; Impermissible to Mandate Number of Officers per Shift and/or Size of Work Force; Number of Fire Fighters or Personnel at Scene, not Number per Shift Impacts Safety; Work Sought to be Preserved that Historically has Been Performed by Employees of Other Bargaining Unit is Not Mandatory Subject of Bargaining; Proposal Which Mandates Level of Service City Provides, Such as Whether to Provide Manpower to Perform Law Enforcement Responsibilities During Fire Incident, is Permissible Subject of Bargaining; Proposal that Seeks to Limit Personnel at Fire Scene to PSOs is not Mandatory Subject of Bargaining; Union’s Layoff Proposals are Not Mandatory Subject of Bargaining Because They Directly Impact Employees in Other Bargaining Units. |
6/27/06 |
CU03 A-005 |
Southwest Michigan Symphony Orchestra |
Motion for Summary Disposition Granted - Union Failed to Comply with Order to Show Cause as to Why Charge Should Not be Dismissed. |
6/14/06
(20 day order) |
C06 B-028 |
City of Detroit (Water & Sewerage Department) –and- AFSCME Council 25, Local 207 |
Unfair Labor Practice Found- Information Regarding Unit Members’ Time and Attendance Records is Presumptively Relevant and Therefore Employer Must Supply; Information Regarding Employer’s Subcontracting is Not Presumptively Relevant But Use Was To Litigate a Grievance and Therefore Employer Must Provide; Employer Violated Duty to Bargain in Good Faith by Failing to Comply With Union’s Information Requests; Employer Ordered to Furnish Documents to Union |
6/13/06
(20 day order) |
C05 B-037 |
City of Detroit (Recreation Department) –and- Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Union, Local 67 |
Unfair Labor Practice Found- Employer Violated Duty to Bargain in Good Faith by Failing to Comply With Union’s Information Requests; Employer Must Supply Information That is Presumptively Relevant or For Which Union Has Demonstrated Relevance; Information Regarding Unit Members’ Time and Attendance Records is Presumptively Relevant; Information Regarding Employer’s Subcontracting is Not Presumptively Relevant But Union Explained That It Was Needed To Litigate a Grievance; Employer Ordered to Furnish Documents to Union |
6/13/06
(20 day order) |
C04 D-095 |
Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Services –and- United Steelworkers of America, Local 9036 –and- Sharlene Young |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found- Failure to State a Claim Against Employer; Absent Allegation that Employer was Motivated by Charging Party’s Union or Other Protected Activity, Fairness of Termination Not Examined; Charging Party Failed to Present Evidence of Unlawful Activity by Union |
6/13/06
(20 day order) |
C05 I-213 & CU05 I-036 |
Michigan State Government This page last updated 09/13/06 |