*1 1969] ok Escanaba v. LABOR MEDIATION BOARD
CITY OF ESCANABA Oрinion the of Court Employees —Police Officers —Union Labor Relations —Public 1. Representation Policy' —Public —Statute. policy of public employment publie the The relations aet states public respect representation em- this with to state it lawful ployees; provision in which makes that statute organizations public organize together in for labor to purpose engage in lawful activities concerted protection, negotiation aid and or or other mutual collected employers negotiate collectively publie bargain their or not re- through representatives their free choice does own by a representation labor of a strict the officers exclusively officers organization composed law enforcement 379). (CL 1965, PA No as enaeted §423.209 Employee —Def- Labor and Phrases —Public 2. Relations —Words inition —Statute. holding “publie employee” person A as a is defined statute government in position by appointment employment or any government or Michigan, or in one state of publie thereof, in political more of the subdivisions or in any district, or service, public special school or in or commission, board, any authority, service (CL 1948, §432.202). publie service other branch Employees— and Phrases —Public 3. Labor Relations —Words Definition —Police Officers —Statute. “publie employee,” as contained The definition (CL aet, employment includes relations 423.202). Headnotes for Points References 4, 5, Jur, [1, 2, 31 Am Labor 87. 7] §§ Jur, Sheriffs, 47 Am and Constables 5.
[3, Police App Employees 4. Labor Relations —Public —Police Officers —Union Representation. in. prohibits Provision the home rule cities act *2 discharging policeman joins society composed solely a who a give of law enforcement officers cannot be to construed a power police to rep- restrict a officers’ choice union solely (CL resentative to one that consists officers 1948, by 260). 117.5a as amended PA No
Dissenting Opinion Holbrook, Employees 5. Labor Rеlations —Public —Police Officers —-Union Representation Policy. —Public policy requires government having duty Public officers may making, interpreting, enforcing the laws strike not join any organization not with others union loyalty would such undivided their to interfere officers’ duties; oaths and to their of office therefore officers permitted join should not be or- with others in ganization place position which could officers having regulate union members. fellow 6. Labor Relations —Words Phrases- —Public Officials —Pub- Employees lic —-Police Officers. public public employees.
Police are and not officers officials Employees 7. Labor Relations —Public —Police Officers —Union Rеpresentation Bargaining — Unit —Labor Mediation Board. by city police Determination State Labor Mediation Board that sergeants proper bargaining were a unit and that officers proper bargaining representative Teamsters’ local awas was improperly regarding made where no evidence was taken public public employees status officers officers possible resulting and a policemen interest conflict of joining a labor union which admits other than law enforce- membership. ment to its officers Original proceeding Court of Appeals. Sub- 3 February mitted Division 13, 1969, at Grand (Docket Rapids. No. 4,634.) Decided October 1969. u. City of Escanaba
Statutory complaint Escanaba, corporation, against municipal the State Labor and Local No. International Mediation Board Chauffeurs, Warehouse- Teamsters, Brotherhood of Helpers review a of America for of decision men, and plaintiff’s police officersand defendant board sergeants rather than were proper bargaining defendant union was and that policemen, representative of an review for representation directing election and order- order represent- plaintiff bargain ing with the elected Michigan Labor Mediation Board Decision of ative.
upheld. (Keller, Attorney, Thoma, Erickson,
John G. plaintiff. counsel), Keller, & for McManus Goldberg, Uelmen, & Local Previant defendant *3 No. 328. Kelley, Attorney Robert A. Der- General, J.
Frank Long, engoski, As- and Generаl, Solicitor John Attorney Labor sistant for defendant State General, Mediation Board. J.,
Before: P. Danhof, and Holbrook Levin, and JJ. city of Es- ease involves the J. This Danhof, right officers in relation to the of its
canaba join Brotherhood of International 328, Local No. Helpers Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
Teamsters, peti- No. 328 Local 1966, America. In March (here- Michigan Board Labor Mediation tioned the MLMB) in a an election as for inafter referred to sergeants patrolmen Escanaba of all unit provisions police department, pursuant to the Apr 273 276 op Opinion the Court (hereinafter employment public act re- relations May PERA).1 hearing 18, 2A wаs held ferred to as city ordering objecting an 1966, with hearing No. 78 of the Amer- Local election. At Municipal County and State, ican Federation claiming Employees that MLMB should intervened represented certify em- a labor union which not private industry repre- ployees as the exclusive At the time, of law enforcement officers. sentative recognized by city Local No. 78 had been city employees’ representative. On Escanaba as the deter- the labor mediation board 3, 1966, November mined patrolmen sergeants unit was that a bargaining appropriate and ordered an election for 12 1966. The 17, was held November being rep- sergeants and 4 voted favor 328, by and the Local No. resented Teamsters by formally MLMB on November was certified 25,1966. city bargain refused
The of Escanaba February 1967, 7, on Teamsters Local No. 328 and practice charge filed an unfair labor the union (a) § alleged against violation of February § 1967, (e) 15, PERA.2 and 16 of the On adopted ****stat resolution,3 council the Escanaba meaning were not Escanaba were ac ganization for collective partment must take an oath of bear 17.455[16]). and to the best of employed a decision 423.201 “Whereas, MCLA “Whereas, PA allegiance t, 1947, of said et by (law admitting holding (a) Act No §§ seq. every police No the bargaining 423.210, November enfоrcement act. to his lawfully entitled, under 336, [Stat city ability, skill and *4 to as last of Eseanaba were not Ann city 423.216 PA Mich membership purposes, officer who 1968 Rev and state and its constitution 1966, officers) amended police officers office to (Stat the Labor if judgment, and by PA they joins the Escanaba Ann 17.455(1) et support representing amended, (b) so desired employed 1968 Rev Mediation 1965, supervisors that diligently the constitution No 379 seq.]). police sergeants employment be §§ Board issued represented 17.455[10], a labor or within and faith- police de- (CL and 1948, laws who and the relations ok Escanaba Opinion of the Court that tlie would not city recognize in effect as bar ing any for tbe agents police labor union gaining that included outside interests or or membership law other than enforcement or any personnel police 1967, of city On March the Escanaba officers. the MLMB a motion for a with of its rehearing
filed 1966, and and order of November to dis finding’s No. Local on Teamsters, miss the petition public city pol under the State and ground the selecting a labor officers are limited in icy, police bargain their collective representative as for solely composed to a labor organization ing purposes Poliee officers his office. fully, partiality prejudice, execute -without given to other of which are powers, few invested with broad are government employee. They earry weapon, legal right to the have physical moral and restraint, and control of powers arrest their behavior of others are by the ficulties of required poliee officer is grave serious. A and involving invariably controversies becomes neutralizer law and neighborhood disputes, dif- assemblage, domestic right public of Again, management. his ac- strikes, and and labor between governed by of He his oath office. in these must be tions instances right among of recognize rights people the certain of must Yet, time, at the same bargaining part of on the labor. collective managеment. property In this of protect rights he instance, the and the must every neutrality of his again, his must be the watchword property of activity protect all those in the effort the life and during periods of sueh preserve peace and and to order involved difficulty, and of, represented are “Whereas, police if officers are members advantageous agreements respect purpose negotiating for the employment, by hours, wages, to labor not terms conditions the represents others who organization as members are whieh also officers, personal police interests of and economic such the organization labor would officers and their fellow-members the necessarily poliee labor publie time to time conflict with the duties sueh officers, strikes, picketing, especially event of and other undoubtedly be disputes; and would detrimental such conflicts eitizens, public its interest of the Escanaba and police sergeants positions “Whereas, command, hold and the importance responsibilities their has overlooked decision been Board, and Labor Mediation attorneys “Whereas, been council has advised that the failing reeognize have been in Mediation Board error Labor interest, herein, classifying expressed as non-supervisors, sergeants as therefore, resolved, “Now, be it will Escanaba agents reeognize, police department, any any bargaining not labor union that personnel membership includes outside interests or other than law enforcement or officers.” *5 273 App op Opinion the Coubt This motion was denied officers. law enforcement April 1967. 21, MLMB on complaint bearing of Local No. 328 to The on bearing April At tbis 4,1967. was beard the MLMB the flict of join city sought to show a to introduce evidence con- permitted were to if
interest private employees representing in in- union rejected. dustry. The trial ex- evidence was Such take that the board would adminis- aminer did state fact that еm- notice of the strikes trative ployment Michigan; have occurred there periodic disputes, of labor have been occurrences including picket disturbances; and of the role line controlling situations. officersin such
The trial examiner’s determination and recom- April 26, 1967, was issued and the mended order July incorporated resulting 14,1967, MLMB order of representation the record made at the in the record bearing. required decision4 to rec- This collectively bargain ognize Local and No. represent- the Teamsters as the exclusive of ative of the patrolmen sergeants of the city. force of delayed May of Escanaba filеd 1, 1967,
On Supreme application with tbis Court and the Court appeal findings con- fact, for leave to from the rep- of law in the clusions and directive of election above-described unit of tain, men and purposes sergeants shall: exclusive “1. “2. Take the “(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named union as the “Refusing city council, city manager, officers, agents, “It International Brotherhood of and all other Cease and desist representative, of collective hereby Helpers following recognize police department, excluding ordered that employees. from: America, employees.” bargaining, for affirmative action: рurposes bargain as the exclusive public employer, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, of a unit of all of collective with Teamsters Union Loeal the chief of successors representative, bargaining, patrolmen Warehouse- police, cap- Escanaba, assigns, of the for ok Escanaba Opinion Cotjet by tbe MLMB resentation case issued November Supreme tbe 21, 1967, 1966. On June Court denied application timely tbe filed for as not insufficient culpable negligence regard showing of lack of appeal. application delayed July tbe for On appeal 1967, tbis denied leave Court lack of *6 jurisdiction of tbe cause. question, interpretation
At the time tbe of jurisdiction law as to wbetber this bad Court in an appeal representative proceedings from tbe was not Supreme clear. Thereafter tbe Court ruled in the Michigan University of case State Board Trus of (1968), tees v. State Labor Mediation Board 381 Appeals juris 44 tbe Mich Court of does have representation proceedings. diction to review city Tbe complaint of Escanaba filed with this Court a pursuant provisions 16(e) § for review to tbe of petition PERA, for the enforcement bargaining order MLMB tbe was likewise filed pursuant provisions 16(d) of the PERA. complaint city
Tbe tbe and tbe matter tbe en forcement order have been consolidated for con appeal. sideration on tbis appears city ap-
It that tbe of Escanaba failed to peal representation timely from tbe decision because tbe PERA it was new and was not clear as to tbe
proper i.e., method to be followed it wbetber bad to bearing complaint wait for a on tbe merits of tbe charging prac- of tbe labor an unfair labor appeal directly representation tice or from tbe bear- ing Supreme determination to tbis Court or tbe Tbe Court. status tbe law was considered tbe MLMB to be uncertain it because ordered in- tbe corporation representation of tbe minutes of tbe proceedings bearing in tbe record of tbe оn tbe com- plaint charging of the Teamsters Local No. 328 an practice by city. unfair labor tbe For these reasons Apr op Opinion the Coubt appeal to leave denied this Court and because representation hear- from the of Escanaba jurisdiction, we will re- stating ing not have it did the MLMB. orders of this case both view in assert Local No. Teamsters applicable to this case. PERA5 is of the organize public employees to “It lawful for shall be join organiza- together or form, assist labor or to engage activities for in lawful concerted tions, to negotiation bargaining purpose of collective protection, negotiаte or or to mutual aid and other public employers bargain collectively with their representatives through own choice.” their free (1) of Escanaba that un- It is the claim policy Michigan the State of der the limited in Escanaba, officers are representative selecting as their a labor union purposes organiza- bargaining to a labor collective (2) composed of law enforcement officers tion police *7 sergeants police department of the officersand are officersand not Escanaba of the public policy meaning of the of the State. the within “public meaning of the of the term For definition Policy, pp policy” 62, Public CJ, we turn to 857-859: policy,’being vague ‘public of such “The term quantity, meaning, and of such variable uncertain susceptible frequently not to of exact been said be
has precise have said that definition; and some courts or given precise been definition has ever no exact or respect Nevertheless, be found. with or can frequently law, the have of the courts administration approved quoted that of the statement often public policy principle of the law which holds is that lawfully one’ can do that which has tend- ‘no MCLA § 423.209 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev 17.455 [9]). v. ok Escamaba op Opinion the Court ency against pub- injurious public to be good; lic of law declares one that rule which that no injure public, lawfully tends to can do that which public good; principles or is detrimental private dealing under is restricted freedom contract or which community. by good of law for the synonymous policy’ been to be ‘Public has said ‘policy as ‘the law,’ and also has been defined public with be especially good.’ In sense, technical less ‘public legislative policy’ respect actions, nothing expediency, polit- than often is more policy upon govern- expediency, or ical mental being; pub- the time affairs are conducted for public judicial policy sense, In a does lic sentiment. goоd policy, simply policy, or but it not means the lic weal either sound mean pub- policy for the state established by general by by courts, con- law, sent. has been to mean the law The term said “Sources. constitution, found its its state as declared judicial
statutory enactments, records, its some say public policy going that the so far as to courts by constitutions, be determined state must they judicial will not decisions, and latos, and information; this but rule sources resort to other announced. and a broader rule criticized, has been question policy and not fact.” is a of law Public supplied.) (Emphasis § 4, art 48 states: Const providing legislature may for the laws enact “The publiс employees, disputes concerning
resolution of except civil service.” in the state classified those supra, added PA PERA, 9 of the Section policy State, of this the current No states regarding public legislature, as established *8 they may joining form, that unions. It is bargain organizations, join in labor assist or through representatives collectively own of their App 273 39 op Opinion the Court supersedes any prior public choice. Section. free statutes, State established of this policy em- public consent regarding or courts, general joining unions. ployees public employees are if
Therefore, city policemen which include organizations labor may join they police- are neither who persons their membership public employees. men nor 2 of defined in “public employee” §
The term is PERA6: “No or person position appointment holding in the the state Mich- government of employment 1 more of the any or in the or igan, government in the school thereof, public subdivisions or political service, district, or or any public special commission, board, or in service of authority, service, hereinafter other branch any called shall strike.” ‘public employee,’ law no en- exception definition contains This it our that officers, opinion forcement is term used in PERA includes policemen. when an
Plaintiff fact con- argues important year legislature 9 is that in the same struing § that it added amended of the Home Rule also 5a § § Cities Act to read: deny
“No shall have to of of power employment any person for the that he is a member reason under the laws any society incorporated state, composed of which is membership this of law unless same is con- solely officers, enforcement trary to his oath of office.”7
Plaintiff reaffirmed the right asserts this mem- prohibit officers from becoming of law solely bers in an organization composed not MCLA 423.202 MCLA § 117.5a (Stat (Stat Ann 1969 Ann 1968 Rev Cum Supp § 17.455[2]). 5.2084[1]). *9 City ok Escanaba v. MLMB 283 Dissenting Opinion J. by Holbrook, officers. Plaintiff has misconstruеd enforcement city The fact that the statute a from prohibits 5a. society a who a policeman joins composed
firing of law enforcement not con- solely mean, officers docs prohibit that the can versely, city policeman private a union of both composed joining employees. find
We no error the decision of the an order will issue order enforcing MLMB’s 25,1967. dated October
No involved. costs, public question being J.,P. Levin, concurred. {dissenting). J. unable to Being join Holbrook,
with brother in their determination my judges I must dissent for the case, respectfully this reasons I herein stated. am convinced that it is imperative, if we are to a fair and adminis- еxperience impartial society, in this free tration of government of- law and declare that recognize fundamental divi- and executive legislative, judicial ficers duty of making, sions of that have the government not strike enforcing laws, may interpreting, or- and also not others join favor to the mem- special that could give ganization with such interfering of that organization bers of office and loyalty undivided to their oaths officers’ truth, In statement of declared to their duties. this who are re- city, I include officers of police would in their enforce the laws by their oaths to quired is that of our state public policy I believe the city. stated.
just majority opinion аre as The facts as stated the definition of them, stated as is I would have Pol- CJ, Public taken from “public policy” term I what believe 857-859. I icy, pp also reiterate Mich Am? Dissenting Opinion by Holbeook, on this of Escanaba the claims of to be public policy appeal (1) of the State of under — Michigan Escanaba, officers and the repre- selecting their a labor union as are limited bargaining purposes to for collective sentative composed organization of law enforcement labor sergeants (2) officers and department of Escanaba are of- *10 public policy meaning of the of the within ficers the state. Lansing v. In the cаse of Fraternal Order Police of (1943), Mich 68,
Board Police & Fire Com’rs of the commissioners 71, 77-80, board of and fire city Lansing passed a of the of resolution: “ discipline whom ‘The men committee to was investigation Fraternal the of the referred Order after tion matter of following report, make the Police wish to organiza- president interviewing of the the : “ Lansing superior ‘That of the de- no officer partment become a member of the be allowed membership Police; that the Fraternal Order of be police depart- Lansing the confined members of exceptions superior officers; ment with the the the Fraternal Police and that inasmuch as Order they organizаtion policemen, an refrain is taking order, so-called associate or from into honorary members. “ ‘The committee makes these recommendations having organization in welfare of both the mind the police department, and the with convictions ” departmental that this is business.’ Michigan non-
The Fraternal Police, Order purpose profit organization, brought for the suit restraining enjoining members of the of Police and Fire Commissioners Board enforcing Lansing resolution. In above City ok Escamaba v. Dissenting Opinion by Holbrook, majority opinion written Mr. Justice Bush as follows: nell it is stated Geary (1939), App (18 NE 298Ill “In Coane v. 719), quoted approval a statement the court 2d from thе O’Regan Legal opinion in Chi rendered cago, 24, Chicago p reported December News, 150, in 37 applicable to the That is statement 1904. part follows: instant case. It reads as “ ‘ you generis, peculiar, “A force sui say, in its formation and its relation organized government. practically an force It is military resembling respects many force, or- ganized under the laws the United States important equally required as to the functions it is as perform. “ ‘ ordinary “It is not an branch of executive your mayor’s government even, water like the office comptroller’s department, department, health peculiar department, say, I to it- it is even; but, light that other to loоk at it of same self, regarded department are branches the executive judicial It is in a decision. would be mistake department requires of it members that the *11 power opinion and shall surrender their individual just controlling head act, and submit to that to his must surrender much the common soldier as as opinion power of his com- that own and action to necessity manding same And there is the officer. discipline regulation existing in —of military department partment. regard de- that exists discipline and enforced, must be Strict and is effective, must be enforced in manner that it any supervision regulation of other- without department particularly, without State, and, of the departmеnt attempt part judicial on the government entirely (which dis- a branch of the is department), separate executive tinct to ulate its reg- any way, particularly, regulate it to * * * ’ discipline.” App Dissenting Opinion Holbrook, by Police confined Fraternal Order of “When engaged regular police ‘police activities acting private in- members were not duties,’ its necessarily board is not con- Defendant dividuals. cerned with the private officers, activities of greatly their concerned with it and should be but is of the law enforcement branch as members activities public, government. Those who serve of either as the interpreters of law, makers of the law, must neces- who enforce the law, or those acting capacity, sarily of their in such some surrender, while private rights. presumed Mr. As stated Justice Sharpe : “ person ap- when a is it be denied that ‘Nor can pointed de- member of the becomes subjects partment, rules he himself to the reasonable * * * adopted by regulations the board.’ bylaws plaintiff’s na- “The constitution organizations local which were re- tional, state and provide in effect citizens ceived in evidence upon payment members of dues of associate become not less year, per and such associate mem- than $5 membership card’ and car he furnished ‘a will bеrs to assume naive, indeed, would be ‘emblem.’ One carry did with it automobile emblem not that such privileges special mem- to associate the intimation enough require the deter- bers. This of itself is plaintiff organization mination the existence municipality body of a is the law-enforcement within contrary public policy. necessarily vested with “Defendant board is large ing discretion and the burden of show measure of arbitrary upon charge it. action those who [(1935), Thompson (180 SE Ya Carter 410)]. judge agree the trial that the resolution “We adopted by was reasonable and that: the board “ within said that such action is not ‘It cannot he scope authority granted the charter of the the Lansing, arbitrary un- nor that it is *12 v. City Escamaba ok Dissenting Opinion By Holbrook, plaintiffs the nor individ- the reasonable. Neither deprived of constitutional are uals concerned ” supplied.) (Emphasis right.’ fact the be taken that notice Local No. 328 admits Judicial than other members Teamsters The law officers. enforcement officers other membership responsibilities privileges of such although proffered are not in evidence question con- The before the MLMB. Escanaba by the MLMB flict of was not considered interests § that 9 of for the it reason that determined in- PERA that the terms thereof was conclusive and city. force of cluded as (1915), Blynn In Pontiac the cаse policeman question was whether 35, the employee an officer. Pontiac was an the The determination therein that the un- officer an not an case was officerand der the facts employee that provisions charter on of the was based city. (and ordinances) This is of the conclusion p proper, fol- 46 as Mr. Kuhn stated on Justice : lows appointive policeman “Being an satisfied city, provisions charter of this officerunder oath, ap- required which it office, to take an official
pears within the No came that he case, done in this it follows was exception pt § 7, act in subdivision session), (extra (2 How Public Acts employеe, 3945), [2d ed] an as de- and is not Stat within does not come act, fined its said and therefore enlarge scope Any provisions. effort to legislature.” this should be addressed act Corporations, Municipal 45.11, In McQuillin, pp it is 661-665, stated: policemen may be of- “It either has been said employees, depart- legislative local
ficers or *13 Apr Dissenting Opinion by Holbrook, J. may ment determine. A an- majority the cases nounce that members police department, including commissioners, superintendents, the chief of police, police sergeants, watchmen, constables, spe- cial policemen, patrolmen, are public officers. Thus, policemen offiсers, have been held to be and not employees, with respect qualifications, compen- sation, tenure, dismissal, and within the meaning a workmen’s act. compensation They are sometimes held to be state officers, it said being hold they office not under between themselves and the contract municipality, but as a trust from the state. Other courts, however, them municipal officers, hold to be and, fact, their chief function is to aid enforc- ing police the local regulations, mainly of municipal origin, and they are for paid such service not state, but out of city treasury, the contribu- tions the local taxpayers, strictly for ‘municipal purposes.’ lаws, they Under some are held to be both state and municipal officers.” Also, in 43 CJ, Policemen, pp we find further light wherein it is stated:
“The office or policeman patrolman was unknown to the common law, and wherever it exists it is a creation of statute or municipal ordinance. In generic sense it every includes member of the force, whatever be his or grade rank. A policeman has been variously defined to be an ‘of- ficer,’ officer,’ or a ‘peace ‘civil officer.’ Under provisions creating policeman some the officea is con- sidered a public officer his office as holding a trust (cid:127)from the state and not a matter of contract be- as tween himself and city, although pur- some he poses regarded bemay city also as a officer. But, particular construing provisions creating the of- fice, it has been variously that a policeman held officer in proper and not a sense state of- ; ficer that he is not a officer’ that he ‘public is neither a state officer nor an in a purely officer local acting v. ok Escanaba Dissenting Holbrook, Opinion by generis; only capacity, sui officer that he is an but is. can in'n'o sense Police officer. a ministerial officers city.” agents regarded be supplied.) (Emphasis made in this case A determination must be as whether under the charter first instance of Escanaba ordinances of employees. This was not are officers or
done the MLMB. clearly policy de The of the state has been *14 Order Police v. fined in the cases of Fraternal of Lansing supra; Com’rs, &Fire State Board Police of City Lodge Michigan, Police v. Fraternal Order of of (1947), that Detroit Mich 182. A recent case of principles right the of sanctions fortifies these the and joining city police its from to forbid officers industry private employees and that admits of (AFL-CIO ) personnel v. is Local other No. Muskegon (1963), 384. 369 Mich of by public policy the
The of our state as declared city permits Supreme control Court home rule police police so officers of that the members force may membership not of a union admits to become members enforcement officers
others than law privileges being may to such result in extended whereby police be officers members, other impartially prevented carrying their duties out police fairly. force and Inasmuch as members of employees may Blynn city not under be officers of and legislature supra, Pontiac, because the (Stat enacting Ann 1968 Rev MCLA 423.209 police specifically [9]) officers 17.455 did not name public employees, apparent that the it is Supreme by Court policy the of our state аs declared changed by officers PERA. Police not the has been attorney city may they his assistants— be to a likened they appointed of oaths take both are both Arp Dissenting Opinion by Holbkook, responsible proper office. Both are for the enforce- ment of the law. It is reasonable to assume that the city attorney and his assistants are officers and not city within the of terms the PERA. public policy The declared of the state available city of Escanaba in this case. I concludethat there were issues before MLMB proper that were not was determined; evidence proffered bearing upon those issues that were not аdmitted, and I would remand to the therefore hearing hearings a further deter- city mine the status officers Escanaba, i.e., whether the officers are em- ployees or officersunder the ordinances charter, city; adoption resolutions of the whether resolution proper council of was a Escanaba power; pos- exercise of its determine pro- resulting sible conflicts interest from the posed joining
Escanaba Teamsters Local No which admits others than law enforcement officersto its member- ship. This should be determined under the laws of this state and the charter, ordinances and resolution proper of evidence All Escanaba. exhibits and
pertaining to these be issues should ad- *15 mitted the MLMB on remand. Redetermination should be made in both matters the MLMB and back certified to this Court for further review. question being costs, a No involved.