Macomb County v. AFSCME Council 25
818 N.W.2d 384
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Public employers provide pension benefits under CBAs; optional joint-and-survivor benefits exist and were calculated using a mortality table.
- 1982 adoption of a 100% female mortality table; 2006 change to a gender-neutral table (60% male/40% female) lowered some joint-and-survivor benefits.
- Petitioners/charging parties claim unilateral reduction of benefits without bargaining violated PERA §10(l)(e).
- MERC found duty to bargain over how joint-and-survivor benefits are calculated; ordered bargaining and continued use of 1982 table until agreement.
- Hearing referee and MERC disagreed on whether CBAs fully covered the issue and whether past practice created a tacit amendment; Supreme Court affirms MERC on key questions.
- The Court holds actuarial assumptions for calculating optional benefits are mandatory subjects of bargaining and that past practice admitting the 100% female table constitutes tacit agreement; regardless, the 24-year use supports the tacit amendment finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actuarial assumptions for optional benefits are mandatory bargaining topics | Charging parties argue they are mandatory under PERA | Respondents argue actuarial assumptions are fiduciary, not bargained topics | Actuarial assumptions are mandatory bargaining subjects under PERA. |
| Whether the CBAs ambiguous on 'actuarial equivalence' | Past practice with 100% female table created a tacit term | Ambiguity could be resolved by contract terms; no tacit amendment | 'Actuarial equivalence' is ambiguous; past practice supports tacit agreement. |
| Whether the 24-year use of 100% female table amended the CBAs tacitly | Past practice amended contract terms to allow unilateral change | No clear, unequivocal modification; no tacit amendment | Past practice sufficiently shows tacit amendment under Port Huron standard. |
| Whether mortality-table decisions are 'covered by' CBAs or subject to exclusive retirement-board control | Matters are within the CBAs and thus negotiable | Board/commission has fiduciary control; not negotiable | Mortality tables and related calculations are covered by CBAs; duty to bargain satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Detroit Police Officers Ass’n v Detroit, 391 Mich 44 (1974) (duty to bargain over pensions and mandatory subjects of bargaining)
- Port Huron Ed Ass’n v Port Huron Area Sch Dist, 452 Mich 309 (1996) (tacit amendment standard; ambiguous terms require strong evidence to modify contract)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1564, AFL-CIO v Southeaster Mich Transp Auth, 437 Mich 441 (1991) (deference to MERC factual findings; legal rulings reviewed de novo)
- Gogebic Community College Mich Ed Support Personnel Ass’n v Gogebic Community College, 246 Mich App 342 (2001) (role of contract in determining what is covered by agreement)
- Bay City Sch Dist v Bay City Ed Ass’n, Inc, 425 Mich 426 (1986) (contractual and statutory claims may coexist; avenues of relief)