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.
January 2009
Name | Subject Matter | Date Issued | Case Number | Topic(s) |
County of Washtenaw |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charging Party Failed to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can be Granted; Show Cause Order Issued for Charging Party to Justify Why Charges Should not be Dismissed; Charging Party Failed to Adequately Address Issues in Response or in Amended Response to Order; Charging Party Failed to Allege Facts that Would Support Finding of Contract Repudiation. Proving Repudiation Requires a Showing of a Substantial Breach of Contract that has a Significant Impact on Bargaining Unit and is done in the Absence of Bona Fide Dispute over Contract Interpretation. Charge Untimely Filed Under PERA Six-Month Statute of Limitations Section 16(a); Charging Party’s Assertion of Newly Discovered Evidence in Support of its Theory of Continuing Violation does not keep Charge from being Time-barred; Commission Rejects Attempts to Resuscitate an Untimely Charge on Theory that Continuing PERA Violation Exists. |
1/29/09 |
C08 H-165 | Repudiation; anti-union animus; retaliation; continuing violation; transfer of bargaining unit work; timeliness |
Detroit Public Schools -and- Bessie Y. Steward |
|
1/27/09 |
C07 H-202 | Statute of limitations; discrimination |
University of Michigan |
Remand Order Vacated – Previous Decision and Order of Commission Remanded to ALJ for Further Hearing Based on Insufficiency of Evidence. Parties Voluntarily Settled Matter and Requested Further Hearings be Cancelled. Commission’s Vacated Remand Order. |
1/27/09 |
C05 C-073 & R05 C-054 | Refusal to recognize bargaining agent; casual employees; public employer status; public employee status |
Innovative Teaching Solutions, Inc. |
Charge Withdrawn – Matter Settled and Charge Withdrawn Per Request of Charging Party; ALJ Found Respondents Committed an Unfair Labor Practice; Job Applicants have Standing under PERA and the LMA to Challenge the Employer’s Refusal to Hire; Where Respondents Share Control Over Employee’s Hiring, Firing, Discipline, Supervision and Other Terms and Conditions of Employment, Respondents are Joint Employers. Respondents’ Decision Not to Rehire Charging Parties Based on the Protected Activity of Testimony in a MERC Proceeding Constitutes a Violation of PERA and the LMA. |
1/26/09 |
C06 J-235 | Standing; joint employer status; anti-union animus |
City of Detroit |
Unfair Labor Practice Found – Respondent Interfered with and Discriminated Against Members of Charging Party in Retaliation for the Members’ Involvement in Protected Union Activity; Respondent Interfered with Employees’ Exercise of Section 9 Rights when it Eliminated a Longstanding Employee Privilege, Assigned Union Steward Tasks Outside Scope of Her Job Duties, and Physically Assaulted Employees in Retaliation for Employees’ Demands that Respondent Adhere to Contract Terms. Employee has Right, Upon Request, to Union Representation at an Investigatory Interview when Employee Reasonably believes the Interview may Result in Discipline; Respondent must Grant Request for Union Representative, Give Employee the Option of Proceeding without Representation or Foregoing the Meeting, or Deny the Request and End the Meeting; Respondent Interfered with Employee’s Section 9 Rights when it Denied Employee’s Request for a Union Representative at Investigatory Meeting and Attempted to Physically Prevent Employee from Leaving Meeting. |
1/26/09 |
C07 B-027 |
Concerted activity; protected activity; retaliation; Sections 10(1) |
Ann Arbor Public Schools – and – Ann Arbor Education Association |
|
1/26/09 |
C08 I-185 & CU08 I-048 | Weingarten rights; Commission jurisdiction; duty of fair representation |
Detroit Public Schools – and – International Union of Operating Engineers – and – Danon Wesley |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charge Dismissed as Untimely Under PERA Six-Month Statute of Limitations Section 16(a); Charging Party Filed Claim Three Years After Incidents that are the Subject of the Charge. Charging Party Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could Be Granted; Show Cause Order Issued for Charging Party to Justify Why Charges Should not be Dismissed; Charging Party Failed to Respond to Show Cause Order; Charging Party Failed to Allege that Respondent Employer Discriminated or Retaliated Against him for Exercising Protected Rights under PERA. Charging Party Failed to Allege that the Union acted Arbitrarily, Discriminatorily or in Bad Faith in its Representation of Him. |
1/26/09 |
C08 J-220 & CU08 J-056 | Failure to respond to show cause order; timeliness; failure to state a claim; discrimination; interference; duty of fair representation |
Innovative Teaching Solutions, Inc. |
Charge Withdrawn – Matter Settled and Charge Withdrawn Per Request of Charging Parties; Unfair Labor Practice Found; Teachers’ Complaints about Matters of Mutual Concern Constitutes Protected Concerted Activity. Where Respondent’s Decision to Discipline or Discharge Employees was Motivated at Least in Part by Employee’s Union or Other Protected Concerted Activity, Respondent violated PERA or the LMA. ALJ found No Violation in Respondent’s Discharge of Teacher where there was no Evidence that Respondent was Aware of Teacher’s Union Activity. |
1/26/09 |
C05 L-306 & C06 E-124 | Discrimination; anti-union animus; concerted activity |
City of Detroit -and- Association of Municipal Inspectors |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found - Charging Party Failed to Establish that Respondent’s Refusal to Advance Grievance to Arbitration Constituted a Repudiation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement; Commission Will Exercise Jurisdiction Over a Contract Dispute Only When the Alleged Breach Constitutes a Repudiation of the Agreement, Which Can Be Found Only Upon Showing of Substantial Abandonment of the Contract or the Contractual Relationship; Per Grievance Procedure Terms, Party Compelled to Participate in Arbitration Only Upon Receipt of Notice of Intent to Arbitrate from the Other Party; Charging Party Never Submitted Formal Notice of Intent to Arbitrate to Respondent, Thus Respondent’s Refusal to Advance Grievance to Arbitration was Not Contrary to the Terms of the Agreement. |
1/21/09 |
C03 D-092 | Repudiation |
AFSCME Council 25, Labor Organization |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charging Party Failed to Respond to Show Cause Order which Required Charging Party to Justify why the Charge should not be Dismissed. Order was Issued after Charging Party Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief could be Granted under PERA. Charge Failed to Allege Violation of Union’s Statutory Duties; Dissatisfaction with Union’s Alleged Failure to Timely Resolve a Dispute Over the Rate or Timing of Deductions is Insufficient for a Breach of Duty of Fair Representation Charge. |
1/2/09 |
CU08 H-038 | Failure to state a claim; duty of fair representation; union discretion |
Ann Arbor Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local 693 |
|
1/2/09 |
CU08 I-045 |
Timeliness; duty of fair representation; union discretion |
Wayne State University –and- SEIU Local 517M |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charging Party Failed to File Charges within Six-Month Statute of Limitations required under PERA Section 16 and Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could be Granted. Charging Party was Ordered to Show why Charges should not be Dismissed. Charging Party Failed to Respond to Order and Submitted Employment History and Termination Documents Instead. Charging Party Failed to allege that Respondent, Wayne State University, Discriminated or Retaliated Against Charging Party for Exercising Protected Rights under PERA. Charging Party Failed to Allege that the Respondent, SEIU Local 517M, acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith with respect to its representation of her. |
1/2/09 |
C08 H-167 & CU08 H-043 | Timeliness, failure to state a claim, discrimination; retaliation; protected activity |
AFSCME Council 25 –and- Kimberly J. Hicks |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charge was not filed within PERA’s Six-month statute of limitations period; Charging Party was Notified that Respondent would not Pursue Grievance on her behalf; Charging Party’s Multiple Appeals of Respondent’s Decision were Rejected More than Six Months before Charge was Filed; Subsequent Notification to Charging Party that File was Closed was within Statute of Limitations Period; Closing File was Ministerial Act with no Effect on the Statute of Limitations Filing Requirement. Charge Dismissed for being Untimely Filed. |
1/2/09 |
CU08 I-049 |
Timeliness |
Detroit Public Schools |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charging Party Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Could be Granted; Charging Party Failed to Allege that Respondent Employer Discriminated or Retaliated Against Charging Party for Exercising Protected Rights under PERA Section 9; Without an Allegation that the Employer’s Actions Violated Employee’s Section 9 rights, Commission does not Judge Merits or Fairness of Employer’s Employment Decisions; Charging Party Failed to Allege Facts that the Respondent Union Violated its Duty of Fair Representation; Union has No Duty under PERA to Provide Member with Information Pertaining to Member’s Employment. Charging Party Failed to File Charges within Six-Month Statute of Limitations required under PERA Section 16; Charges Filed Over Two Years After Occurrence. |
1/2/09 |
C08 F-131 & CU08 F-033 | Failure to state a claim; duty of fair representation; statute of limitations |
Flat Rock Community Schools |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found – Charging Party Failed to Establish Prima Facie Case of Discrimination Against Respondent under Section 10(1)(c) of PERA; Charging Party Failed to Show That Respondent’s Adverse Action was Motivated by Hostility Toward Her for Grievances Filed; Respondent Denied Grievances Based on Oral Agreement between Union and Respondent; Failure to Take Certain Desired Steps of Discipline Against Co-Workers does not Support Inference that Respondent was Hostile Toward Charging Party’s Protected Activity. |
1/2/09 |
C05 G-144 | Retaliation; discrimination |
Michigan State Government This page last updated 7/09/12 |