Calhoun Intermediate School District v. Calhoun Intermediate Education Ass'n
314 Mich. App. 41
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Calhoun Intermediate Education Association (the Association) and Calhoun Intermediate School District (the District) negotiated a successor collective bargaining agreement (CBA) after the 2009–2011 CBA expired June 30, 2011.
- Michigan enacted 2011 PA 103 (effective July 19, 2011), amending MCL 423.215(3) to designate certain topics (teacher evaluation, discipline, layoff/recall, filling vacancies, etc.) as prohibited subjects of bargaining for public school employers and unions.
- The District repeatedly notified the Association it would not agree to include provisions on those now-prohibited subjects in any successor CBA and removed or limited such provisions in its proposals.
- The Association nonetheless continued to submit proposals insisting that the disputed (now-prohibited) provisions be carried into the successor agreement (including as appendices or letters of agreement).
- The District filed an unfair labor practice charge with MERC alleging the Association bargained in bad faith by insisting on including prohibited subjects; MERC (and the ALJ) granted the District’s motion for summary disposition, finding the Association committed an unfair labor practice.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Association crossed from permissible discussion into unlawful bargaining/demanding and therefore breached its duty to bargain in good faith; an impasse was not required before filing the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Association could include provisions addressing § 15(3) prohibited subjects in the successor CBA | Association: Provisions from an expired CBA may be “rolled over” into a successor agreement and can be included (or preserved in an appendix/letter) even if parties did not bargain them anew | District: The subjects are statutorily prohibited from bargaining; once District refused, Association could not insist on inclusion | Held: Provisions on § 15(3) prohibited subjects cannot be bargained into a successor CBA against the employer’s clear, repeated refusal; insisting on inclusion was unlawful bargaining/demanding |
| Whether repeatedly insisting on inclusion after the District’s clear refusal violated the duty to bargain in good faith | Association: Continued insistence was allowable as mere discussion and did not amount to bad faith; no impasse occurred | District: Continued insistence after unequivocal refusal was obstructive, impeded bargaining, and was bad faith bargaining | Held: The Association’s repeated insistence crossed from discussion into unlawful bargaining and was a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith |
| Whether the District had to wait until bargaining reached impasse before filing an unfair labor practice charge | Association: MERC could not find an unfair labor practice absent an impasse | District: Because the issue was a prohibited subject, no duty to bargain to impasse exists; District could file immediately | Held: No impasse requirement for prohibited subjects; employer need not await impasse to file charge |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Buren Co Ed Ass’n v Decatur Pub Sch, 309 Mich App 630 (discussing MERC review standards and deference to factual findings)
- Police Officers Ass’n of Mich v Fraternal Order of Police, Montcalm Co Lodge No 149, 235 Mich App 580 (standards for MERC factual findings)
- St Clair Co Ed Ass’n v St Clair Intermediate Scl Dist, 245 Mich App 498 (review of MERC legal rulings and de novo review)
- Mich State AFL-CIO v Employment Relations Comm, 453 Mich 362 (classification of bargaining subjects: mandatory, permissive, prohibited)
- Detroit Police Officers Ass’n v Detroit, 391 Mich 44 (definition and scope of good-faith bargaining and subject classifications)