From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Detroit Fire Fighters v. Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals
Apr 2, 1980
96 Mich. App. 543 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)

Opinion

Docket No. 43886.

Decided April 2, 1980. Leave to appeal applied for.

Marston, Sachs, Nunn, Kates, Kadushin O'Hare, P.C. (by Theodore Sachs and George H. Kruszewski), for plaintiff.

George G. Matish, Acting Corporation Counsel, and Anna Diggs-Taylor and Kenneth G. King, Assistants Corporation Counsel, for defendant.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Jon M. DeHorn, Assistant Attorney General, for the Employment Relations Commission.

Before: M.J. KELLY, P.J., and M.F. CAVANAGH and P.C. ELLIOTT, JJ.

Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.


Defendant City of Detroit appeals from a ruling by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) which affirmed the decision of an administrative law judge who found that defendant had violated § 10 of the public employment relations act (PERA), MCL 423.210; MSA 17.455(10), by bargaining to impasse regarding the exclusion of certain positions from the various classifications represented by the plaintiff union.

During negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, the city proposed to alter the recognition clause to delete the positions of Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief and Fire Marshal from the bargaining unit. When negotiations failed to produce any new agreement the city submitted the above noted proposal, among others, to binding arbitration pursuant to 1969 PA 312, as amended, MCL 423.231 et seq.; MSA 17.455(31) et seq. This submission resulted in the parties' agreement that the issue had been bargained to impasse. Subsequently, the plaintiff union filed an unfair labor practice charge with MERC, and events progressed as detailed above.

Section 15 of PERA requires the representatives of the employer and employee to bargain collectively "with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment". MCL 423.215; MSA 17.455(15). Subjects included within that phrase are mandatory subjects of bargaining. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v Detroit, 391 Mich. 44, 54; 214 N.W.2d 803 (1974).

Permissive subjects of collective bargaining are those which fall outside the scope of "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment", and may be negotiated only if both parties agree. Pontiac Police Officers Ass'n v Pontiac, 397 Mich. 674, 679; 246 N.W.2d 831 (1976).

We may look for guidance to Federal decisions that have construed provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, which are analogous to provisions of PERA, Rockwell v Crestwood School District Board of Education, 393 Mich. 616, 636; 227 N.W.2d 736 (1975). In so doing, it is evident that the redefinition of a bargaining unit would not satisfy any of the accepted tests for being considered a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v Detroit, 61 Mich. App. 487, 492; 233 N.W.2d 49 (1975), lv den 395 Mich. 756 (1975). The redefinition or constitution of a bargaining unit is, therefore, a permissive subject of collective bargaining. Accordingly, the defendant city's attempt "to restrict bargaining to only certain members of an appropriate (bargaining) unit * * * is an unfair labor practice". Hess Oil Chemical Corp v NLRB, 415 F.2d 440, 444 (CA 5, 1969), cert den 397 U.S. 916; 90 S.Ct. 920; 25 L.Ed.2d 97 (1970). And, further in accord with the decision in Hess Oil, supra, p 445, we find that MERC was the proper entity to decide this issue in the first instance. See In the Matter of Metropolitan Council 23 AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 89 Mich. App. 564, 567-568; 280 N.W.2d 600 (1979), and Local No 214, Teamsters v Detroit, 91 Mich. App. 273, 276-277; 283 N.W.2d 722 (1979).

The conclusion reached in this opinion does not leave the defendant without recourse. As was noted by the administrative law judge below, if defendant believes that the above-mentioned positions should be deleted from the bargaining unit, it may present its reasons therefor to MERC under the authority of MCL 423.213; MSA 17.455(13). See Smith Steel Workers v A O Smith Corp, 420 F.2d 1 (CA 7, 1969), and 48 Am Jur 2d, Labor and Labor Relations, § 826.

Plaintiff's petition for enforcement is hereby granted and the order of MERC dated February 7, 1979, shall be enforced.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Detroit Fire Fighters v. Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals
Apr 2, 1980
96 Mich. App. 543 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)
Case details for

Detroit Fire Fighters v. Detroit

Case Details

Full title:DETROIT FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 344, IAFF v CITY OF DETROIT

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 2, 1980

Citations

96 Mich. App. 543 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)
294 N.W.2d 842

Citing Cases

West Ottawa Education Ass'n v. West Ottawa Public Schools Board of Education

Under this test, this Court has conclusorily found that the redefinition or constitution of a bargaining unit…

City of Manistee v. Manistee Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 645

Id., p 653. See also Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 344, IAFF v Detroit, 96 Mich. App. 543, 545-546; 294…