297 Mich. App. 489
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wayne County and the CEO implemented a last best offer (LBO) after negotiations failed, imposing a 20% wage cut and other concessions without Wayne County Commission approval.
- AFSCME locals and Council 25 sued, alleging violations of the Wayne County Charter and improper collective-bargaining practices.
- The LBO was issued by the labor relations division under the CEO’s direction and not submitted to or approved by the Commission.
- The trial court granted partial summary disposition to Council 25 on the failure to obtain Commission approval, and denied defendants’ reconsideration.
- The court concluded that any lawful LBO must be approved by the Commission, and that the LBO’s effect on compensation required such approval.
- The majority reverses, holding the LBO implementation did not require Commission approval and Ordinance 90-847 does not apply to collective bargaining; remand for summary disposition in defendants’ favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the LBO required Commission approval to be valid. | Council 25—LBO affected pay/benefits and thus Commission approval was required. | Defendants—LBO was part of negotiations; Commission approval was not required. | No Commission approval required; LBO permissible as part of bargaining. |
| Whether Ordinance 90-847 governs the LBO implementation. | Ordinance §5-6 requires Commission approval for actions affecting pay/benefits. | Ordinance 90-847 does not apply to collective bargaining; charter governs. | Ordinance 90-847 does not apply to collective bargaining; not a bar to LBO. |
| Whether PERA restricts local authority to use last-best-offer tactics or to regulate negotiator conduct. | PERA imposes good-faith bargaining but does not mandate tactics; local law governs. | PERA permits last-best-offer as bargaining tactic; local law can restrict it. | PERA does not prevent local-law restrictions; last-best-offer can be constrained by local rules. |
| Whether governmental immunity bars damages claims related to pay/restoration. | Damages arise from contractual obligations, not tort. | Immunity should bar damages for pay restoration. | Not necessary to address immunity; damages arise from contractual obligation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Detroit Fire Fighters Ass’n, IAFF Local 344 v Detroit, 482 Mich 18 (2008) (focus on good-faith bargaining and mandatory subjects)
- Detroit Police Officers Ass’n v Detroit, 391 Mich 44 (1974) (impasse and unilateral action after impasse; good-faith bargaining)
- Brown v Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) (impasse implementation as bargaining tactic; federal standard)
- AFSCME Council 25 v Wayne Co, 152 Mich App 87 (1986) (historical context on LBO authority in bargaining)
- Port Huron Ed Ass’n MEA/NEA v Port Huron Area Sch Dist, 452 Mich 309 (1996) (meeting of the minds requirement for contracts)
- Koenig v South Haven, 460 Mich 667 (1999) (damages and governmental liability context)
- Latham v Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich 105 (2008) (standard of review for summary disposition)