Bay City School District v. Bay City Education Ass'n Inc.
349 N.W.2d 808
Mich. Ct. App.
1984
Check Treatment

*1 1984] DISTRICT v BAY CITY EDUCATION

BAY CITY SCHOOL ASSOCIATION,INC 13, 1983, Lansing. at No. 66719. Submitted October Docket Decided 16, 1984. appeal applied April for. Leavе Association, Inc., City Bay The City Bay Employees Public School Non-Academic School orgаnizations of these labor and several individual members practice charge against the District filed an Michigan Employment Rela- with the of subsequently separate The same Commission. grievances dealing subject matter as the unfair same charge, of the brought school district jurisdiction of was the exclusive that the matter within it was MERC and was not arbitrable so J., Court, Caprathe, denied MERC. The summary judgmеnt, and the district’s motion for school appeals. school district Held: the exclusive invoked sо, Having MERC. must now be done decided MERC. declaratory judgment and remanded for of a private grievаnce subject that the matters involved are not J., hold in the result but would concurred bargaining unen- arе not contractually forceable secured arbitration party might with MERC. [1, [2] Validity Am48 ALR3d 885. arbitraton 48A Am Jur Jur 2d, References construction of Labor and Labor Relations 2d, Labor and Labor Relations disputes invоlving public employees. 68 statutes Points in or Headnotes ordinances §§ §§ 1764, 1770, 625 et providing for seq. 1773. op Opinion — Labor Relations 1. The claim of a has, claim, who *2 public under the em- Employment Commissiоn Relations by commission in ployment be resolved relations act should statutory processеs; a court’s order allow- with accordance while still ing deferred to arbitration matter to bе legislative to the pending commission is counter before the jurisdiction ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‍vesting in the commission. intention R. W. Employment — 2. Labor Relations Commission, its once Relations public employment rela- in a matter under been invoked act, pending may the outcome not defer decision parties has submitted a related where one of the matter Allsopp), W. Skinner & Gustafson (by plaintiff. A. Thomas Foster, Swift, P.C. Cоey, Collins & (by Baird), for defendants. R. Danhof, C.J., and W. and Bronson

Before: Peterson,* JJ. 1982, defendants

Per Curiam. On March Em- Public School Non-Academiс practice filed an unfair ployees Association Michigan Em- charge against plaintiff (MERC). The Relations Commission ployment alleged violation of charge (PERA) certain in connectiоn with relations act plaintiff. Subse- subcontracting decisions made separate griev- ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‍filed quently, thе same * assignment. sitting Appeals by judge, on the Court of Opinion of the Court alleging subcontracting the sаme anees agreements violated with plaintiff. hearing A full was held before MERC practice сharge, regarding the currently pending, with awaiting hearing decision officer.

Nonetheless, despite the of the matter pendency MERC, the same defendants filed separate demands for arbitrаtion of their In the grievances, practice charge, as the unfair relief primary the defendants is an requiring plaintiff bargain over the dis- puted subcontracting policy.

Plaintiff a declaratory the matter was within the exclusive of MERC it was not arbitra- ble so it remains before MERC. The trial court issued аn order denying plaintiff’s motion judgment. for summary *3 We reverse and remand.

Plaintiff points out that this issue been thoroughly reviewed in the recent case of Detroit Fighters Fire Ass’n v (1980). 663; 293 case, NW2d 278 In that ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‍the Court held that "once a party invokes MERC’s PERA, that party’s complaint should be resolved in by MERC accordance with the processes”, statutory 408 Mich 685. In the present case, defendants have invoked MERC’s exclusive jurisdiction, allowing the any to be deferred private to arbitration would run counter to Legislature’s the intention in vest- Id. ing MERC with jurisdiction. such hold thаt We this dispute must be decided MERC, and grievance that must be terminated. 133 Peterson, J. R.W. attempts by defendants’ persuaded

We are not of impact limit distinguish or to supra. policy announces a Fighters, opinion beyond far which extends application broad case. Defendant that circumstаnces specific by adopting would circumvent Fighters. in Detroit Fire of the dissent reasoning ruling of the However, is bound to some Absent citation in that case. limited might have narrowed or which authority Fighters, we decline to of Detroit Fire the rule present rule in case. depart from that summary denying trial оrders court’s judgment granting summary plaintiff to The matter must be reversed. to defendants remanded for concerning dispute sub- parties’

stating submit- any other issues contracting, together with within MERC’s MERC, placed ted to bеen not subject and are ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‍costs, ques- No a public and remanded. being tion involved. in (concurring). I concur the facts indicate solely

result herein (1) because seek and remedies which defendants the issues MERC and pursue simultaneously (2) identical, arbitrator are filing the demand jurisdiction of MERC beforе I view that arbitration.1 cannot concur through bargaining would arbitration, through be itself con unenforceable secured, tractually *4 with MERC.

might 1 Detroit, Accountants, Analysts Appraisers & v Ass’n Senior See Paraprofes- County 449; (1976), and Broward 249 NW2d 121 (Fla 1981). McComb, App, sional Ass’n v 2d 471 So ‍​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌​‍v W.R. Fighters Ass’n (1980), noted in the 663; 293 NW2d 278 jurisdic- when MERC’s merely holds that opinion, invoked, defer decision it cannot tion is "Collyer- as is done federal doctrine. Spielburg”