David Lee Harrison v. Hamtramck Public Schools
333424
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs: 11 former Hamtramck Public Schools (HPS) custodial employees who were compulsory AFSCME members and were permanently terminated after HPS privatized custodial services.
- HPS was bound by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with AFSCME in effect through June 30, 2015; the board voted to privatize on January 23, 2014 and terminations occurred February 28, 2014.
- Plaintiffs sued AFSCME and HPS (and an HPS employee/union official) alleging breach of contract and violations of the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), among other claims.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition; the trial court granted their motions on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed only the breach-of-contract/PERA issue concerning privatization timing.
- Central legal question: whether MCL 423.215(3)(f) permits a school district to privatize noninstructional services while a CBA is in effect, i.e., whether privatization is a prohibited subject of bargaining absent an equal opportunity for the bargaining unit to bid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PERA/MCL 423.215 allows a school district to privatize noninstructional services at any time even while a CBA is in effect | Privatization during the CBA term breached the CBA and violated PERA because plaintiffs were not permitted to bid on equal terms | HPS/AFSCME argued PERA permits privatization where the bargaining unit was given an equal opportunity to bid, and plaintiffs failed to show they were denied that | Court: Statute does not permit privatization at any time; prohibition applies only if bargaining unit was given an equal opportunity to bid. Trial court misstated the law but outcome affirmed on other grounds |
| Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual dispute that they were denied an equal opportunity to bid | Plaintiffs asserted they were not given an equal opportunity to bid | Defendants produced evidence (and plaintiffs failed to submit) supporting lack of dispute; burden on plaintiffs to produce evidence of denial | Court: Plaintiffs failed to present factual evidence; summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) appropriate |
| Whether the trial court’s reliance on authority was erroneous so as to require reversal | Plaintiffs argued trial court failed to follow controlling precedent | Defendants relied on Mount Pleasant and record showing plaintiffs presented no evidence of unequal bidding opportunity | Court: Trial court misstated PERA scope but reached correct result; no reversal because plaintiffs offered no factual proof |
| Burden of proof on summary disposition regarding bidding opportunity | Plaintiffs contended mere allegation sufficed | Defendants argued plaintiff must produce affidavit/deposition/documentary proof to defeat (C)(10) motion | Court: Burden on plaintiffs to produce evidence; their failure mandates summary disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., LLC, 489 Mich 157 (2011) (standard of review for summary disposition and de novo review explained)
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (2003) (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10): no genuine issue of material fact)
- Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch. v. Mich. AFSCME Council 25, 302 Mich App 600 (2013) (interpreting MCL 423.215(3)(f): prohibition on bargaining applies only if bargaining unit had equal opportunity to bid)
- Ranta v. Eaton Rapids Pub. Sch. Bd. of Ed., 271 Mich App 261 (2006) (PERA as dominant law governing public employee labor relations)