Supplemental Opinion
An order of the Supreme Court in the above entitled cause dated April 18, 1974, and designated CR 12-98, provides:
"We grant ieave to appeal and sua sponte vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at50 Mich App 382 ;213 NW2d 217 (1973).
"On the authority of Detroit Police Officers Association v City of Detroit,391 Mich 44 ;214 NW2d 803 (1974), we hold that a residency requirement is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.
"We remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration, in light of D.P.O.A. v City of Detroit, supra, of the question whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is a 'mandatory’, 'permissive’ or 'illegal’ subject of collective bargaining.” 1
Pursuant thereto we have reconsidered our prior holding. Contrary to the language of the foregoing order, this case does not involve the question, "whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is a 'mandatory’, 'permissive’ or 'illegal’ subject of collective bargaining”.
The question originally before this Court was
"Is the question of a civilian trial board for policemen a mandatory subject for collective bargaining when the city charter provides for a police trial board?” Police *284 Officers Association v Pontiac,50 Mich App 382 , 383;213 NW2d 217 (1973).
For the reasons expressed in our prior opinion, we affirm our negative answer to this question. We do not read Detroit Police Officers Association, supra, as a refutation of that reasoning. The question of a civilian trial board on the facts of this case is a permissive subject of collective bargaining.
Notes