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.
August 2009
Name | Subject Matter | Date Issued | Case Number | Topic(s) |
City of Dearborn |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found- Charge Against Respondent Dismissed: Charging Party Failed to Respond to ALJ’s Show Cause Order; Charging Party Unprepared to Proceed at Hearing; Charging Party’s Witnesses Failed to Appear For Rescheduled Hearings. |
8/27/09 |
C08 B-030 |
Failure to Appear |
City of Pontiac |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found- Charge Dismissed Where Union Failed to State an Actionable Claim Under PERA; Respondent’s Lay Off Action Did Not Violate the Duty to Bargain in Good Faith; No Unilateral Change In Terms and Conditions Found. |
8/27/09 |
C07 J-242 |
Failure to State a Claim; Duty to Bargain |
County of Sanilac |
Unit Clarification Petition Denied: Facts Alleged in Petition Insufficient to Justify Designating Position as Confidential; Petition failed to Allege Facts Indicating that Disputed Position Formulates, Determines, and Effectuates Management Policy With Regard to Labor Relations, or Assists in a Confidential Capacity to Such a Person; Petitioner Failed to Proffer Any Facts That Would Show Disputed Position’s Duties are an Essential Part of Bargaining Process. Where Employer has Been Granted Confidential Exclusion and Seeks Further Exclusion, Mere Fact Employee has Been Delegated Certain Confidential Functions does not, Standing Alone, Show Necessity of Another Exclusion from Bargaining Unit; Petitioner Currently has One Confidential Employee in its Organization; Petitioner Failed to Show Necessity in Seeking a Further Exclusion. |
8/19/09 |
UC07 D-016 |
Unit Clarification; confidential exclusion |
Blue Water Area Transportation Commission |
Matter Remanded – Summary Dismissal Not Warranted; Charge Alleged Breach of Duty to Bargain; Parties Should have Opportunity to Present Evidence on Issue of Whether Respondent Unilaterally Implemented Disciplinary Rule Without Providing Union with Notice and Opportunity to Bargain. Respondent’s Claim that Charge is Time-Barred Not Substantiated; Unsworn Letter Alleging Disciplinary Rule had been in Effect Several Years Constituted Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence. |
8/17/09 |
C08 C-051 |
Duty to Bargain; Unilateral change. Summary Disposition; Hearsay |
Wayne County |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charge Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted; Charge Failed to Allege Facts Indicating that Respondent Interfered with, Restrained, Coerced or Retaliated Against Charging Party for Engaging in Protected Concerted Activities; Charging Party's Complaint that Transfer to Different Division was Discriminatory was Not Supported by her Allegations that Transfer was Condition of Last Chance Agreement to Which she Agreed. Charge was Time-Barred; Charging Party's Contention of Discriminatory Adverse Action by Employer Occurring More Than Six Months Prior to the Filing of the Charge is Barred by the PERA Statute of Limitations. |
8/06/09 |
C08 E-087 | Failure to state a claim; discrimination for protected concerted activity; ; Statue of Limitations |
Michigan State Government This page last updated 07/09/12 |