Thе Hillsdale Community Schools Principals’ and Supervisory Association (PSA) petitioned the Michigan Labor Mediatiоn Board (MLMB) for an election of a unit of employees of the Hillsdale Community Schools. The unit containеd the following personnel:
*39 “High, school, junior high, and elementary school principals, curriculum coordinаtor, reading coordinator, ESEA coordinator, head librarian, and physical education director; excluding: teachers, superintendent, assistant superintendent, business manager and all non-certified employees.”
Thе school district opposed the petition and the Labor Mediation Board (LMB) ruled that PSA was a proрer unit. The district appealed this decision before the representation election was held. The PSA lost the election, but we granted leave to appeal as this is an important case with continuing application.
The plaintiff is a public employer within the meaning of PA 1947, No 336 as amended by PA 1965, No 379 (PERA), MCLA § 423.201
et seq.
(Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.455[1]
et seq.)
The persоnnel composing the PSA membership are public employees within the provisions of § 2 PERA, MCLA § 423-.202 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.455 [2]). The LMB found that thеy are all supervisory personnel, but are not “employees who formulate, determine, and effeсtuate management policies.” We are bound by this determination as it is supported by competent, mаterial, and substantial evidence.
Villella
v.
Employment Security Commission
(1969),
The main issue raised in this аppeal is whether under the provisions of PERA, supervisory personnel who are public employees constitute a proper collective bargaining unit and are entitled to be represented by reрresentatives of their own choosing.
*40 The preamble to the PERA shows one of its purposes is “to declare and protect the rights and privileges of public employees”. This policy has been effectuаted by permitting public employees to engage in collective bargaining. MCLA § 423.209 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.455 [9]) provides:
“It shall be lawful for public employees to organize together or to form, join or assist in labor organizations, to engage in lawful concerted activities for the purpose of collective negotiation or bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to negotiate or bargain collectively with their public employers through representatives of their own free choice.”
The legislature designated the MLMB аs the agency to determine the appropriate bargaining units, MCLA § 423.213 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.455 [13]). The determination of the bargаining unit is based upon criteria set forth in PA 1939, No 176, § 9e as last amended by PA 1965, No 282, MCLA § 423.9e (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.454[10.4]). This section is a part of the Miсhigan Labor Mediation Act (MLMA), MCLA § 423.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 14.454[1] et seq.) and states:
“Sec. 9e. The board, after consultation with the parties, shall determine such а bargaining unit as will best secure to the employees their right of collective bargaining. The unit shall be either the employees of 1 employer in 1 plant or business enterprise within this state, not holding executive or supervisory positions, or a craft unit, or a plant unit, or a subdivision of any of the foregoing units: Provided, however, that if the group of employees involved in the dispute has been recognized by the employer or identified by certification, contract or past practice, as a unit for collective bargaining, the boаrd may adopt such unit.”
*41 Plaintiff and defendants disagree as to the correct interpretation of § 9e. An exаmination of that section’s structure shows that there are four choices of bargaining units; (1) a unit consisting of all of the employees employed in one plant or business enterprise within the state, (2) a craft unit, (3) a plаnt unit, and (4) a subdivision of any of the foregoing-units.
The language in § 9e * * not holding executive or supervisory positions, # # *” is a modification of only the first type of unit listed. It does not modify the remaining- units defined, nor is it in itself a prohibition against executive or supervisory employees constituting a bargaining unit. In its decision in Saginaw County Road Commission, MLMB Case No R 66 E-204, 1967 Labor Opinions, pp 196, 201, the LMB held supervisory personnel to be covered by the terms of PERA:
“The words ‘public employee’ are to identify the employees other than private and does not define public emplоyee so as to exclude supervisory personnel.”
We have reached a similar conclusion in
School District of the City of Dearborn
v.
Labor Mediation Board
(1970),
Plaintiff further argues that it is against public policy to allow public employees who are supervisors, such as those involved in the instant action, to organize. As we stated in
City of Escanaba
v.
Labor Mediation Board
(1969),
We have considered appellаnt’s claim that the interests and goals of the principals and the rest of the membership of PSA are too unrelated to warrant their inclusion in a single unit. We find, as we did in City of Dearborn, supra, that sufficient community of interest does in fact exist. Uyeda v. Brooks (CA6, 1966), 365 F2d 326.
Appellant urges as a fourth ground for reversal that the affiliation of the PSA with the MEA precludes it from being recognized as a collective bargaining agent. Such a determination not being necessary to the decision in this case, we decline to make it.
The decision and order of the Labor Mediation Board is affirmed.
No costs are allowed, a public question being involved.
All concurred.