*1 Wayne-Westland v PROFITT WAYNE-WESTLANDCOMMUNITY SCHOOLS 18, 1984, January Docket No. 68043. Submitted at Detroit.—Decided February appeal applied 1985. Leave to for. Plaintiff, Profitt, Ophelia was a tenured teacher who was laid off employer, Wayne-Westland her Community Schools. She brought Wayne against an action in Circuit Court Board Wayne-Westland Community Education of the alleging Schools seniority provisions a violation collective-bargain- of the of the ing agreement between the board and the (WWEA), against Education Association WWEA for failure to provide representation by failing fair to file a on her behalf, against Michigan Education Association-National provide Education representation, Association for failure to fair director, Robert S. WWEA’s executive grievance. court, Henry failure to assert her The trial Szymanski, J., granted defendants, judgment accelerated to the holding juris- claims were within the exclusive diction of the Relations Commission. appealed. Plaintiff Held: provide Plaintiff’s claims of failure to allegations meaning within the public employment relations act. Such claims are within the jurisdiction MERC, notwithstanding common law breach employer of contract claims and the properly granted union executive. The trial court judgment. accelerated Affirmed.
Bronson, J., dissented for the reasons he set forth in Deal- ings City Ecorse, which held that asserting MERC’s of a claim a breach of a collec- tive-bargaining agreement is not exclusive.
Opinion of the Court References for Points in Headnotes 2d, 48 Am Jur [1-3] Labor and Labor Relations 401. § 2d, 48A Am Jur Labor and Labor Relations 1769. What public employee constitutes unfair labor under state relations acts. 9 ALR4th 20. Opinion Representation — Employees — — Fair Public 1. Labor Relations Labor Practices. Unfair collective-bargaining representative’s A wrongful mem- as a failure such *2 grievance, under the unfair labor is an ber’s (MCL 423.210[3]; 17.455[10][3]). employment relations act Employees — — — 2. Fair Jurisdiction Public Representation — Breach Contract. repre- public employee’s claim of a breach of A collective-bargaining representative employee’s by the sentation jurisdiction practice is the exclusive within as an unfair Commission; Michigan Employment Relations the fact of the charge involves an unfair preclude vesting of contract claim does not common law breach charge commission. by Bronson, Dissent Employees — — — 3. Labor Relations Jurisdiction Fair Public Representation — of Contract. Breach Relations Commis- public employee’s claim of unfair sion over a agreement, collective-bargaining alleging a breach exclusive. George, Haldy Williams, Parker,
Parker, McAra, Williams), plaintiff. (by B. for & McCabe Kendall (by & Slatkin & Dennis Slatkin Gabrian Stewart Gabrian), Community Wayne-Westland L. Schools Board of Education. Larky Hoekenga (by
Hiller, J. Hoek- & Daniel enga), Wayne-Westland Associa- for the Education Kowalczyk. tion, MEA-NEA, S. and Robert P.J., M. Shepherd, Before: and Bronson JJ. Warshawsky,* teacher
Per Curiam:. Plaintiff was a tenured employed by Wayne-Westland Commu- defendant Assignment. judge, sitting Appeals by
* Circuit on the Court of Wayne-Westland Opinion op the Court nity Schools. Defendant Educa- (WWEA) bargain- tion Association is the exclusive ing representative for the teachers. Plaintiff was teaching position laid off from her the 1979-1980 school at the end of
year. During the summer of allegedly 1980 she contacted defendant Robert S. executive director of defendant WWEA, layoff to advise him that she believed the seniority violated the of the collective- bargaining agreement between the school district and the WWEA. Plaintiff worked as a half-time school teacher with the school district from March 16, 1981, year, until the end of the 1980-81 school position. when she was laid off from that Plaintiff filed this action in the circuit court alleging collective-bargaining agree- ment duty district, the school and breach of the the unions. may Plaintiff’s claims *3 be summarized as follows: (1) against alleges the district, school she that the layoff seniority violated the of the col- (2) lective-bargaining agreement; against alleges pro- WWEA, she that the union failed to vide fair because it failed to file a grievance against despite plain- the school district (3) frequent requests; tiff’s defendant Mich- igan Education Association-National Education As- (MEA-NEA), alleges parent sociation labor she organization provide represen- failed to tation after she informed it of defendant WWEA’s (4) grievance; refusal dant to file a and defen- alleges she that defendant failed properly investigate and assert her misrepresentations and that he made intentional which resulted in the loss of her under the collective-bargaining agreement. granted
The trial court defendants’ motion for judgment, finding accelerated 502 Mich 499 140 "primary, if not exclusive” were within claims Rela- appeal The sole issue on tions Commission. whether the jurisdiction to had decide circuit court plaintiffs resides or whether exclusively in MERC. public employees concerning relations public employment
governed by act, relations 17.455(1) seq. seq.; MSA et MCL 423.201 et consistently has construed regulating PERA em- law the dominant as ployee Rockwell v Crestwood relations. 616, Ed, 227 Bd of School Dist (1975). provides the act Section NW2d particular representative bargaining for a that the public employees shall be the exclusive unit of representative public employees in that
of all the case, is the exclu- defendant WWEA unit. bargaining representative of the teachers. The sive union’s gives representative
status as fairly. represent duty its members to Pierce rise to Inc, Electric, Bebensee Ross 244-245; Martin v Shiawas- 253 NW2d County Comm’rs, 32, 34; Bd of see (1981). act, MCL Section 10 17.455(10), prac- designates 423.210; certain MSA 10(3) practices. makes tices as unfair labor Section it unlawful public organize for a union to or coerce a restrain
employee
of his
in the exercise
activity.1
engage A bar-
concerted
gaining representative’s
17.455(10X3),
423.210(3);
part:
MCL
states
(a)
agents
organization
"It
for a
or its
shall
unlawful
*4
(i)
public employees
restrain or coerce:
in the exercise
**
guaranteed in
9:
section
17.455(9),
9,
423.209;
provides:
MSA
Section MCL
organize together
public employees
or
"It
to
shall be lawful for
to
form,
organizations,
engage
join
in lawful con-
or assist
in labor
to
bargaining
negotiation
purpose
or
certed
for the
of collective
activities
bargain
protection,
negotiate
or to
or
or other mutual
aid and
v
503
wrongful
pur
as a
such
failure to
grievance,
prac
sue a member’s
is an unfair labor
10(3).
Demings City
Ecorse,
tice under
See
(1983),
608, 617-618;
127 Mich
Section
423.216;
MCL
17.455(16), provides
provi-
"[violations
sions of section 10
shall
deemed to be unfair
practices
by
remediable
the commission
* *
(Emphasis supplied.) In several decisions
involving
claims,
the Su-
preme Court has held that MERC has exclusive
jurisdiction
charges.
over unfair labor
In
Lamphere
Schools
Federation
Teachers,
104,
unfair has been acknowl- charges also Mediation Board v Jack- by this Court edged Comm’rs, County Road son (1962).” a civil tort involved decision brought by a teach- district a school action seeking damages the teach- caused union er’s peaceable strike which violated ers’ permitting the found that The Court of PERA. in that civil tort remedies district school authority to deter- MERC’s case would circumvent practices. charges The Lam- mine phere stated: Court policy the other ramifica-
"Ignoring for the moment
public
in the
reinvolving the
courts
of
circuit
tions
labor relations
(see
V),
part
jurisdiction of
sector
circuit courts
seriously
eroded. The
MERC would
the same unfair labor
would be forced to make
heretofore exclu-
to the federations
determinations
as
unpleasant
specter of the
sively
to MERC. The
reserved
authority,
combined
sharing courts and MERC
decisions,
conflicting
possibility
of
very
with
real
in the
relations
only
could
further confuse labor
See also Detroit Bd of Ed
(1983).
283;
doWe with the at- tempt distinguish to or narrow the broad rule laid Lamphere. in down Rockwell and While it is true representation coupled that fair a claim with a employer claim that the breached the collective- bargaining agreement involves common-law rights granted empha- PERA, as well as under we case, size that claim in this failure of the grievance to unions a and enforce contrac- provisions, practice tual squarely is an unfair labor 10(3) nothing within of PERA. findWe indicating legislative in act the a treat intent to categories different differ- determining ently purposes jurisdiction. In opinion, our the fact that an unfair charge involves an breach contract provides claim no reason to abandon the estab- principle lished that resides exclu- sively disagree in MERC. We further with the Demings panel’s finding policy the underpinning Lamphere inapplicable reasons representation to claims. Goolsby Detroit, (1984),
856 a union’s the whether Court considered
unexplained process failure to a mem- ber’s the constitutes a breach of union’s by Bkonson, Dissent representation. duty The Court stated of fair p following 6, 665: at footnote organi- state, claiming that a labor person a "In this representation can its breached zation has proceeding, judicial or a an administrative institute charge with filing an unfair by former filing MERC, complaint the latter NLRB or the circuit court. In either or state a federal district context, alleged breach regarding facts sufficient summary a motion for presented to withstand must be (1) 1963, 117.2, or subds pursuant to GCR judgment, equivalent.” or its administrative represen- jurisdiction over fair the issue Since Court, the refer- not before tation claims was clearly More- dictum. circuit courts ence state Demings, granted appeal over, was leave decide, alia, "whether the Court of inter holding Michigan Appeals Em- erred ployment not have Commission does over *7 collective-bargaining of a where breach claims agreement pled employer”. granting in Dem- leave 942. In view the order Goolsby ings, in- was footnote we doubt ruling on the exclusive tended as a definitive jurisdiction issue. jurisdic- that MERC has exclusive
We conclude plaintiffs representation claims to decide tion the school and the concomitant Kowalczyk. district and defendant Affirmed. (dissenting). I set the reasons For
Bronson,
Demings City
Ecorse, 127 Mich
forth in
608;
from the
I