November 2013

City of Inkster
–and–AFSCME Council 25 Local 290.13

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Employer’s Duty to Bargain Under PERA Suspended After Employer Entered into a Consent Agreement with the State Treasurer While in a State of Financial Stress or Emergency; The Implementation of a Consent Agreement Under § 14(a) of PA 4 Suspended the Duty to Bargain Under § 15(1) of PERA.  Employer’s Unilateral Decision to Implement Furlough days for Bargaining Unit Members did not Violate PERA; Charging Party Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted under PERA.

AFSCME Local 1583
–and– Sharon Bushong

Duty of Fair Representation; Charging Party Failed to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted; Charging Party Failed to Alleged Facts Indicating Arbitrary, Discriminatory or Bad Faith Conduct by the Union; Charging Party May Not Raise New Issues in Exceptions That Were Not Raised Before the ALJ.

Port Huron Area School District
-and- Port Huron Association of Educational Secretaries, MEA/NEA

Petition for Unit Clarification Granted: In Making Unit Placement Determination, the Commission Is Not Required to Find the “Most” Appropriate Unit but Only a Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining; an Appropriate Unit Is One with which the Position at Issue Shares a Community of Interest; Newly Established Technology Services Assistant Position Shares Community of Interest with Clerical Bargaining Unit Where Qualifications for Position Were Similar to Those Required of Other Positions in Unit and Where There Was an Overlap in Duties; Whenever Possible, the Commission Seeks to Avoid Leaving Isolated Positions Unrepresented.

Unit Clarification; Newly Created Position; Representation; Accretion; Community of Interest

Detroit Public Schools
-and- Police Officers Association of Michigan

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Respondent Lawfully Made Changes to Terms and Conditions of Employment when Respondent’s Duty to Bargain was Suspended by 2011 PA 4; Repeal of PA 4 Did Not Require Respondent to Rescind Lawful Changes Made under the Authority of that Act; Charging Party’s Request for Rescission of Changes Made under PA 4 is not a Demand that Respondent Bargain; Respondent’s Refusal to Rescind Lawful Changes is Not a Breach of the Duty to Bargain.

Duty to Bargain; 2011 PA 4

City of Flint
-and- Flint Police Officers Association of Michigan
 

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Respondent Not Obligated, After 2011 PA 4 Was Repealed by Referendum, to Rescind Changes in Union Release Time And Other Terms And Conditions of Employment Previously Changed Pursuant to PA 4; PA 4 Suspended Duty of Respondent to Bargain; Repeal of PA 4 Did Not Require Respondent to Rescind Changes it Lawfully Made to Terms And Conditions of Employment at a Time When it Had no Duty to Bargain; PA 436 of 2012, Enacted Subsequent to Repeal of PA 4, Renders Charging Party’s Challenge Moot; Charging Party Failed to Present Evidence That Respondent Eliminated Union Release Time in Retaliation For Union Activity; Mere Suspicion or Surmise Are Not Sufficient to Establish Anti-Union Animus.

City of Inkster
-and- Michigan Association of Public Employees

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party Failed to Establish That Protected Activity was a Motivating Cause of the Layoff of the Civilian Workforce of the Inkster Police Department; Although Layoffs Were Announced Shortly After Union Sought Injunctive Relief and Filed ULP Charge, Suspicious Timing is not Sufficient to Support a Claim of Unlawful Discrimination; City’s Layoff Decision was a Legitimate Exercise of Employer Discretion and not a Pretext to Unlawfully Retaliate Against the Union or its Members; Employer’s Announcement that it Intended to Unilaterally Change Health Insurance Coverage not a Proper Basis for Relief Because Decision was Never Implemented Prior to Elimination of Involved Employees’ Positions.

Charter Township of Flushing
-and- Police Officers Labor Council

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charging Party Established a Prima Facie Case of Unlawful Discrimination in Respondent’s Decision to Contract with Genesee County for Police Services by Presenting Sufficient Evidence That Patrol Officers’ Filing of Grievances and Support for Recall Campaign Were Motivating Factors in Respondent’s Decision; Respondent, However, Presented Evidence of a Legitimate Motive for its Decision to Contract With the County and Established That it Would Have Taken the Same Action in the Absence of any Protected Concerted Activity by the Patrol Officers and the Animus Shown by its Agents Toward That Activity; Respondent’s Decision to Contract With County for Police Services and Eliminate its own Department was Ultimately Motivated by a Legitimate Desire to Save Money While Increasing Services.

Michigan State Government
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
Bureau of Employment Relations

This page last updated 10/31/14