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.
February 2009
Name | Subject Matter | Date Issued | Case Number |
Detroit Public Schools -and- Teamsters Local 214 -and- Bernice Aiken |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found - Charge Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted; Charging Party Failed to Respond to Order to Show Cause Why the Two Charges Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim; Absent a Factually Supported Allegation that Employer’s Conduct was Motivated by Union or Other Protected Activity, or that Union Violated its Statutory Duty of Fair Representation, Commission Prohibited from Making Judgment on the Merits or Fairness of Employer or Union’s Conduct; Charging Party Failed to Allege Sufficient Facts to Support Claims. |
2/27/09 |
C08 K-237 & CU08 K-058 |
Lapeer Intermediate School District |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charging Party Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could be Granted; Show Cause Orders were Issued for Charging Party to Justify why Charges Should not be Dismissed; Charging Party Failed to Allege Facts that Would Support a Violation of PERA Section 10; in the Absence of an Allegation that Employer Discharged Charging Party for Union or other Protected Activity, the Commission is Prohibited from Making a Determination on Merits or Fairness of Charging Party’s Discharge; Allegations of Age and Sex Discrimination are Beyond the Scope of PERA. Charging Party Failed to Allege Facts to Show Breach of Duty by Union; Union has Broad Discretion; Charging Party’s Dissatisfaction with Union’s Decision is Insufficient to Establish a Breach of Duty of Fair Representation Unless Union’s Actions are Irrational. |
2/20/09 |
C08 B-050 & CU08 C-011 |
Southfield Public Schools –and- Southfield Michigan Educational Support Association (MESPA) |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charging Party Failed to Establish that Respondent’s Elimination of the Security Specialist Position was Motivated by Anti-Union Animus or Hostility toward Charging Party’s Exercise of Protected Union Rights; Change in Employer’s Decision to Eliminate a Full-Time Position Instead of Reducing It to Part-Time to Prevent Contract Violation Does Not Establish Anti-Union Animus or Hostility Toward the Exercise of Protected Rights or Suspicious Timing. |
2/19/09 |
C06 L-285 |
University of Michigan |
Unit Clarification Petition Denied – Employee whose position is at Issue is not a Dual Functioning Employee; An Employee may be Considered Dual Functioning Where the Employee Holds Two Separate Positions and the Employee’s Terms and Conditions of Employment Differ for each Position; A Dual Functioning Employee may be Included in the Bargaining Unit where the Employee has a Substantial Interest in Unit’s Wages, Hours, and Conditions of Employment. The Position Combines Teaching with Year-Round Administrative and Supervisory Duties that are Sufficiently Related to Create One Single Position. Position at Issue Consistently Supervises and Evaluates Members of Bargaining Unit and is, Therefore, Neither a Seasonal Supervisor Nor a Substitute Supervisor. |
2/18/09 |
UC07 H-022 |
Washtenaw County |
Unit Clarification Petition Dismissed - Union’s Petition for Unit Clarification Defective as Filed Given Non-Compliance with Commission Rules on Minimum Information Required to Initiate a Unit Clarification Petition; Union Failed to Substantively Respond to ALJ’s Order to Show Cause Why the Petition Should Not Be Dismissed or to Employer’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition; Petition for Representation Election is More Appropriate Means of Accretion Because the Positions Sought to be Included have been Historically Excluded from the Unit. |
2/18/09 |
UC08 A-007, UC06 J-032 & UC06 J-032-A |
Mason County Road Commission |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found - Exceptions to ALJ’s Decision and Recommended Order could not be Considered under Commission Rule 176(3); Charging Party’s Exceptions Failed to Comply With Explicit Provisions In Rule; Exceptions Must Set Forth Specifically the Question of Procedure, Fact, Law, or Policy to Which a Party Excepts; Charging Party Failed to Specify the Portion of the ALJ’s Decision with which He Disagrees and Failed to State Specific Grounds For Exceptions; Failure to Comply with Rule 176(3) Resulted in Commission’s Dismissal of Exceptions and Adoption of ALJ’s Recommended Order. |
2/13/09 |
C06 B-033 |
Mason County Road Commission – and – Greg C. Collins |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found - Exceptions to ALJ’s Decision and Recommended Order could not be Considered under Commission Rule 176(3); Charging Party’s Exceptions Failed to Comply With Explicit Provisions In Rule; Exceptions Must Set Forth Specifically the Question of Procedure, Fact, Law, or Policy to Which a Party Excepts; Charging Party Failed to Specify the Portion of the ALJ’s Decision with which He Disagrees and Failed to State Specific Grounds For Exceptions; Failure to Comply with Rule 176(3) Resulted in Commission’s Dismissal of Exceptions and Adoption of ALJ’s Recommended Order. |
2/13/09 |
C07 L-280 |
American Federation of Teachers, Local 2000 |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found; Charging Party Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could be Granted; Claim Barred by Statute of Limitations; An Unfair Labor Practice Charge must include Clear and Complete Statement of the Facts; ALJ Ordered Charging Party to File a More Definite Statement; Commission may Reject Charge that Fails to Include Required Information. Charging Party’s Inclusion of Additional Facts in Exceptions was Rejected; In the Absence of an Appropriate Motion to Reopen the Record, Commission will not Consider Factual Assertions or Exhibits that are not Contained in the Record Created before the ALJ. |
2/03/09 |
C08 A-004 |
City of Detroit -and- Association of Municipal Inspectors |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found Given the Urgency of Employer’s Financial Condition, Employer’s Imposition of a Mandatory Deadline for Contract Agreement was Not Likely Motivated by Bad Faith; Employer’s Laying Off of Charging Party Members was Not an Act of Bad Faith Given Employer‘s Warning to Charging Party that Lay Offs were a Likely Consequence in the Absence of an Agreement on Concessions. |
2/03/09 |
C06 G-170 |
Taylor School District |
Withdrawal of Exceptions Granted – Commission Grants Respondent’s Request to Withdraw its Exceptions Filed After ALJ’s Interim Order Denied Respondent’s Motions to Dismiss; Commission Rule does not Allow such an Interlocutory Appeal; Decision will be Published in Accordance with Commission Policy. |
2/03/09 |
C07 I-218 |
Detroit Public Schools |
Unfair Labor Practice Found – Respondent Failed to Respond to Show Cause Order, thus Summary Disposition was Properly Granted; Respondent Ignored Request for Presumptively Relevant Information; Factual Representations Asserted for the First Time in Exceptions Not Considered. |
2/02/09 |
C07 B-035 |
Michigan State Government This page last updated 7/09/12 |