Uaw v. Green
498 Mich. 282
| Mich. | 2015Background
- In 2013 Michigan enacted 2012 PA 349 (part of the “Right to Work” package) prohibiting public employers from requiring employees to join a union or pay dues, fees, or similar charges as a condition of employment.
- The Civil Service Commission (CSC) had long permitted public collective-bargaining agreements that include mandatory “agency shop” (service) fees for non‑members under Civ Serv R 6‑7.2; unions negotiated such fees with the State under those rules.
- Unions challenged §3 of 2012 PA 349, arguing the statute cannot apply to the CSC because Art 11, §5 of the Michigan Constitution gives the CSC authority to “regulate all conditions of employment” for classified civil‑service employees.
- The Court of Appeals held the Legislature could restrict agency shop fees; this Court granted review and considered whether the CSC’s rule exceeded its constitutional authority.
- The Michigan Supreme Court: (1) recognized that the CSC may use public collective bargaining as a tool to discharge its constitutional duties, but (2) held the CSC lacks constitutional authority to compel civil servants to fund the CSC’s administrative operations via mandatory agency fees, rendering Civ Serv R 6‑7.2 unconstitutional to the extent it authorizes such exactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2012 PA 349 may prohibit agency shop fees for classified civil‑service employees | Unions: statute impermissibly intrudes on CSC’s constitutional power to regulate conditions of employment | State/Legislature: Legislature may enact laws restricting agency fees under PERA | Court did not decide statute’s validity against CSC because it held CSC lacked authority to authorize agency fees in the first place; thus Civ Serv R 6‑7.2 invalid to that extent |
| Whether the CSC may authorize mandatory agency shop fees as part of using collective bargaining to regulate conditions of employment | Unions: CSC’s power to regulate conditions includes permitting agency fees to support representation and bargaining | State: CSC’s regulatory power is subordinate to legislative taxing/appropriation authority; fees are barred | Held: CSC may permit collective bargaining, but may not compel employees to fund CSC’s administrative operations via mandatory agency fees |
| Whether mandatory agency fees constitute a form of taxation or appropriation reserved to the Legislature | Unions: fees are paid to unions for representation, not to the CSC; thus not a tax/appropriation | Majority: compelling payments to fund the collective‑bargaining regime effectively subsidizes CSC functions and is an appropriation/tax—those powers belong to Legislature | Held: Authority to tax/appropriate is legislative; CSC lacks affirmative constitutional authority to impose such financial exactions; rule invalid to that extent |
| Whether Article 4, §48 bars the Legislature from regulating conditions for classified civil‑service employees (i.e., whether Legislature may override CSC rule) | Dissent: Art 4 §48 exempts classified civil‑service employees from legislative regulation of public‑employee disputes, so Legislature cannot abrogate CSC rule | Majority: did not reach this question because it resolved case on CSC’s lack of power to exact fees | Held: Court did not decide §48 preclusion issue; dissent argued for preclusion but majority left question open |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. Hunter, 484 Mich. 247 (standard of review for constitutional/statutory interpretation)
- Goldstone v. Bloomfield Twp. Pub. Library, 479 Mich. 554 (interpretation of constitutional text by common understanding)
- Wayne County v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445 (plain‑meaning rule for constitutional interpretation)
- Viculin v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 386 Mich. 375 (Civil Service Commission is a constitutional body with plenary powers in its field)
- Makowski v. Governor, 495 Mich. 465 (courts cannot second‑guess executive discretionary choices)
- 46th Circuit Trial Court v. Crawford County, 476 Mich. 131 (legislature’s exclusive power to tax/appropriate and separation of powers principle)
- Soap & Detergent Ass’n v. Natural Resources Comm’n, 415 Mich. 728 (where Constitution grants means, no other means may be implied)
- Council No. 11, AFSCME v. Civil Serv. Comm., 408 Mich. 385 (CSC authority over compensation and conditions of employment)
- Dudkin v. Civil Serv. Comm., 127 Mich. App. 397 (prior Court of Appeals precedent addressed constitutionality of agency shop fees under CSC authority)