UAW v. Green
302 Mich. App. 246
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- 2012 PA 349 amended the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) to forbid public employers from requiring union membership or payment of union dues/fees as a condition of obtaining or continuing public employment (a "right-to-work" amendment for public employees).
- Plaintiffs (public-sector unions) and the Michigan Civil Service Commission (CSC, as amicus) challenged PA 349 only as applied to classified state civil service employees, arguing the CSC—under Const 1963, art 11, § 5—has exclusive authority to "regulate all conditions of employment" for classified employees.
- Defendants argued the Legislature retains constitutional authority under Const 1963, art 4, § 49 to "enact laws relative to the hours and conditions of employment," including laws applicable to classified civil service employees, and that PERA expressly applies to civil service employees to the extent the Legislature has power.
- Civil Service Rule 6-7.2 authorized agency (service) fees as a condition of continued employment for nonmembers; PA 349 conflicts with that rule by prohibiting compulsory fees.
- The court framed the narrow question of first impression: whether the Legislature or the CSC has power to decide whether compulsory union fees for classified civil service employees are permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA 349 may be applied to classified civil service employees | The CSC (and unions) say Const art 11, § 5 gives CSC exclusive authority to "regulate all conditions of employment" for classified employees, so PA 349 cannot be applied to them | The Legislature says art 4, § 49 authorizes it to enact laws relative to hours and conditions of employment generally (including classified employees); MCL 423.204a recognizes PERA applies to civil service to the extent legislature has authority | Held: PA 349 is constitutional as applied to classified civil service employees; legislative power under art 4, § 49 and PERA §4a permits application to classified employees |
| Whether agency fees are a "condition of employment" that falls within the CSC's exclusive domain | Plaintiffs: agency fees are a condition of employment; therefore CSC rule permitting fees is within its constitutional authority and immune from legislative override | Defendants: even if fees are a condition of employment, art 4, § 49 gives Legislature power to enact laws relative to conditions of employment, so it may prohibit compulsory fees | Held: Regardless of characterization, eliminating compulsory agency fees is a proper exercise of the Legislature’s authority under art 4, § 49; statute may apply to classified service |
| Whether the civil-service constitutional carveout (art 4, § 48) or PERA §4a precludes legislative regulation here | Plaintiffs: art 4, § 48 and PERA §4a show an intent to exclude civil service from legislative labor-law regulation | Defendants: art 4, § 48 concerns dispute-resolution mechanisms (not all employment regulation); PERA §4a expressly conditions application on legislative power to control employment (so legislature retains power where constitution permits) | Held: Read harmoniously, art 4, §§48–49 and art 11, §5 permit legislative regulation of conditions of employment generally; PERA §4a confirms limited overlap rather than exclusion |
| Role of First Amendment / public policy in allocation of power | Plaintiffs: CSC's rule is consistent with First Amendment precedents and within CSC authority; constitutional rights do not authorize Legislature to seize CSC regulation | Defendants: Abolition of compulsory fees furthers protection of employee First Amendment rights; the Legislature can make public-policy choices on such constitutional matters | Held: Court defers to Legislature’s power to decide public-policy/law on matters implicating constitutional rights; PA 349 is a valid legislative choice applicable to classified employees |
Key Cases Cited
- Traverse City Sch. Dist. v. Attorney General, 384 Mich 390 (clarifies constitutional construction by common understanding)
- AFSCME Council No. 11 v. Civil Service Comm., 408 Mich 385 (interpreting limits of CSC rulemaking vs. legislative law on off-duty political activity)
- Viculin v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 386 Mich 375 (CSC is a constitutional body with plenary power in its sphere)
- Dudkin v. Civil Service Comm., 127 Mich App 397 (CSC authorized to impose agency-shop fees under civil service authority)
- Crider v. Michigan, 110 Mich App 702 (CSC authority over layoff program and internal civil service procedures)
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (public-sector agency-fee constitutionality framework)
- Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (procedural safeguards for collection of agency fees)
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, 500 U.S. 507 (scope of chargeable union expenses to nonmembers)
- Davenport v. Washington Ed. Ass’n, 551 U.S. 177 (procedural aspects of agency-fee collection)
- Knox v. SEIU, 567 U.S. 298 (recognizing significant First Amendment concerns with compulsory public-sector fees)