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 2012
Name
|
Subject Matter
|
Date Issued
|
Case Number
|
Topic(s)
|
Detroit Public Schools -and- Teamsters Local 214 -and- Denise Greer and 194 Members of Teamsters Local 214 |
Motion For Reconsideration Denied – Motion for Reconsideration Relied on Case Interpreting Michigan Court Rules Inapplicable to MERC Proceedings; Motion Offered no Authority to Support Contention that Intervention Should have been Allowed; Proposed Intervenors Merely Restated Arguments Made in Their Exceptions; Motion to Intervene and Exceptions Were Untimely and Therefore Denied. |
6/25/12
|
C07 K-252 | Reconsideration; Intervenor; Timeliness |
City of Flint -and- AFSCME Council 25, Local 1600 |
20 Day Order - MERC no longer prepares summaries on decisions without exceptions. |
6/22/12
(20 Day Order) |
C09 F-083 | Duty to Bargain; repudiation |
Township of Flushing -and- Brian L. Farlin |
20 Day Order - MERC no longer prepares summaries on decisions without exceptions. |
6/22/12
(20 Day Order) |
C11 D-083 | Discrimination because of protected concerted activity; Causal connection |
Teamsters Local 214 -and- Arenac County Road Commission |
20 Day Order - MERC no longer prepares summaries on decisions without exceptions. |
6/22/12
(20 Day Order) |
CU10 I-041 | Failure to state a claim; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order; Repudiation; Grievance arbitration |
Detroit Police Officers Association -and- Robert Boroski, et al. |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charge Dismissed for Failing to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted Under PERA; Charging Parties’ Failed to Allege Facts Sufficient to Support Their Claim that Respondent Breached Its Duty of Fair Representation; Respondent’s Filing of a Grievance that Resulted in the Loss of Charging Parties’ Promotions Was Within Its Discretionary Authority in light of its Commitment to Uphold the Terms of the Letter of Agreement with the Employer; A Member’s Mere Dissatisfaction with a Union’s Efforts Regarding the Handling of a Grievance, Alone, is Insufficient to Constitute a Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation. |
6/19/12
|
CU10 G-031 | Duty of Fair Representation |
City of Inkster |
Unfair Labor Practice Found- Employer Interfered with Employees’ Exercise of § 9 Rights; Employer Questioned Employees about the Source of a Rumor That Had Been Discussed at a Union meeting; The Rumor Concerned the Hiring of Non-unit Employees to Perform Bargaining Unit Work, Which if True Would Impact Terms and Conditions of Bargaining Unit Employment; Respondent had no Right to Question Employees or Demand Written Statements About What was Said at a Union Meeting in the Absence of a Legitimate and Substantial Business Justification. |
6/19/12
|
C09 J-203 | Protected concerted activity; Restraint; Interference |
Mid-Michigan Community College |
20 Day Order - MERC no longer prepares summaries on decisions without exceptions. |
6/18/12
(20 Day Order) |
C11 A-015 |
Discrimination because of protected concerted activity; Anti-Union Animus; Social Media |
Michigan State Government This page last updated 7/13/12 |