Mount Pleasant Public Schools v. Michigan AFSCME Council 25
302 Mich. App. 600
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- MERC dismissed two unfair labor practice charges against Mt. Pleasant and Lakeview after consolidated review.
- AFSCME and LESPA alleged PERA violations for not being given an equal bid opportunity and for blocking bargaining over subcontracting bidding procedures.
- Section 15(3)(f) governs what subjects may be bargained regarding noninstructional support services and requires an equal bid opportunity to trigger prohibitions.
- 2009 PA 201 amended §15(3)(f), limiting bargaining to the bid opportunity, not general bidding procedures.
- MERC held that if a bargaining unit is given an equal bid opportunity, bargaining over bidding procedures is prohibited; if not, the four listed subjects may be bargained.
- The court affirmed, applying de novo review of statutory interpretation and substantial-evidence review for agency findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How does §15(3)(f) affect bargaining about bidding procedures when an equal bid opportunity is provided? | AFSCME/LESPA argue MERC misinterpreted the statute. | Mt. Pleasant/Lakeview contend the equal-opportunity rule controls prohibitions. | Plain-language interpretation; equal-opportunity triggers prohibitions. |
| Who bears the burden to prove denial of an equal bid opportunity? | Charging parties must prove lack of equal bidding opportunity. | Burden shifts or is on employer? (argued by respondents) | Burden rests on charging party to prove lack of equal opportunity. |
| Are MERC’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence? | Findings misread statute; require third-party transformation. | Factual findings are supported and reasonable. | Yes; MERC’s findings are supported. |
| Was AFSCME's/LESPA's motion to reopen the record properly denied? | MERC abused its discretion by denying the motion. | Record showed no new, diligent discovery; denial not error. | No abuse of discretion; denial proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mich. AFSCME Council 25 v Woodhaven-Brownstone Sch Dist, 293 Mich App 143 (2011) (interprets equal bid opportunity and bidding restrictions under §15(3)(f))
- In re Harper, 302 Mich App 349 (2013) (statutory interpretation framework; plain language governs unless ambiguity)
- Woodhaven-Brownstone Sch Dist, 293 Mich App 145 (2011) (equal bidding opportunity; bidding on equal basis; consequence of not afforded equal bid)
- Macomb Co v AFSCME Council 25 Locals 411 & 893, 494 Mich 65 (2013) (de novo review of statutory interpretation; agency rulings reviewed for legal error)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1564, AFL-CIO v Southeastern Mich Transp Auth, 437 Mich 441 (1991) (authoritative view on wages, hours, and other terms as mandatory subjects)
- Danse Corp v City of Madison Hts, 466 Mich 175 (2002) (Attorney General interpretations persuasive but not binding)