Faust Public Library v. Afscme Council 25
311 Mich. App. 449
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- MERC concluded Hausman, head of the children’s services department, was not a supervisor and opened and counted her ballot in the election.
- Library argued the three department heads (children’s, adult services, circulation) should be treated likewise; alternatively, if any one was nonsupervisory, all three should be, to avoid fractionalization.
- ALJ and MERC found Hausman lacked authority to hire, discipline, or effectively direct staff; her supervisory duties derived from her librarian role, not labor relations authority.
- Library sought to introduce evidence that the adult services and circulation heads had duties identical to Hausman’s, to support a tandem/non-supervisory conclusion for all three.
- MERC refused to consider Kwik and Mehl’s duties, treating the three positions as in dispute only for Hausman, and did not admit evidence on the alternative theory.
- Court vacated conflicting MERC orders, remanded for further proceedings, and instructed MERC to first decide whether Kwik and Mehl’s ballots would be determinative in light of Hausman’s count, then determine each position’s supervisory status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hausman was supervisory. | Library asserts Hausman had supervisory authority. | Union argues Hausman was nonsupervisory under governing tests. | Hausman is nonsupervisory; evidence supports MERC finding. |
| Whether the three department heads must be treated in tandem for supervisory status. | Library contends all three heads share identical duties; status should be decided collectively. | Union contends each position’s status is separate and not dependent on tandem determination. | Merit to consider evidence for tandem analysis; MERC erred in excluding additional testimony. |
| Whether the MERC properly determined the appropriate bargaining unit given the alternative theory. | Library argues the unit could be enlarged to include all three heads if nonsupervisory, avoiding fractionalization. | Union maintains existing unit structure remains appropriate unless evidence shows otherwise. | MERC erred in not addressing the alternative claim; remanded to determine if Kwik and Mehl are nonsupervisory and included. |
| Preservation and scope regarding Mehl’s inclusion in the unit. | Library notes Mehl’s non-librarian status could affect inclusion; seek consideration. | Mehl issue not properly preserved below; not decided. | Issue not preserved; remand does not reach Mehl’s inclusion as decided matter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Macomb Co v AFSCME Council 25, 494 Mich 65 (2013) (competent, material, substantial evidence governs MERC factual findings; de novo review for legal questions)
- Clare-Gladwin Intermediate Sch Dist, 153 Mich App 792 (1986) (supervisory status defined by authority to hire, transfer, discipline, or effectively direct, with independent judgment)
- Grosse Pointe Farms, 197 Mich App 730 (1992) (general presumption against fractionalization; importance of common interests in unit design)
- Police Officers Ass’n of Mich v Grosse Pointe Farms, 197 Mich App 730 (1992) (community of interests factors in bargaining unit analysis)
- Police Officers Ass’n of Mich v Fraternal Order of Police, Montcalm Co Lodge No 149, 235 Mich App 580 (1999) (findings of fact review; supervisory status as a factual question)
- Muskegon Co, 186 Mich App 365 (1990) (definition of supervisory duties and delegation of authority)