*1 v 412, IAFF, FIRE FIGHTERS UNION LOCAL DEARBORN NO OF CITY DEARBORN op Opinion the Court 1. Labor Relations —Arbitration Award —Jurisdiction. employer’s An failure to member for arbitra- required by in a labor the statute compelling disputes municipal labor between policemen corporations and their and firemen does not affect (MCLA423.234). panel’s . « op Opinion V. J. Municipal Corporations
2.
—Constitutional
Law —Labor Rela-
tions —Statutes—Arbitration
and Award.
requiring compulsory
A
arbitration in labor
municipal corporations
policemen
between
and their
and Bre-
employees
powers
men
does not divest home-rule cities of
granted
Legislature
to them
the Constitution since the
providing
disputes concerning
enact laws
the resolution
(Const
48).
public
§
Delegation
3. Constitutional
Law —
of Power —Arbitration
Award.
The test to determine whether an arbitration statute unconstitu-
tionally delegates legislative
pri-
and administrative
[1]
[6]
[4]
[2, 3,
[8]
Waiver of arbitration
48 Am Jur
Power of
48 Am Jur
Constitutionality
48 Am Jur
5 Am Jur
5 Am Jur
51 Am
306, s.
and Award. compelling disputes in labor The statute arbitration between policemen municipalities and their Bremen does not sur- impose to an render to taxes arbitration increasing expenses of a to maintain its an award necessarily police departments city to Bre force the taxes, present since is free to increase its reallocate award. resources to meet 7. Labor and Award —Jurisdiction. Relations —Arbitration compelling labor between statute policemen speaks municipalities in man- and their and.Bremen datory requiring panel, a three-member and a two-man terms has no to conduct noncompliance despite that defendant’s fact (MCLA statutory provisions created the situation with the 423.234). Corpora- Municipal 8. Labor Relations —Arbitration and Award — tions. city to to an The failure of a a member policemen and in a and its labor between estoppel required by Bremen as statute did not act as an attacking prevent subsequently from the arbitration grounds, misrepresentation procedural neces- no award on since equitable estoppel sary give application rise to the present, estopped municipality and since illegal employees. acts of Dearborn Fire Opinion of the Court Appeal Wayne, Bohn, from Theodore R. J. Sub- 8, February mitted Division at Detroit. (Docket 11306.) No. Decided July 1972. Leave granted, 388 appeal Mich 785.
Appeal
Wayne,
Kaufman,
from
Charles
J. Sub-
mitted
8, 1972,
Division 1 February
at Detroit.
(Docket
11920.)
No.
July
Decided
1972. Leave
to appeal granted,
Complaints by Dearborn Fire Fighters Union IAFF, Local No. and Police Officers Associa- against of Dearborn the City of Dearborn for mandamus the city implement arbi- tration Judgment plaintiffs. awards. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Rothe, Marston, Sachs, O'Connell, Nunn Mazey, *3 Freid, & P. C. Theodore Sachs and Ronald R. (by Helveston), plaintiff Dearborn Fire Fighters Union.
Winston L. Livingston Douglas and J. Korney, for plaintiff Police Officers Association of Dear- born. Forbes,
Joseph Eugene Burtell A. for de- fendant. Bronson, J.,
Before: P. and V. J. Brennan O’Hara,* JJ. remand).
O’Hara, J. (concurring except as Judge and I agree Bronson Judge with Brennan respects in all except as to the for fur- necessity ther arbitrational proceedings.
The failure of the city to designate a member panel, arbitration does panel’s not affect jurisdiction. legislative Jurisdiction stems from the * Supreme Justice, sitting Appeals by Former Court on the Court of assignment pursuant to Const 23§ as amended in 1968. Brennan, Opinion of V. J. subject
grant Whatever the matter. effect over presence kind or absence city’s doing might been, it was the have member only two. Neither the nor there were reversed, can union, vitiate the were the situation simply by procedure inaction. arbitration say quixotic, least, were we to It accept city’s that because it refused contention it can member now through go all the union again. over
Affirmed. J., concurred.
Bronson, (concurring part and dis- V. J. part). senting raised in these The issues two identical; facts in each case are cases are they may be summarized as almost identical1 follows:
Negotiations and the between the defendant organizations plaintiffs employee failed and each dispute to mediation. After the the was submitted disputes, to resolve failure mediation organizations employee each submitted seq.; to MCLA 423.231 et 17.455(31) acting seq. city, on its belief et MSA compulsory the aforementioned unconstitutional, did not required to the arbitration 17.455(34). 423.234; At time this MCLA *4 requested employee organizations the Michi- gan Employment Commission to Relations appoint- panel. Such of the arbitration chairman case, a two-man ment was made each panel (consisting of of a significant being only occur the dates of certain 1 The differences rences. Opinion of V. J. appointed the chairman MERC) proceeded hearings conduct and subse- city quently decision. The rendered its refused to comply panels of with the decisions these two-man organizations employee arbitrators, of compel implementation subsequently filed suit to judgments panels’ By final of the Wayne County award. in the Court, the Circuit was ordered implement in each case to the award of the arbi- appeals trators. The each decision and the joined appeals are here. cases,
In the defendant both attacks the constitutionality compulsory grounds. supra, argu- statute, on three The first ment advanced the defendant is that the stat- powers granted ute of divests home-rule cities to them Michigan article 7,
Constitution 1963. The defendant’s spe- is without merit. The Constitution cifically provides legislature may that "The enact providing laws for the resolution of con- cerning public employees, except those the state classified civil service”. Const art 43. 4, compulsory arbitration statute here under consid- grant eration falls within this to the Legislature. powers state of home rule cities "subject are to the constitution and law”. Const 22.§ The second advanced is an un- delegation legislative constitutional istrative and admin- private persons. To determine group private whether a or for such purposes, character, we must look to "its its rela- tions, and its functions”. Penn School District No 7 v Lewis Cass Intermediate School District Board of Education, (1968). The dele- *5 51 42 Brennan, Opinion V. J. of portion a body sovereign of gation state, the specifically here authority and policemen between cities to arbitrate it a City firemen, body. renders of itself Regular Firemen’s v Associa- of Warwick Warwick (1969). tion, RI 256 A2d context, in this argues, that the also Defendant (MCLA 423.239; in the statute set forth standards 17.455[39]) adequately are insufficient cir- of In authority. arbitrator’s exercise cumscribe the Warwick, supra, Supreme of the Court of City argument an regarding such rejected Rhode Island contained almost identical statute which similar that stand- Court there found such The standards. the limited directed and properly only ards not arbitrators, but also formed an the of basis, review. On this judicial adequate basis argument. defendant’s reject we argument by advanced final constitutional is that the city impose in violation power to taxes surrenders 2. Defendant’s of Const has the author- arbitrators that since the expenses necessary for the ity increase it departments, fire police to maintain its increase necessarily would command burden. to meet the additional taxes order argument, extension of defendant’s logical below, would Judge Kaufman noted any price in the that increase any conclusion also purchase must commodity which a inflation While violative of the constitution. undesirable, ready not yet we are certainly be Furthermore, to hold it unconstitutional. meet resources free reallocate always arbitra- placed it upon demands
increased increasing taxes. without necessarily award Opinion V. J. the legislation ques- Having determined infirm, constitutionally we turn to tion is not city: raised defendant second *6 invalid for failure award was to comply provisions of procedural the statute. with This argument by is advanced the defendant Fire Fighters only. case of Dearborn The decision not this issue in the raise Dearborn Police made for "tactical Officers case was reasons”. The challenge procedural first made the defendant no panel is that a two-man has jurisdiction what- soever conduct to the Despite statute. the fact that defendant’s own noncompliance express with the statutory provi- situation, argument sions created this its is cor- speaks terms, rect. The statute in mandatory in these terms sets forth a step-by-step procedure which must be panel followed order for the 17.455(34) 423.234; render an award. MCLA MSA provides that: thereafter,
"Within 10 days the employer shall choose delegate” added), a (emphasis days that 5 thereafter delegates "the compe- shall impartial, reputable tent and person arbitrator, to act as an hereafter called the panel arbitrator or chairman of the arbitration, and with them to constitute an arbitra- to further consider and a order 17.455(35). settlement of all 423.235; matters.” MCLA It is obvious that until steps these have been followed an arbitration yet has to be consti- tuted and therefore portion a of such a does not have the authority Legislature to act. final raised defendant the courts below holding erred in App 51 Bkennan, Opinion V. raising procedural these from estopped city with the comply failure statute. questions by first, for two reasons: is meritorious This estoppel doctrine of is not application can no in this situation. appropriate "[TJhere his prejudice misled to unless one is estoppel against estoppel whom the acts of another Practice, & Estoppel, Law up.” Michigan set (See 2d, Am §8, p Estoppel also 28 Jur 367.) CJS, Waiver, Estoppel, p p here is failure defendant we find What statutorily duty, mandated but not perform give to the necessary rise misrepresentation Second, estoppel. munici- equitable application of illegal of its estopped by the acts pality may (11 Practice, Law & Michigan officers or 2d, Am Estoppel, p 79; Estoppel Jur *7 CJS, Waiver, Estoppel, pp p 710-712). appointment being duty placed upon of arbitration Michigan, of the state of city by a valid law asserting a estopped from city may here the such circumstances. defect under jurisdictional fatal, being always A lack of below, in both Dearborn decisions issue) (the and Dearborn case which raised Police, on should be reversed this basis.