The charging party, the Bedford Education Association (BEA), appeals by right the order of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) determining that MCL 423.215b(l) prohibits a public-school employer, “after the expiration date of a collective bargaining agreement and until a successor collective bargaining agreement is in place,” from increasing a public-school employee’s salary on the basis of additional educational achievement. We conclude that MCL 423.215b does not unconstitutionally deprive public employees of any vested right and that MERC correctly applied the statute. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On December 8, 2011, the BEA filed its charge against respondent, Bedford Public Schools (hereinafter, “the board”), alleging that the parties had entered a
According to the expired CBA, a teacher’s salary could be raised by a “step increase” based on years of work for the employer, i.e., seniority, or by a “lane change” based on how much graduate education the teacher had completed. A lane change is also occasionally referred to as a “rail increase.” A teacher’s salary would be determined from a table in the CBA, with the vertical axis being years of work experience and the horizontal axis accounting for the extent of the teacher’s graduate education.
Under previous Michigan law, when a CBA expired and a new CBA had not been reached, a public-school employer was obligated to pay its teachers both step increases and lane changes in accordance with the terms of the expired CBA while negotiations were ongoing and an impasse had not yet been reached. But 2011 PA 54, which became effective on June 8, 2011, added § 15b to PERA. The added section provides in relevant part:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, after the expiration date of a collective bargaining agreement and until a successor collective bargaining agreement is in*562 place, a public employer shall pay and provide wages and benefits at levels and amounts that are no greater than those in effect on the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement. The prohibition in this subsection includes increases that would result from wage step increases. Employees who receive health, dental, vision, prescription, or other insurance benefits under a collective bargaining agreement shall bear any increased cost of maintaining those benefits that occurs after the expiration date. The public employer is authorized to make payroll deductions necessary to pay the increased costs of maintaining those benefits.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), the parties to a collective bargaining agreement shall not agree to, and an arbitration panel shall not order, any retroactive wage or benefit levels or amounts that are greater than those in effect on the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement.
(3) For a collective bargaining agreement that expired before the effective date of this section, the requirements of this section apply to limit wages and benefits to the levels and amounts in effect on the effective date of this section. [MCL 423.215b.]
The BEA argued that MCL 423.215b(l) only prohibits step increases, not lane changes, while negotiations for a new CBA are ongoing. The BEA notes that in previous decisions, MERC stated that step increases and lane changes are distinguishable components of wages. On the other hand, the board argued that MCL 423.215b(l) prohibits paying all wage increases while negotiations are ongoing.
The hearing officer presiding over the case issued a decision and recommendation that concluded that MCL 423.215b(l) does not prohibit lane changes in the absence of an effective CBA, resulting in the board having breached its duty to bargain, MCL 423.210(l)(e), by unilaterally altering existing terms
The board timely filed exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommended order, and MERC ruled that MCL 423.215b does prohibit paying lane changes in the absence of an effective CBA. MERC first determined that MCL 423.215b is unambiguous. It then explained that according to its previous decisions, both step increases and lane changes are contractually mandated terms that the employer has no discretion in paying to the employee. In addressing the ultimate issue, MERC reasoned that in its prior decisions it had “treated lane changes or rail increases as a type of step increase” and that under principles of statutory construction, the Legislature must be presumed to have been aware of these prior rulings. Consequently, MERC concluded that “Act 54 prohibits the payment of step increases whether based on increased years of service or educational advancement.”
On the basis of this reasoning, MERC ruled that the board had acted in compliance with MCL 423.215b when it refrained from making lane-change wage adjustments. Consequently, the board had not violated its duty to
II. ANALYSIS
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
MERC’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. MCL 423.216(e); Const 1963, art 6, § 28. “Legal rulings of an administrative agency are set aside if they are in violation of the constitution or a statute, or affected by a substantial and material error of law.” Amalgamated Transit Union v Southeastern Mich Transp Auth, 437 Mich 441, 450; 473 NW2d 249 (1991). We review de novo whether an error of law has occurred, and, if so, whether it is substantial and material. Macomb Co v AFSCME Council 25 Locals 411 & 893,494 Mich 65, 77; 833 NW2d 225 (2013). We also review de novo issues of statutory interpretation. Id.
The primary purpose of statutory interpretation is to identify and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. Mich Ed Ass’n v Secretary of State (On Rehearing), 489 Mich 194,217; 801 NW2d 35 (2011). When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction is neither permitted nor required, and the statute must be enforced as written. Mt Pleasant Pub Sch v Mich AFSCME Council 25, 302 Mich App 600, 608; 840 NW2d 750 (2013). “As far as possible, effect should be given to every phrase, clause, and word in the statute.” Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 237; 596 NW2d 119 (1999). Only when the statutory language is ambiguous is it “proper for a court to go beyond the statutory text to ascertain legislative intent.” Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303, 312; 831 NW2d 223
B. DISCUSSION
We conclude that the plain language of MCL 423.215b unambiguously prohibits a public employer from paying any wage increases in the absence of an effective CBA. Therefore, we affirm without adopting MERC’s reasoning.
“The PERA governs the relationship between public employees and governmental agencies.” Macomb Co, 494 Mich at 77-78. Michigan’s judiciary traditionally accords deference to MERC’s interpretation of PERA. See Southfield Police Officers Ass’n v Southfield, 433 Mich 168, 176-177; 445 NW2d 98 (1989). Although not bound by an agency’s determination on a question of law, this Court will respectfully consider the agency’s construction of a statute and provide cogent reasons for construing the statute differently. Pontiac Sch Dist v Pontiac Ed Ass’n, 295 Mich App 147, 152; 811 NW2d 64 (2012).
The BEA argues — as it did in the proceedings before MERC — that the Legislature’s explicit reference to “step increases” in MCL 423.215b(l) but not “lane changes” or “rail increases” means that the Legislature intentionally allowed for lane changes during negotiations for a successor CBA.
The first sentence of MCL 423.215b(l) provides that when a CBA expires and before a successor CBA is reached, “a public employer shall pay and provide wages and benefits at levels and amounts that are no greater than those in effect on the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement.” Subsection (3) provides that with respect to CBAs that expired before the effective date of 2011 PA 54, June 8, 2011, “the requirements of this section apply to limit wages and benefits to the levels and amounts in effect on the effective date of this section.” MCL 423.215b(3). The word “level” is relevantly defined as “a position or plane in a graded scale of value[s].” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997). The word “amount” is relevantly defined as “quantity; measure[.]” Id.
The second sentence of MCL 423.215b(l) provides that “[t]he prohibition in this subsection includes in
The BEA argues that if MCL 423.215b(l) is construed as prohibiting lane changes in the absence of a new CBA, the sentence “The prohibition in this subsection includes increases that would result from wage step increases” would be rendered nugatory. But this argument lacks merit if the phrase “includes increases that would result from wage step increases” is intended as illustrative rather than exhaustive. We conclude that the board correctly argues that if MCL 423.215b(l) is construed as allowing lane changes before a new CBA is reached, it would conflict with the statute’s command that “a public employer shall pay and provide wages and benefits at levels and amounts that are no greater than those in effect on the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement.” Thus, the BEA’s argument fails in light of the statute’s plain language that limits all wage and benefit increases in the absence of a new CBA. This reading of the statute is also confirmed by the last two sentences of MCL 423.215b(l), which requires public employees receiving nonwage benefits to “bear any increased cost of maintaining those ben
MCL 423.215b(l) states, “Except as otherwise provided in this section,... a public employer shall pay and provide wages and benefits at levels and amounts that are no greater than those in effect on the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement.” The introductory clause, “Except as otherwise provided in this section,” establishes that the levels and amounts of wages and benefits may only increase when explicitly provided for in MCL 423.215b or when a new CBA is reached. So with respect to insurance benefits, MCL 423.215b(l) and (4)(b) permit a public employer to pay for and provide increased insurance benefits when a public employee’s marital or dependent status changes. Yet there is no language in MCL 423.215b to provide for lane changes as a permissible wage increase. So, concluding that lane changes are allowed in the absence of an effective CBA would conflict with the introductory clause of MCL 423.215b(l).
The fallacy of the BEA’s argument is further demonstrated by its logical extension: all wage increases that are not step increases, such as cost of living adjustments, would be permitted under the statute. But the plain language indicates that the Legislature intended the phrase “levels and amounts” to limit all “wages and benefits” “[ejxcept as otherwise provided in this section.” MCL 423.215b(l).
For these reasons, we conclude that the language of MCL 423.215b unambiguously prohibits the board from paying increased wages on the basis of lane changes accrued after 2011 PA 54 became effective on June 8, 2011, and before a successor CBA was reached. Because the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous and no further judicial construction is required or permitted,
Finally, we reject the BEA’s argument that MCL 423.215b is unconstitutional. The BEA contends that at the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year its members had accrued a vested right in receiving lane changes and that as applied by MERC, MCL 423.215b retroactively deprived its members of the accrued, vested right of lane changes. We conclude that MCL 423.215b did not unconstitutionally deprive the teachers of any vested right.
MCL 423.215b was not retroactively applied to the teachers. MCL 423.215b was applied prospectively from its effective date of June 8, 2011, as MCL 423.215b(3) states that “[f]or a collective bargaining agreement that expired before the effective date of this section, the requirements of this section apply to limit wages and benefits to the levels and amounts in effect on the effective date of this section.” In other words, MERC correctly applied MCL 423.215b to limit wages and benefits to the levels and amounts in effect on June 8, 2011, not the levels and amounts in effect on June 30, 2010. The BEA teachers did not have a vested right under their contract because there was no CBA in effect at the time the statute became effective. See Ottawa Co v Jaklinski, 423 Mich 1, 7; 377 NW2d 668 (1985) (holding that rights subject to bargaining do not survive the expiration of a CBA). For the reasons explained below, the teachers had no vested right under PERA.
“[A] vested right is something more than such a mere expectation as may be based upon an anticipated continuance of the present general laws; it must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or
In the present case, the teachers did not have a vested right that lane changes under an expired CBA would continue to apply as they did under PERA before June 8, 2011, the effective date of MCL 423.215b. Rather, the teachers had no more than a mere expectation that the prior law would continue. Gen Motors, 290 Mich App at 370-371. Because the expectation that the prior law would continue was not a vested right, the Legislature could validly extinguish it by amending PERA. Morgan, 187 Mich App at 12. Further, because it is undisputed that the teachers are seeking lane changes that accrued after June 8, 2011, MCL 423.215b was not unconstitutionally applied.
The term “step increase” refers to an employee’s wage increase based on years of service. See Jackson Community College Classified & Technical Ass’n v Jackson Community College, 187 Mich App 708, 710; 468 NW2d 61 (1991). The term “lane change” refers to a wage
When a statute does not expressly define a term, a court may consult dictionary definitions for its common and accepted meaning. Mt Pleasant Sch, 302 Mich App at 608.