Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Detroit

482 Mich 18 ASSOCIATION, DETROIT FIRE FIGHTERS IAFF LOCAL 344 v CITY OF DETROIT (Calendar 7). Argued Docket No. 131463. November No. Decided July 23, 2008. Fighters Association, The Detroit Fire brought IAFF Local declaratory Wayne action for and relief in the Circuit Court city announced, after the of Detroit compulsory while arbitration was proceeding, proposal layoffs restructuring for within and of the fire department. court, Borman, J., The temporarily enjoined Susan D. city implementing the proposal from safely its and referred the dispute assigned compulsory to the arbitrator to the arbitration case. arbitrator, asserting jurisdiction, The a lack of declined to decide proposal safety whether the would affect remaining the of the firefighters. Thereafter, the trial proposal court concluded that the questions relating raised factual firefighter safety may have implicated mandatory subjects bargaining under the em- ployment (PERA), seq. relations act Accordingly, MCL 423.201 et enjoined court implementing defendant from proposal its before proceedings complete. appealed. were The defendant Appeals, EJ., The Court of JJ., and Cooper, Schdette, Bandstra held that the trial court did not granting abuse its discretion in injunction because, layoff while decisions themselves are not a mandatory subject bargaining, impact layoff of the decision is mandatory subject layoffs to the extent the relate to (2006). safety. workload and applied The defendant appeal, Supreme granted. leave to which the Court 477 Mich 927 (2006) Following arguments, . Supreme oral Court ordered supplemental briefing, reargument. and then ordered opinion by In joined by Justice Chief Justice Young, Taylor and Justices Supreme Corrigan, Court Weaver, Markman, held: The circuit court preliminary erred when injunc- it issued the preventing implementation tion restructuring plan. circuit permanent court issued what amounted ato underlying where the alleged merits of the violation resolved, contrary would never be requirements to the of MCR Detroit Ass’n v 3.310(A)(5). allegedly challenged employer’s action Where an safety, firefighter it alters the status jeopardizes police or (Act 312), PA 312 during pendency under 1969 of arbitration inextricably 423.243, intertwined if the action MCL safety. Contrary merely arguably to the safety, affects and not Detroit, holding Ass’n v in Detroit Police Officers overruled, party claiming of the (1985), a a violation now which is petitions the circuit court for quo provision Act 312 that of status injunction pending of the merits of preliminary the resolution a traditionally underlying quo meet the status claim must the injunctive injunctive relief is applicable relief. If standards for quo claim granted, the merits of the status the court must decide injunction granted good unless cause after the is within six months stipulate longer period. parties a or the is shown prohibits parties quo provision of Act 312 both 1. The status hours, consent, existing wages, changing, and other without from during employment 312 arbitration. Act conditions of safety alleging employer’s action will alter 2. A union that during conditions, mandatory subject bargaining, of Act 312 a quo provision must demon- in of the status violation inextricably employer’s is intertwined with that the action strate safety. present safety, merely arguably that it affects In the and not may case, plan that the circuit court found the defendant’s conclusively implicated safety and it never determined have unlawfully quo plan because the altered the status the Accordingly, actually firefighter safety. circuit court the affected was, injunction practice, permanent granting in a erred in what resolving alleged quo the violation. the merits of status without injunction alleged seeking preliminary prevent party a 3. A First, satisfy process. quo two-step it must must status violation injunction, preliminary test for meet the traditional four-element moving party the made a court must consider whether under which harm, showing irreparable harm the required whether the injunction outweighs applicant the harm it would cause to absent an moving party party, that the demonstrated the adverse whether merits, likely underlying to succeed on the and whether claim is Second, injunction if the harmed if an is issued. interest will be warranted, promptly it relief is must court determines that pursuant to MCR of the status claim decide the merits 3.310(A)(5), to be requires trial of the action on the merits which injunction good granted, unless six months after held within stipulate longer period. to a or the cause is shown only. in the result Justice CAVANAGH concurred vacated; Reversed; injunction circuit case remanded to the proceedings. court for further concurring part dissenting part, agreed Justice in Kelly, the case should be remanded for a clear determination of occurred, require whether violation but would not harm, irreparable presumed union to show which should be light policy Legislature of the decision the made when it enacted any remedy Act 312 that other than an would be inadequate. impose policy Because this Court should not choices Legislature, that differ from those selected Detroit Police v Ass’n Detroit should not be overruled. Officers — — Departments 1. Labor Relations and Fire Police Quo Status Viola- — Compulsory Safety. tions in Arbitration safety, mandatory subject An action that affects which is a employment,” may during “condition of not be undertaken pendency compulsory dispute municipal arbitration of a labor in a police department violating quo provision or fire without the status (MCL 423.243). compulsory arbitration statute — 2. Labor Relations — Departments Police and Fire Status Viola- Quo — — Compulsory Safety tions in Arbitration Standards for Deter- mining Status Quo Violations. employer’s A jeopardizes claim that an safety police action or firefighters quo provision compul- violation of the status sory only by demonstrating arbitration statute can be established inextricably safety, the action is intertwined with and not (MCL merely 423.243). arguably safety that it affects — 3. Labor Relations — Departments Police and Fire Status Viola- Quo Injunctions — Compulsory — tions Arbitration Standards Injunctive Relief. determining grant When preliminary injunctive whether to relief party alleges quo during where a compulsory status violation dispute municipal police arbitration of a labor department, or fire a court moving party must consider whether required made the harm, showing irreparable applicant whether harm to the absent injunction outweighs the harm party, it would cause to the adverse moving party whether the underlying demonstrated that the claim is likely merits, public succeed on the and whether the interest will be (MCL injunction harmed if an seq.). is issued 423.231 et — 4. Labor Relations — Departments Police and Fire Status Viola- Quo Rulings — Compulsory tions in Arbitration on the Merits of Status Quo Violation Claims. grants preliminary injunctive If a court relief where there is an alleged violation, quo status the court must then decide the merits the status claim within six months after the is Fighters y Ass’n Detroit Opinion of the Court granted good parties stipulate or unless cause shown to a (MCL 3.310[A][5]). longer period seq.; 423.231 et MCR Helveston, (by Helveston & EC. Ronald R. Helveston Schwartz) M. for the Detroit Fire Mindy Association.

Bruce A. Campbell city for the of Detroit.

Amici Curiae: Cox, General,

Michael A. Attorney Thomas L. Casey, General, Gartner, Solicitor and Richard E Assistant General, Attorney Michigan for the Employment Rela- tions Commission. Entenman,

Dykema (by Gossett FLLC John A. Melvin II) Muskovitz, J. and F. Arthur Jones for the Michigan Municipal League.

Nantz, Litowich, Smith, (by Firard & Hamilton John H. for the Gretzinger) city of Iron Mountain.

YOUNG, J. At issue in dispute labor law plaintiff between Detroit Fire Fighters Association and city defendant of Detroit is whether the circuit court properly issued a preliminary injunction prevent implementation of defendant’s proposed layoff and re- structuring plan where plaintiff contends that the (Act violates the “status PA quo” provision of 1969 312), 423.243, MCL by, among things, other jeopardiz- ing safety remaining firefighters. We conclude that the injunction erroneously was entered. party

Where a seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent violation, alleged a two-step First, is process required. moving party satisfy must four-part the traditional test that is prerequisite Second, issuance if any preliminary injunction. of Opinion op the Court injunction test are met and preliminary conditions of the injunction promptly the circuit court must granted, is the status claim. Pursuant resolve merits of 3.310(A)(5), granted, if a is a preliminary injunction MCR “trial of the action on the merits must be held within 6 granted, good months after the unless cause a parties stipulate longer period.” is shown or the The quo provision prevents status Act 312 either consent, from party altering, “existing wages, without hours, employment,” or other conditions of which con- mandatory subjects bargaining, cern while Act 312 is pending. quo provision The status does prevent parties exercising not from their contractual rights they hour, if not alter an existing wage, do or case, other condition of In it employment. is defen- dant’s implementation restructuring layoff its plan that is at issue. Plaintiff claims it change is a in “existing . . . conditions of it employment” because jeopardize firefighter safety, precedent will which our treats as a “condition of employment” mandatory subject bargaining. Defendant, hand, on the other argues lay it has the contractual right off Thus, firefighters. in order for the quo provision case, to be violated in this it must be determined that restructuring layoff plan actually alters a namely condition of employment, firefighter safety. The question is what standard a circuit court must apply order for it to determine that an employer’s challenged actually action violates the status pro- by altering vision this condition employment. in Oak Park Pub Safety Ass’n Court of Officers v Oak Park1 recently adopted the standard that a staffing proposal “inextricably must be intertwined safety” mandatory subject to be of bargaining. 317, 330; 745 NW2d 527 Ass’n v Detroit Opinion Court adopt We this standard for circuit court review of the of status violation claim A type presented here. circuit court must conclude that the employer’s chal- is lenged plan “inextricably safety” so intertwined with that its would alter implementation impermissibly by status quo altering employment. this “condition” of The circuit thorough findings court must make factual supporting such a conclusion.

Here, not did the circuit court fail to resolve the merits, safety claim on the it entered what amounted to a permanent injunction without applying traditional Thus, standards. we hold that the circuit court erroneously granted injunctive relief and the Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed that decision.

Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals, vacate the preliminary injunction court, entered the circuit and remand proceedings for further consistent with this decision.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff is the exclusive bargaining representative of (DFD) eligible Detroit Fire Department employees. Defendant is the Both are employer. parties to a collec- (CBA) tive bargaining agreement that took effect expired 1998 and June on 2001. Until a new agreement forged arbitration, in the Act 312 operate under the old CBA. That continue CBA in pertinent states at Article 2.D part City right lay personnel

[t]he reserves off for lack of funds; beyond work or or for the occurrence of conditions Department; the control of the or when such continuation unproductive of work would be wasteful and ....

In parties agreed Article Opinion of the Court legally [w]ages, employment hours and conditions of shall, agreement, except effect on the effective date of this herein, during improved be maintained the term of this as Agreement. restrict, with,

It is the intent of this Article to interfere not carrying prevent City from out its duties and or hinder illustration, being, by way responsibilities well limitation, rights, responsibilities duties and but not those Purpose in Article 2 and Intent clause enumerated hereof, subject City’s obligations [public under PERA to the employment relations and other laws. act] 2001, After the CBA in were expired 2002, to to a contract. In December agree unable new under Act 312 plaintiff compulsory invoked arbitration agreement. to create a successor Act 312 is meant to effective, “alternate, and bind- provide expeditious, ing” process.2 agreed by Unless otherwise parties, requires Act 312 the arbitrator to call a days being conclude hearing appointed,3 within commencement,4 hearing days within 30 of its and opinion days issue a written within 30 of the conclusion Here, of the the time hearing.5 parties waived imposes limitations that Act 312 on the arbitration result, process. “expeditious” As a Act 312 arbitra- process pending years. tion is still after more than five Defendant serious experienced budget shortfalls dur- ing the Act 312 arbitration. These difficult ongoing provides, pertinent part: public policy Section 1 of Act 312 in “It is the public police right departments, of this state that in and fire where the employees prohibited, requisite high to strike is law it is to the morale employees operation departments of such and the efficient of such alternate, expeditious, binding procedure afford an and effective added). disputes (emphasis ....” 423.231 resolution MCL 423.236. MCL 4 Id.

5 MCL 423.238. Ass’n v Detroit Opinion op the Court operations financial circumstances affected the DFD, leading defendant implement restructuring and a layoffs, July round effective 2005. Unfortunately, the budget problems persisted, and de- announced, fendant September additional plan to restructure the DFD. plan, Under this defen- dant off proposed lay firefighters, demote 10 chiefs, battalion and reduce number of battalions eight from to five. plan reassigned the battalion chiefs duties at “garden variety fires” to the senior scene, officer at the engine deactivated five ladder companies.

Plaintiff filed suit Wayne Circuit Court on 12, 2005, September seeking declaratory relief to stop September 2005 reorganization plan from going into effect while the Act 312 arbitration was pending. Plaintiff argued that unilateral implementa- tion of the restructuring plan violated the provision of Act 312 because it required unilateral alteration of staffing, duties, minimum job seniority, parity, and emergency medical service requirements, all of which affected both firefighter safety and mandatory subjects bargaining.

The circuit court held hearings beginning late September, and granted plaintiffs for a request prelimi nary injunction 17, on October 2005. The court found there were issues concerning of fact whether the layoffs would have an impact safety on the of the firefighters mandatory subject under —a 1277, this Court’s decision Local Metropolitan Coun 23, AFSCME, cil No. AFL-CIO v City Center Line6 (Center II). Line 6 (1982). 642; 414 Mich 327 NW2d 822 Mich 18 Opinion of the Court assigned sent the case to the Act judge

The circuit arbitrator, Long, safety to decide the Michael E 2005, 27, at issue and render his decision October if judge time the circuit would determine which in place. Although would remain preliminary injunction to the circuit hearings, responded he held arbitrator opinion stating October that he court determination any was “not able to make well reasoned dispute.” Long as to the resolution of this Arbitrator jurisdiction safety indicated that he lacked to decide issue, observing that normal channels were not “[t]he regarding followed reference of the matter to [Act] arbitration.” He sent the case back to the circuit court the circuit recommended that court order to mediation while keeping place process until the mediation concluded. circuit court again granted preliminary injunc- 31, 2005, tion in an October order following another At this hearing. hearing the court reviewed its earlier statements and conceded: say reading

I do want for the record after transcript previous hearing 17th, of the that I felt my inapt choice of words was because it sounded like making impact. I was a determination that there was an my place That is not to do that.

However, judge clarified, the circuit “I find that there’s as question serious of fact to whether or not [the restructuring have an plan] impact fight- would on fire safety, ers’ or indeed upon working conditions or work- ing Relying hours.” on Center Line II and Detroit Police Detroit,7 Ass’n v court found that Officers reorganization layoff “may implicate manda- tory provisions bargaining, namely collective (1984), 354 NW2d 297 vacated 419 Mich 915 Fighters Ass’n v Detroit Opinion op the Court the Plan the hours and conditions of impact [sic] on on of the members employment (including safety) The order plaintiff.” preliminary injunction enjoined de- chiefs, eliminating ehminating fendant from the battalion companies, laying off the firefighting firefighters. It all parties necessary steps also ordered the to take to the matter before an Act 312 brought panel have questions surrounding safely determine factual issues. The order maintained the until binding issuance of a final and Act 312 award.

The Court of affirmed the circuit court in a published Observing parties decision.8 had a duty collectively bargain under PERA to about manda- subjects of tory layoff and that decisions are mandatory subjects, panel not relied on this Court’s II Center Line “where, here, decision to hold that as proposed layoffs restructuring may impact safety working firefighters, conditions for those pro- are posals mandatory subjects bargaining.”9 panel agreed finding with the circuit court’s that “the evidence established ‘serious issues of fact’ as to proposed whether would changes impact safety, hours,” working working conditions and as a result “the proposed changes subjects mandatory were bargaining, and defendant could not therefore make these unilateral alterations while the are en- gaged compulsory arbitration.”10 It disagreed with argument inap- defendant’s relief was propriate permitted because the terms of the CBA carry defendant out the restructuring plan. Detroit, Detroit Fire Ass’n v 722 NW2d 9 Id. at 461. 10 Id. at 463. Opinion the Court appeal filed an for leave application

Defendant Follow- granted leave to this Court. This Court appeal.11 supplemental ordered ing arguments, oral this Court subsequently ordered reargument.13 briefing,12 REVIEW

STANDARDOF denial a grant a trial court’s or of This Court reviews There is an injunction for abuse of discretion.14 temporary discretion when the trial court’s decision falls abuse of A range question of principled outside the outcomes.15 question of law that we statutory interpretation is of contract Finally, interpreta- review de issues novo.16 tion are also of law reviewed de novo.17 questions

ANALYSIS are Michigan governed by Public labor relations purposes PERA. One of PERA’s “is to resolve primary 11 (2006). grant parties order to brief 477 Mich 927 asked the may restructuring lay implement plan, “whether the defendant or off firefighters, coming agreement plaintiff about the before to impact of actions.” those 12 (1) (2007). order, parties 478 Mich 1201 In this we asked the to address 23, 1277, AFSCME, Metropolitan Council No Local AFL-CIO v whether (1977) (Center I), Line, 281; Center 78 Mich 259 NW2d 460 Line 423.243, correctly jurisdiction § held that to 13 of Act MCL enforce (2) court, Michigan Employment in the circuit whether the resides primary jurisdiction § Relations Commission has to enforce see Travel (2001). Edison, our ers Ins Co v Detroit 465 Mich 631 NW2d 733 Given case, resolution of this we do not reach the issues we asked the to reargument. address on 13 (2007). 14 Comm, Michigan Employee Coalition State Unions v Civil Service (2001). 212, 217; Mich 465 634 NW2d 692 15 (2006). Co, 372, 388; Maldonado v Ford Motor 476 Mich 719 NW2d 809 16 Services, 403,408; Community Emergency v Med 475 Mich 716 Costa (2006). NW2d Sweebe, 151, 154; 712 Sweebe v NW2d 708 Detroit Ass’n v Opinion of the Court bargain- through collective strife labor-management not strike may union PERA a labor public ing.”18Under collective arise disagreements when in Michi- unions sector labor public Because process.19 tool strike, they significant lack a right lack the gan bargaining position. their leverage terms, “supplementary” Act By its own Act years earlier.20 PERA, enacted over was which police intended, context specific 312 was in bargain- unions, to redress the imbalance firefighter strikes, and to by the prohibition created ing power by strike these illegal of an preclude possibility services, namely police vital provide unions that observed: As Justice COLEMAN and fire protection. strike, community engage in policemen When immediately endangered the withdrawal becomes on Likewise, has often focused our case law their services. and crucial fighters have a distinct the fact fire public employer.[21] relationship with a employment 18 309, Dist, 452 Mich v Huron Area School Huron Ed Ass’n Port Port (1996). 311; 228 550 NW2d 19MCL 423.202. 20 (“This supplementary to Act No. as act shall be deemed MCL423.244 amended, being 1947, 423.201 to sections Acts of as 336 of the Public repeal any 1948, Compiled amend or and does not Laws of 423.216 fact-finding proce any requiring provisions thereof provisions; but of its subject under this inapplicable disputes to arbitration dures shall he act.”). J.). (opinion In of Fighters, Mich at 279 Dearborn COLEMAN, justices participating, the remain Fighters, not with three Dearborn Fire constitutionality justices Act 312. Justice Levin ing of four considered the anas Kavanagh the act was unconstitutional held that and Chief Justice legislative power. held the statute delegation Justice Coleman of unlawful entirety. constitu held the statute Justice Williams constitutional in its evenly this Court the members of the case. With tional on the facts of constitutionality of Act upholding the split, decision the Court again constitutionality considered of Act 312 was 312 was affirmed. Opinion op the Court

Thus, public employer

[u]nder Act if police and the fighters’ bargaining offers’ or fire unit have not reached an agreement concerning mandatory subject bargaining, proves unsuccessful, and mediation party may either ini strike.[22] binding tiate arbitration in order to avert a The status quo provision of Act 312 states that [d]uring pendency proceedings before the arbitration panel, existing wages, hours and other conditions of em ployment changed by shall not be party action of either without the party may consent the other but a so consent act.[23] prejudice rights position without to his or under this Recalling the delicate balance of bargaining power our labor statutes preserve seek to in police and firefighter disputes, labor provision was prevent intended to party either from gaining unfair leverage during the pendency of Act 312 interest arbitration.

Under the quo provision, neither party with- out consent can alter “existing wages, hours, and other conditions employment” while Act 312 arbitration is pending. We observed in Center II Line that safety is a condition of employment and, such, as a mandatory subject of bargaining.24 Consequently, status quo upheld by majority of this Court Detroit v Detroit Police Officers Ass’n, (1980), 408 Mich 294 NW2d 68 and Center Line II. J.). Fighters, (opinion Dearborn Fire 394 Mich at 280 of Coleman, 23 MCL 423.243. II, also, See Center Line e.g., 414 Mich at 661-664. See Manistee v Ass’n, IAFF, 118, 122; Manistee Fire Local II, 435 NW2d 778 In Center Line one of the central issues was the scope panel’s authority. of an interpreted Act 312 This Court Act 312 in mandatory context of PERA’s permissive distinction between “[wjhile subjects bargaining, observing of specifi that Act 312 does not cally scope panel’s delineate authority, of the arbitration it can be analysis inferred from an [PERA] which considers . .. and Act 312 together.” at “[g]iven Id. 651-652. We held that the fact that Act 312 Fighters Ass’n v Detroit Opinion the Court of of existing to an condition changes prohibits provision of Act during pendency safety as such employment 312 arbitration. involving alleged an in a case importance

Of chief restruc employer’s is whether violation employment of alters a condition turing layoff plan recently held of safety. as The Court such Act 312 compel seeks to that where a union Oak Park decisions, it must staffing respect with to arbitration in “inextricably are those decisions demonstrate that sub mandatory to constitute a safety” with tertwined not, employer If it then the of does ject bargaining.25 decision staffing arbitrate the compelled cannot be to “unten- rejected Park as panel under Act 312. The Oak duty bargain complements § PERA the PERA and that under 15 of only subjects, panel only mandatory can .. . the arbitration extends to Thus, mandatory subjects.” compel agreement Id. at 654. we as to scope panel of in Center Line II exceeded concluded that the Act 312 layoff compelled accept provision authority a as its when it clause, layoff provided part which new labor contract because of a layoffs made in police lack of funds could be that officer departments, conjunction layoffs fell within and cutbacks other with scope management prerogative and outside the realm of was However, mandatory subjects bargaining. Line II cautioned that Center subject lay mandatory a initial decision to off is not “while the award, bargaining, compelled in it therefore cannot be duty bargain impact decision.” over the of that is clear that there is a off, lay according impact to Center Line of the decision to Id. at 661. triggers II, mandatory subject bargaining might implicate that a collectively bargain. duty to that, case, parties appear to concede consistent In this both lay firefighters. II, prerogative to off Line defendant retains the Center restructuring plan, However, argues impact plaintiff mandatory subject layoffs, implicates includes which employment” safety, firefighter “condition of it because affects proceedings. during Act 312 arbitration should not be altered Park, App also Trenton v Trenton Fire Mich at 329-330. See Oak 2701, IAFF, Union, Mich 420 NW2d Local Opinion of the Court able” the union’s proposed alternative standard that long “as as a staffing affects, decision arguably con- cerns, or relates safety to the effect be mini- —whether mal, insignificant, or unjustifiable issue of staffing —the is a employment condition of subject that is to manda- tory arbitration.”26 It reasoned: implemented

The standards by hearing referee in MERC this case are require consistent with the ment that significant those matters that have a impact employment subject on conditions of are to mandatory bargaining. impact staffing The of a decision conditions, working on including safety, proven must be significant, to merely be not to exist. ... To arguably adopt position the union’s would be tantamount to requiring most, all, that if not staffing minimum proposals particularly regard [public safety — officers], police officers, firefighters, engaged and others high-risk professions subject mandatory bar —be gaining, given that a reduction in the number of these employees arguably will have some—albeit minimal— impact safety. on Such a conclusion would have the effect invading city’s prerogative to determine the size scope business, including its the services it will conclusion.[27] provide. We decline to reach such a Although Oak Park addressed a legal different issue and not the presented here, issue we find the logic and standard endorsed Oak Park compelling A hasty context.28 or tentative finding that a Park, Oak at 326. (citations omitted). Id. at 329-330 Park, city In Oak practice charge against filed an unfair labor union, alleging unlawfully bargaining that the union demanded over permissive subjects, safety/staffing provision, such as a in an hearing Act 312 arbitration. panel referee and the MERC ruled in city, deciding favor of duty that bargain the union breached its good published faith. The Court of opinion per affirmed in a curiam. V DETROIT ASS’N DETROIT FIRE FIGHTERS Opinion the Court the status layoff plan violates restructuring to determine city’s prerogative “invad[e] would it business, including the services of its scope size and every employer’s if surely as as provide,”29 just will safety affected merely arguably staffing decision Thus, mandatory bargaining. subject to conditions were restructuring plan jeopardizes layoff and whether examination a careful safety requires employee “inextricably plan finding details and have a it would safety” such intertwined with safety.30 on “significant impact” decision the circuit court’s problem The central the Court of case, by extension in this defen- it, it found that is that decision to affirm a “may” implicate restructuring plan layoff dant’s this case and that subject mandatory After firefighter safety. of fact” about questions “raised the circuit court injunction, issuing preliminary the unlawfully determined that the conclusively never Indeed, circuit court ex- the quo. the status altered deciding the merits it was not stated pressly attempted And, the circuit court claim. when plaintiffs safety dispute, the to resolve Long to induce Arbitrator so. he declined to do to restrain of a decision magnitude

Given the this prerogative, management exercise of a employer’s unten- ruling court uncertainty a circuit level of place terms, was to remain injunction its this By able. arbitration, but a Act 312 until the conclusion of have been the merits would never determination on the level, termed what was practical made. On a a de became injunction” a “preliminary circuit court mer- resolving the injunction, without permanent facto 29 Id. at 330.

30 Id. 482MICH18

Opinion the Court alleged its of the status Moreover, violation. injunction was issued where the traditional elements required relief had not been established. Specifically,although the circuit court found that there regarding safety were “issues of fact” issue, it did not find that there was a likelihood of success on the regard, merits in this nor did the court conclude that firefighters irreparable would suffer harm. party preliminary injunction Where a seeks prevent alleged case, violation as party satisfy two-step process. must First, it bears proving the burden of that the traditional four elements preliminary injunction. favor the issuance of a The trial (1) movingparty court must evaluate whether made required (2) irreparable demonstration of harm, applicant injunction harm to the absent such an out- weighs (3) party, the harm it would cause to the adverse moving party likely prevail showed that it is on (4) merits, there will be harm to the interest if an is issued.31 Second,if a trial court determines that the standards preliminary injunction for a have been met and chooses 31Michigan Employees Dep’t Health, State Ass’n v Mental 421 Mich 152, (1984). 157-158; 365 NW2d 93 See also Pontiac Fire Union Pontiac, (2008). Local 10-11; 376 v 482 Mich 753 NW2d 595 We disagree with and overrule as inconsistent with this Court’s decision the Appeals holding Court of in Detroit Detroit, Police Ass’n v 142 Officers App 248; (1985), Mich 369 NW2d 480 that the traditional apply issuing injunction standards do not when remedy a violation quo provision. of the status consistently This Court has held that it is “basically contrary public policy injunctions in this State to issue disputes labor showing violence, absent irreparable a injury, or breach peace.” of the Ass’n, Holland School Dist v Holland Ed (1968); 157 Michigan NW2d 206 Employees Ass’n, see also State 164-165; Michigan Mich at Union, Law Teamsters Local Enforcement Highland Park, 129 v injunction Mich 945 n 1 concerning An dispute quo provision about the status differently. should be treated no V DETROIT FIRE FIGHTERS ASS’N DETROIT Opinion op the Court decide promptly it must injunction, to issue 3.310(A) governs claim. MCR status of the merits “[i]f requires Subsection injunctions. preliminary trial of the . . . granted [t]he is injunction a preliminary after 6 months must be held within the merits action on is shown or cause good unless granted, is injunction longer period.”32 ato stipulate the parties engage must remand, circuit court Therefore, on determine First, it must two-step inquiry. in this four-part the traditional satisfied has plaintiff whether injunction, particularly a preliminary test of success on a likelihood demonstrated has plaintiff with “inextricably intertwined is that the merits harm. Sec- showing irreparable and made safety” injunction, preliminary court issues a ond, if the circuit that the the merits a determination on there must be intertwined “inextricably action is challenged employer in Oak was articulated as that standard safety” the chal- conclude that do more than Park. It must To that safety. affects employer arguably action lenged employer that the circuit court end, decision any must be safety” intertwined with “inextricably action findings detailed by specific, supported conclusive of fact.

CONCLUSION when it issued court erred that the circuit We hold implementa- preventing injunction the preliminary issued The circuit court restructuring plan. of the tion where the a permanent amounted to what violation alleged merits of the underlying 3.310(A)(2) permits accelerate However, the court MCR consolidating action on the by advancing the trial of the process case, the merits hearing In either on the motion. merits with the unresolved. claim cannot remain Opinion by Kelly, J. resolved,

would be never contrary to the requirements 3.310(A)(5). of MCR that, We further hold when a safety claim is alleged, an employer’s challenged action alters the status quo during the pendency of an Act 312 if the action is so “inextricably inter- twined with safety” that the action would alter a “condition employment.”

We reverse the Court of judgment, vacate the preliminary injunction by entered court, circuit remand the case to the circuit court for further proceed- ings consistent opinion. with this

Taylor, C.J., Weaver, Corrigan, Markman, JJ., concurred J. YOUNG, IJ. concur in the only. result

CAVANAGH, KELLY, J. (concurring part and dissenting part). I concur the majority’s decision to remand this case to the circuit court for a clear determination of whether city reorganization Detroit’s § violates 13 of Act 312. The remand is necessary because the circuit court stated its conclusions in terms that are too tentative.

The circuit court must determine whether the union likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that a status quo violation occurred. If it finds such a likeli- hood, it may presume that the union will be irreparably harmed should the violation not be enjoined for the duration of the arbitration proceedings. Because I have reached conclusion, it follows I that would not overrule Detroit Police Ass’n v Detroit.1 Officers Detroit, Detroit Police v Ass’n 369 NW2d Officers (1985) (Detroit POA). ASS’N V DETROIT DETROIT FIRE FIGHTERS Kelly, J. Opinion held that the POA, the Court of In Detroit finding of make a required not trial court was remedy at law before inadequate harm or irreparable It relied on § 13 of Act 312.2 of violations enjoining quo status a similar courts of by federal interpretation (RLA).3That Act Railway Labor in the federal provision pay, “rates of part in relevant states provision by the shall not be altered conditions rules, working or finally acted has been controversy until carrier . .. .”4 Mediation Board by ... upon Supreme the United States courts, including Federal injunctive allows Court, provision held that have showing of a district courts without by the enforcement Federal major disputes.5 in cases of harm irreparable irreparable requirement forgo the traditional courts does not statutory language plain because the harm pre- harm is showing irreparable a such require major involving disputes.6 sumed cases 2 Id. at 253.

3 seq. 151 et 45 USC 4 45 USC 156. rights Major disagreements future contractual disputes over involve required parties existing agreements. The are changes in the terms in or during lengthy and mediation the status to maintain Air, the Int’l Brother process. Ass’n ABX Inc v Airline Professionals (CA 392, 1224, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, 266 F3d Local Union No hood of 2001). Supreme the use of Court authorized The United States major quo provision of the RLA for the status relief to enforce Ass’n, Corp Executives’ 491 US disputes. v R Labor Consolidated Rail 2477; 299, 303; In Detroit & Toledo L Ed 2d 250 109 S Ct 150; Union, 90 S Transportation 396 US Line R Co v United Shore (1969), explained Supreme its rationale: Court L 2d 325 Ct 24 Ed self-help provides “[Djelaying can resort the time when atmosphere rational cool, helps in which tempers create an time for opinion public to be occur, permits the forces bargaining can or lockout.” without strike in favor of a settlement mobilized light injury required irreparable showing is not A duty to disputes the fact that of labor interest in settlement Opinion by Kelly, J. majority argues issuing with

out a showing irreparable harm goes against public policy of this state and that a violation should not special receive However, treatment.7 one of the by cases cited the majority involves a viola § tion of 13 of Act 312. In its peremptory order in that

case, the Court did not consider the public policy concerns codified in Act 312.8 And when the Court had an opportunity to consider whether the holding of Detroit POA contradicted the public policy of this state, it denied leave to appeal.9

It is an accepted rule of statutory construction that the Court should not impose policy choices that differ from those selected the Legislature.10 The majority here acknowledges the public policy concerns that oc- casioned the passing of Act 312: intended, “Act 312 was in the specific context police of and firefighter unions, to redress the in imbalance bargaining power created by prohibition strikes, of and preclude to the possibility of an illegal by strike these unions that provide vital public services, namely police and fire protection.”11 These policy concerns are expressly codified in two 423.231, statutes: MCL which affords arbitration to police and firefighter unions alternate, as “an expedi- tious, and effective binding procedure for the resolution quo maintain qualification the status “contains no to the effect that the obligation carrier has no quo] [maintain irreparable status unless injury would otherwise result.” Southern R Co v Brotherhood Locomo (DC Enginemen, 127, 1964). tive Cir, Firemen and 337 F2d 133-34 7 Ante at 34 n 31. 8 Michigan Union, See Law High Teamsters Local 129 v Enforcement (1985). Park, land 422 Mich 945 n 1 (1986). Detroit, Detroit Police Ass’n v Officers 10People McIntire, 152-153; v 599 NW2d 102 11Ante at 29. Detroit Ass’n v by Opinion Kelly, J. uni- 423.243, prohibits MCL which disputes,”12 is quo while in the status changes lateral pending.13 harm irreparable requirement traditional be cannot injury a determination

requires A unilat- injunction.14 than an means other by repaired obviously negative quo has in the status change eral It compromises bargaining power. a union’s effect on Because of the bargaining process. integrity of changes unilateral at which disadvantage to attain a retroac- unlikely union, the union place is the a strike quo. status Because restoration tive in the bargaining power maintaining method of prevent 312 aims to change, Act a unilateral face of Thus, firefighters. by police to strikes resort decided that effectively Legislature Act passing inad- would be other than remedy any presump- violation Consequently, equate. harm. irreparable causes tively did not err in Detroit POA The Court of harm was irreparable showing that no concluding during of the status enjoin violations necessary in the decision to I concur While Act 312 arbitration. not court, I would circuit case to the remand this policy part: “It is the in relevant 423.231 states MCL right of departments, where the public police and fire state that high requisite morale prohibited, to the it is employees to strike is law departments operation of such employees efficient and the of such alternate, binding procedure expeditious, afford an effective added.) (Emphasis disputes ....” resolution of proceedings “During pendency before states: MCL 423.243 employ existing wages, panel, hours and other conditions party the consent changed by without action of either be ment shall not rights prejudice his or may party consent without so of the other but position act.” under this Comm, Employee v Civil Service Unions Michigan State Coalition of (2001) J., dissenting). 212, 241; 634 NW2d 692 Mich (CAVANAGH, 482 MICH18 Opinion by Kelly, J.

require the union to irreparable show harm. Such harm presumed should be if the court determines that city’s reorganization plan violates the status quo.15 important I believe that the most issuing reason for the duration of Act proceedings protect parties’ 312 arbitration is to bargaining positions. irreparable presumed But harm should be in the case of a status violation for another reason as well. majority that, posits quo violation, show status the union city’s reorganization must demonstrate that the ‘inextricably is “so safety’ implementation intertwined with impermissibly its would quo by altering alter the status employment.” this ‘condition’of Ante at impact proposed 23. But layoffs firefighter safety on was also question deemed irreparable relevant to the harm in Pontiac Fire Pontiac, Union Local 10-11; 376 v 753 NW2d 595 (2008) majority which the cites for the four traditional elements of injunctive analysis. Pontiac, Ante at 34 n 31. Unlike this case involves an arbitration, majority Act 312 so the directs the circuit court to look for irreparable both harm and a status inquiries violation. If both these premised impact are layoffs on the firefighter safety, on then the majority essentially engage directs the circuit duplicative court to in a analysis.

Case Details

Case Name: Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Detroit

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 23, 2008

Citation: 753 N.W.2d 579

Docket Number: Docket 131463

Court Abbreviation: Mich.