Van Buren County Education Ass'n & Decatur Educational Support Personnel Ass'n v. Decatur Public Schools
309 Mich. App. 630
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Decatur Public Schools (respondent) chose to implement PA 152’s “hard caps” on employer health-insurance contributions effective the day after existing CBAs expired in mid-2012.
- Two unions filed unfair labor practice (ULP) charges: VBCEA (teachers) alleged respondent refused to bargain over the choice between hard caps and the 80/20 option and unlawfully implemented the caps upon CBA expiration; DESPA (support staff) alleged similar claims but never requested bargaining.
- The ALJ dismissed both ULPs: DESPA never demanded bargaining; as to VBCEA, the ALJ found respondent’s unilateral action was permitted (the ALJ also referenced a statutorily imposed impasse).
- MERC affirmed dismissal: it held DESPA’s charge lacked merit because no bargaining demand was shown, and it concluded PA 152 does not conflict with PERA nor create a duty to bargain over the employer’s choice between hard caps and the 80/20 plan.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) no duty to bargain arises absent a union demand (DESPA), (2) PA 152 and PERA can be harmonized and do not require bargaining over the employer’s statutory plan choice (VBCEA), and (3) the school district could implement PA 152 limits upon CBA expiration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PERA requires bargaining over employer’s choice between PA 152 hard caps and 80/20 plan | VBCEA: employer must bargain over health benefits and thus over which PA 152 option to adopt | Decatur: PA 152 vests choice with governing body; statute sets limits, not a bargaining duty | No duty to bargain over the employer’s choice; PA 152 and PERA are harmonizable |
| Whether employer could implement its chosen PA 152 option immediately upon CBA expiration | VBCEA: employer should wait and bargain before implementing choice | Decatur: PA 152 limits apply when CBA expires; employer may implement limits then | Employer may implement limits upon CBA expiration; no statutory delay required |
| Whether DESPA’s ULP succeeds absent a bargaining demand | DESPA: unilateral implementation violated PERA regardless | Decatur: DESPA never requested bargaining, and duty to bargain is conditioned on union demand | Charge dismissed; no duty to bargain absent union demand |
| Whether PA 152 conflicts with PERA such that PERA preempts PA 152 | Charging parties: PERA’s supremacy over public-labor matters requires bargaining despite PA 152 | Decatur: PA 152 sets statutory contribution limits and leaves substantive bargaining within those limits; no conflict | No conflict; statutes read together so PA 152 sets limits and PERA governs bargaining within those limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent Co Deputy Sheriffs’ Ass’n v. Kent Co Sheriff, 238 Mich. App. 310 (MICH. Ct. App.) (MERC is primary agency for public-sector labor law enforcement)
- Rockwell v. Crestwood Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed., 393 Mich. 616 (Mich.) (PERA supersedes conflicting earlier statutes governing public employee discipline)
- Macomb Co. v. AFSCME Council 25, 494 Mich. 65 (Mich.) (overview of PERA’s scope in public-employee relations)
- Krohn v. Home-Owners Ins. Co., 490 Mich. 145 (Mich.) (statutory interpretation principles; consult plain language)
- Detroit Police Officers Ass’n, 391 Mich. 44 (Mich.) (reading other statutes consistent with PERA where possible)
- Grand Rapids Cmty. Coll. Faculty Ass’n v. Grand Rapids Cmty. Coll., 239 Mich. App. 650 (Mich. Ct. App.) (employer may take unilateral action after CBA expiration when no statutory or contractual bar)