|Case Forum:||Michigan Supreme Court|
|Keywords:||Act 312, collective bargaining, Public Employment Relations Act (PERA)|
Dennis B. DuBay | Richard W. Fanning, Jr. | Keller Thoma, P.C. | 26555 Evergreen Rd | Southfield, MI 48076
The belated introduction of new issues during collective bargaining is a violation of the duty to bargain in good faith and is an unfair labor practice. Act 312 is supplemental and subordinate to PERA, and is a part of a complex statutory scheme created to foster resolution of labor disputes between public employers and the labor organizations who represent their employees. In sum, the legislative scheme requires public employers and unions representing Act 312 eligible employees to negotiate in good faith on wages, hours and terms of employment. This duty to bargain in good faith is exclusively defined by MERC. If negotiations do not result in an
On March 9, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the October 14, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. MCR 7.302(G)(1).
|MSC requested LDF amicus brief?||No|
The POAM is a labor organization that serves as the bargaining agent for the sheriff ‘s deputies who are employed by respondents. The collective bargaining agreement that existed between the POAM and respondents expired on December 31, 1999. On June 5, 2000, the POAM filed a petition on behalf of the sheriff ‘s deputies seeking compulsory arbitration under 1969 PA 312 (Act 312), which provides for compulsory arbitration of labor disputes in municipal police and fire departments. MCL 423.231. In its petition, the POAM identified fourteen disputed issues, including “Grievance Procedure” and “Arbitrator’s Powers.” The arbitration panel1 held a prehearing conference on September 19, 2000, and identified all the issues to be arbitrated as “economic.” The panel also identified “retroactivity” as an issue. On September 26, 2001, the POAM accepted respondents’ offer of settlement but noted that “there were remaining issues concerning ‘duration (retroactive) on wages and grievance procedure duration (retroactive/prospective).'”