Wayne County v. Michigan Afscme Council 25
327782
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 24, 2017Background
- Wayne County amended its retirement ordinance affecting a discretionary “thirteenth check” paid to retirees; AFSCME Council 25 filed unfair labor practice charges claiming repudiation and failure to bargain.
- Several CBAs expressly incorporated the Wayne County Retirement System and referenced the retirement ordinance controlling retirement benefits.
- ALJ found certain violations; the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) reversed in part and dismissed claims for some bargaining units, but found MERC jurisdiction and unlawful bargaining conduct by the County for non-supervisory units during post-expiration fact-finding.
- Both AFSCME and Wayne County appealed the MERC order to the Court of Appeals; the Court affirmed MERC in both dockets.
- Key factual points: the retirement ordinance historically treated the thirteenth check as discretionary; parties had an ongoing fact-finding process following expiration of a CBA when the County amended the ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MERC must defer to CBA grievance/arbitration for lieutenants/sergeants and supervisory units | AFSCME: MERC should decide unfair practice for these units | County: CBA covers retirement matters; grievance/arbitration controls | MERC and COA: CBA covers the subject; disputes over interpretation must proceed via grievance/arbitration (dismissal appropriate) |
| Whether County’s amendment repudiated the CBA | AFSCME: Amendment substantially breached CBA and was unilateral repudiation | County: Ordinance language (incorporated into CBA) and ambiguity permitted amendment; bona fide dispute exists | COA: No repudiation — bona fide dispute over contract interpretation existed, so not an unfair labor practice warranting MERC repudiation relief |
| Whether the thirteenth check is a mandatory subject of bargaining | AFSCME: It relates to retirement benefits and is a mandatory subject | County: It is discretionary retiree aid and not a mandatory bargaining subject; retirees are not employees | COA: MERC reasonably concluded the thirteenth check is related to retirement provisions and is a mandatory subject of bargaining |
| Whether County breached duty to bargain/notify during post-expiration fact-finding | AFSCME: County changed mandatory terms without notice/opportunity to bargain during fact-finding period | County: AFSCME knew of intent; no duty to bargain during fact-finding or County had no obligation to notify | COA: MERC’s finding supported — County violated duty to bargain in good faith by amending ordinance without proper notice/opportunity during post–fact-finding bargaining period |
Key Cases Cited
- Macomb County v. AFSCME Council 25, 494 Mich 65 (Michigan Supreme Court) (when CBA covers a subject, disputes over interpretation go to grievance/arbitration)
- Port Huron Ed Ass’n v. Port Huron Area Sch. Dist., 452 Mich 309 (Michigan Supreme Court) (past practice and contract interpretation standards in labor context)
- St. Clair Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. Intermediate Ed. Ass’n, 458 Mich 540 (Michigan Supreme Court) (repudiation and unilateral modification of CBAs as unfair labor practices)
- Arbuckle v. General Motors LLC, 499 Mich 521 (Michigan Supreme Court) (de novo review for contractual interpretation questions)
- Calhoun Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. Calhoun Intermediate Ed. Ass’n, 314 Mich App 41 (Court of Appeals) (standard of review for MERC decisions)
- Detroit Police Officers Ass’n v. Detroit, 391 Mich 44 (Michigan Supreme Court) (pension and retirement provisions are mandatory bargaining subjects)