Taylor School District v. Nancy Rhatigan
326128
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Taylor School District and Taylor Federation of Teachers (the union) executed a 10-year union-security agreement in February 2013 (union fees or membership required); CBA dated Feb 2013 and union-security agreement expires 2023.
- Legislature passed 2012 PA 349 (a "right-to-work" amendment to PERA) signed Dec 11, 2012 and effective March 28, 2013, adding an employee right to refrain from affiliating or financially supporting a union.
- Charging parties (bargaining-unit employees) filed unfair labor practice charges in August 2013 contesting enforcement of the union-security agreement after PA 349 took effect.
- An ALJ recommended dismissal; MERC reversed, finding the 10-year duration excessive, that enforcement after PA 349 coerced employees in violation of PERA, and that the union breached its duty of fair representation by negotiating the agreement.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed MERC: held PA 349 applied to agreements made after enactment but before effective date; enforcement of the security agreement after the effective date violated employees’ PERA rights; the union acted arbitrarily and breached its duty of fair representation.
Issues
| Issue | Charging Parties' Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 2012 PA 349 to the Feb 2013 union-security agreement | PA 349 protects employees from compelled financial support; it applies to enforcement after effective date | Agreement predates effective date so statute impairs contract and should not apply | Court: PA 349 applies to agreements entered after enactment but before effective date; no Contract Clause problem because statute was enacted before contract was made; statute governs enforcement after effective date |
| Whether enforcement of the union-security agreement violated PERA §9/§10(1)(a) (coercion) | Enforcement after PA 349 coerced employees to financially support union, violating rights to refrain | Agreement was lawful when made and respondents had right to enforce it | Court: Enforcement after PA 349 interfered with employees’ protected right to refrain; MERC properly found coercion in violation of §10(1)(a) |
| Whether enforcement violated PERA §10(1)(c) (discrimination to encourage membership) | Forcing fees is an adverse action and was motivated by hostility toward employees’ new statutory rights | Agreement applied to whole unit; not motivated by anti-rights animus | Court: MERC reasonably inferred discriminatory motive given timing and scope; forcing fees reduced wages and constituted an adverse employment action; §10(1)(c) violation sustained |
| Whether the union breached its duty of fair representation by negotiating/ratifying the 10‑year security agreement | Union acted arbitrarily, recklessly and for self‑interest after PA 349 was passed (but before effective date) and amid wage concessions, disadvantaging members | Union had broad discretion and acted to protect unit interests in hard financial times | Court: MERC reasonably found the union’s conduct arbitrary, discriminatory, and indifferent to members’ interests; duty-of-fair-representation breach affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun Intermediate School Dist v Calhoun Intermediate Educ Ass'n, 314 Mich. App. 41 (discusses standard of review for MERC decisions)
- Van Buren Co Educ Ass'n v Decatur Pub Sch, 309 Mich. App. 630 (deference to MERC and standard for reviewing legal determinations)
- Great Dane Trailers, Inc. v. NLRB, 388 U.S. 26 (certain conduct deemed proscribed without proof of improper motive)
- Goolsby v. Detroit, 419 Mich. 651 (union duty of fair representation and its contours)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (threefold test for union duty of fair representation)
- Mount Pleasant Pub Schools v Michigan AFSCME Council 25, 302 Mich. App. 600 (evidentiary standard for MERC factual findings)
- Bedford Pub Schools v Bedford Educ Ass'n, 305 Mich. App. 558 (respectful consideration of MERC statutory construction)