Standish-Sterling Educational Support Personnel v. Mark Norgan
331398
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- Multiple public-school employees (charging parties) who had signed continuing-membership/dues-checkoff authorizations attempted to resign from their local unions (affiliated with the MEA/NEA) outside the unions’ one-month annual resignation window (August 1–31) after Michigan’s 2012 “right-to-work” amendments to PERA (2012 PA 349 and 2012 PA 53).
- Employers ceased payroll dues deductions after the relevant collective-bargaining agreements containing union-security or dues-checkoff clauses expired in 2013; unions later offered an e-dues program that the charging parties did not join and ceased paying dues.
- Charging parties submitted resignations or revocations of dues authorizations in Sept–Nov 2013 (or earlier) which unions rejected as untimely per their bylaws/continuing-membership forms.
- Charging parties filed unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with MERC alleging unions unlawfully restrained or coerced employees in violation of PERA § 9 and § 10 (MCL 423.209, 423.210) and breached the duty of fair representation by not adequately informing members about resignation rights.
- MERC ruled the annual one-month resignation windows violated PERA as amended, ordered unions to accept the resignations, rejected the duty-to-inform claim, and treated one charge as timely; the Court of Appeals affirmed MERC on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MERC have jurisdiction to adjudicate whether unions’ limited resignation windows violate PERA? | MERC has jurisdiction because PERA’s amendments create rights to refrain and prohibit coercion; ULPs fall within MERC’s authority. | Unions argued resignation-window governance is an internal union matter beyond MERC’s authority. | Held: MERC has jurisdiction; the statutory right to refrain brings resignation-window practices within ULP jurisdiction. |
| Do one-month annual resignation windows unlawfully restrain/coerce employees in violation of PERA § 9/§ 10? | Charging parties: windows effectively force continued membership/support and thus violate the right to refrain and the prohibition on coercion. | Unions: § 10(2)(a) preserves unions’ right to prescribe membership rules; windows are lawful internal governance. | Held: Windows violate PERA; §10(2)(a) does not allow rules that restrain the statutory right to refrain. |
| Can members waive the statutory right to discontinue financial support by signing continuing-membership forms with resignation windows? | Unions: the signed membership/dues authorization is a contract waiving resignation-at-will. | Charging parties: waivers of statutory rights must be clear, explicit, and unmistakable; mere membership or bylaws are insufficient. | Held: Waiver of the right to discontinue financial support requires clear, explicit, unmistakable language; these forms did not meet that standard. |
| Did unions breach duty of fair representation by failing to actively notify members about new resignation rights? | Charging parties: unions should have proactively informed members about statutory changes and resignation procedures. | Unions: Legislature assigned information duties to state agency; unions provided available notice and responded to inquiries. | Held: No breach; MERC correctly found unions were not obligated to actively publicize and did not withhold information when requested. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pattern Makers' League of N. Am. v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1985) (proviso preserving unions’ right to prescribe membership rules does not authorize rules restricting resignation; supports voluntary-unionism principle)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 431 Mich. 135 (Mich. 1988) (agency powers must be conferred by clear and unmistakable language)
- Grandville Mun. Exec. Ass'n v. City of Grandville, 453 Mich. 428 (Mich. 1996) (MERC factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence; legal errors reviewable)
- Lamphere Sch. v. Lamphere Fed'n of Teachers, 400 Mich. 104 (Mich. 1977) (NLRA/NLRB precedents are persuasive in interpreting PERA)
- Health Care Ass'n Workers' Comp. Fund v. Dir. of Bureau of Workers' Comp., 265 Mich. App. 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (Contract Clause/impairment-of-contract test explained)