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.
October 2013
Name
|
Subject Matter
|
Date Issued
|
Case Number
|
Topic(s)
|
Macomb County, Macomb County Road Commission, and 16th Judicial Circuit Court–and–AFSCME Council 25 and its Affiliated Locals 411 and 893, International Union, UAW and its Locals 412 and 889 and Michigan Nurses Association. Topics: |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found on Remand From Supreme Court; Collective Bargaining Agreements Granted Employer Discretion to Establish Actuarial Tables to Determine Joint and Survivor Benefits; Retirement Commission’s Historical Use of Same Actuarial Table to Compute Amount of Benefits Was Not Sufficient to Create a Past Practice Amending Agreements; Where the Parties’ Dispute is Covered by their Contracts, the Dispute Must be Resolved Through the Grievance Process in the Contract |
10/31/13
|
C07 D-083, C07 D-086, C07 D-087 & C07 E-115 | Duty to Bargain; Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining; Past Practice |
Delhi Charter Township |
Bargaining Unit Clarified to include Newly Created Position of Recruitment and Retention Coordinator; Position has a Community of Interest with Petitioner’s Fire Fighter Bargaining Unit; Fire Fighter who is Subordinate to Fire Chief Cannot be Excluded from Bargaining Unit Based on Claims of Supervisory Duties; Placement of a Position within a Bargaining Unit Cannot be Affected by Decision by Employee to Join or Not Join Labor Organization; Potential Conflict Between Union Policy and Duties of Position is Not Relevant to Unit Placement. |
10/31/13
|
UC11 J-018 | Unit Clarification. Community of Interest; Fire fighter (MCL 423.213) |
|
No Unfair Labor Charge Found: Union Has Considerable Discretion to Decide Whether to Pursue Grievance; Unions Failure to Adequately Communicate with a Member About Grievance is Not in Itself a Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation; To Prevail on a Duty of Fair Representation Claim Premised on Union’s Failure to Pursue Grievance, Charging Party Must Allege and Prove both Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation and an Underlying Breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by the Employer; Substantive Examination of Union’s Performance Must be Highly Deferential; Union Does Not Breach Duty of Fair Representation Unless it’s Actions are Arbitrary, Irrational, and Outside a “Wide Range of Reasonableness |
10/28/13
(20 Day Order) |
CU09 E-016 |
Duty of Fair Representation; Union Discretion; Contract Breach by Employer; Burden of Proof; Credibility Determination |
Charter Township of Royal Oak -and- Richard D. Miles |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found; Allegations Failed to State a Valid PERA Claim; Charging Party Failed to Respond to Order to Show Cause; Charge Alleged that Township Violated the “Federal Fair Labor Act”; Commission Has No Jurisdiction over Matters of Federal Law |
10/25/13
(20 Day Order) |
C13 G-134 |
Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order; Failure to State a Claim; Summary Disposition; Commission Jurisdiction |
Detroit Public Schools |
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found; Charging Party’s Allegations Failed to State a Valid PERA Claim; Charging Party Alleged That Employer Unlawfully Discriminated against Her in Retaliation for Protected Concerted Activity by Failing to Recall Her from Layoff; Employer Submitted Motion for Summary Disposition Supported by Documentary Evidence That Charging Party Irrevocably Resigned Position Before the Date She Contends She Should Have Been Recalled; Charging Party Failed to Respond to Employer's Motion for Summary Disposition; ALJ issued Show Cause Order Requiring Charging Party to Provide Factually Supported Allegations to Rebut Employer's Assertions; Charging Party's Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order Warrants Dismissal |
10/18/13
(20 Day Order) |
C13 B-027 | Failure to State a Claim; Failure to Respond to Show Cause Order; Failure to Respond to Motion for Summary Disposition |
Washtenaw Community College -and- AFSCME Council 25, Local 1921.1
|
Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Charge Not Served Timely; to Be Timely Charge Must Be Served within 6 Month Period Set by PERA § 16(a); Charge May Be Served by Facsimile Transmission, but Only with Permission of Respondent; Charging Party's Attempt to Serve Charge by Fax, While Timely, Was Ineffective Because Respondent Did Not Consent to Receive Service by Fax; Service of Charge Attempted by Certified Mail Was Received outside the Limitations Period. |
10/10/13
(20 Day Order) |
C13 B-036 | Statute of Limitations; Service of Charge by Fax |
Michigan State Government This page last updated 10/31/14 |