230 N.W.2d 322 (Mich.App. 1975), 19465, Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., Detroit Federation of Teachers
|Docket Nº:||Docket Nos. 19465, 19523.|
|Citation:||230 N.W.2d 322, 60 Mich.App. 92|
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||D. Louis ABOOD et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION, DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Christine WARCZAK et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||[60 Mich.App. 93] Keller, Thoma, McManus, Toppin & Schwarze, P.C. by Dennis B. DuBay, Detroit, Webster & Kilcullen, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellants. Riley & Roumell by George T. Roumell, Jr., Patmon, Young & Kirk by Ligens D. Moore, Detroit, for Bd. Ed. Marston, Sachs, O'Connell, Nunn...|
|Judge Panel:||Before McGREGOR, P.J., and J. H. GILLIS and QUINN, JJ.|
|Case Date:||March 31, 1975|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Michigan|
Rehearing Denied May 15, 1975.
Released for Publication June 26, 1975.
Plaintiffs Christine Warczak and others, all Detroit teachers, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment on November 7, 1969, challenging the constitutional and statutory validity of the agency shop provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the Detroit Board of Education and the Detroit Federation of Teachers. Plaintiffs filed the cause of action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Named as defendants were the Detroit Board of Education, the Detroit Federation of Teachers and all teachers who are members of the federation.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted on January 19,
1970 by the [60 Mich.App. 94] trial court. Plaintiffs appealed the grant of the summary judgment. The Michigan Supreme Court granted plaintiffs leave to appeal and set aside the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants, based on the decision in Smigel v. Southgate School District, 388 Mich. 531, 202 N.W.2d 305 (1972). The case was remanded to the circuit court 'for further proceedings consonant herewith'.
Thereafter, in the trial court, plaintiffs filed a motion for suspension of dues deduction authorization. The defendants, on the other hand, filed a motion for summary judgment based on the then recent amendment to the public employment relations act authorizing agency shop provisions in collective bargaining agreements between public employers and public employees. M.C.L.A. § 423.210; M.S.A. § 17.455(10).
The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' motion to suspend dues deductions. In its opinion, the trial court stated that the amendment should be given retroactive effect. Plaintiffs appealed. On March 22, 1974, the Court of Appeals, on its own motion, entered an order consolidating this appeal with another pending appeal, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
In the Abood case, the complaint is essentially the same as that filed in the Warczak case, except that the named plaintiffs are more numerous and do not claim to represent any others than themselves. They also allege that they have been threatened with dismissal and are requesting injunctive relief to restrain the enforcement of the agency shop clause. A motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants in that case and plaintiffs appealed.
[60 Mich.App. 95] I
Should M.C.L.A. § 423.210; M.S.A. § 17.455(10), effective June 14, 1973 and authorizing agency shop provisions in public employment contracts, be given retroactive effect so as to validate the agency shop provision in the contract entered into between the Detroit Federation of Teachers and the Detroit Board of Education?
In the Smigel case, Supra, the Supreme Court of Michigan found that an agency shop provision in a contract between the Southgate Education Association and the Southgate Community School District was prohibited by § 10 of the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA).
Chief Justice T. M. Kavanagh pointed out in his opinion that there was a significant distinction in Michigan's labor law between public and private employees.
'Though M.C.L.A. § 423.16; M.S.A. § 17.454(17) is...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP