International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Central Michigan University Trustees
295 Mich. App. 486
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- CMU adopted a candidacy policy on December 4, 2008 restricting university employees’ public-office candidacies and seeking assurances that work performance would not be affected.
- In March 2009, CMU issued draft procedures requiring prior discussion with supervisors and verification of no conflicts before candidacy filing; drafts could lead to discipline for noncompliance.
- Union filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the policy and drafts violated the Political Activities by Public Employees Act and harmed members’ rights.
- Trial court granted summary disposition for CMU under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and held no standing under MCR 2.116(C)(5); Union appealed.
- Appellate court held that the Union had standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the candidacy policy and that the policy did not violate the Act; draft procedures contested for standing when in draft form were not yet implemented.
- Cross-appeal by CMU officials was dismissed by agreement of the parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Union has standing to challenge the candidacy policy | Union has a substantial, statutory-right-based interest. | No concrete injury yet; policy speculative and unripe. | Union has standing regarding the candidacy policy. |
| Whether candidacy policy violates the Act by restricting off-duty political activity | Policy intrudes on employee rights to run for office. | Policy regulates work-related effects, not off-duty content; allowed to prevent interference with work. | Policy does not violate the Act; regulates only work-related aspects. |
| Whether draft procedures have standing and affect relief | Draft procedures will constrain future conduct and should be adjudicated. | Draft procedures were unimplemented; speculative impact. | No standing for draft procedures due to lack of current application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n v Lansing Bd of Ed, 487 Mich 349 (2010) (restores prudential standing; declaratory relief based on actual controversy and rights under statute)
- Nat’l Wildlife Federation v Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co, 471 Mich 608 (2004) (overruled earlier standing doctrine; requires actual cause or special injury for standing)
- Mich Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc, 479 Mich 280 (2007) (standing and injury standards applied to environmental cases; supports Michigan standing approach)