Bailey v. Callaghan
| Decision Date | 11 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12–CV–11504. |
| Citation | 873 F.Supp.2d 879 |
| Parties | Ivy BAILEY; Carole Vettrus; Kevin Psik; Betty Nash; Donald Russell Makowski; Michigan Education Association; Adrian Education Association; Midland City Education Association; Southfield Michigan Educational Support Association; Garden City Education Association; Niles Education Association; AFT Michigan; Detroit Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 231; Taylor Federation of Teachers; Onaway Federation of Teachers; Waterford Federation of Teachers; Service Employees International Union, Local 517M; and Michigan AFSCME Council 25, Plaintiffs, v. Edward CALLAGHAN, in his official capacity as chairman of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission; Christine Derdarian, in her official capacity as member of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission; and Nino Green, in this official capacity as a member of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Marshall J. Widick, Andrew A. Nickelhoff, Sachs Waldman, Herbert A. Sanders, The Sanders Law Firm, PC, Detroit, MI, Arthur R. Przybylowicz, Michigan EducationAssociation, East Lansing, MI, Mark H. Cousens, Mark H. Cousens Assoc., Southfield, MI, Ava R. Barbour, International Union, UAW, for Plaintiffs.
Debbie K. Taylor, William F. Denner, Department of Attorney General, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter involves an equal protection and first amendment challenge to a recent amendment to the Public Employment Relations Act (“PERA”). Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 423.201–217. The Michigan Education Association (“MEA”) and its local affiliates Adrian Education Association, Midland City Education Association, Southfield Michigan Educational Support Association, Garden City Education Association, Niles Education Association; AFT–Michigan and its local affiliates Detroit Federation of Teachers, Onaway Federation of Teachers, Taylor Federation of Teachers, and Waterford Federation of Teachers; AFSCME Council 25; and Service Employees Union Local, 517M (“Local 517M”) (collectively “the Unions”); and Carole Vettrus, Ivy Bailey, Kevin Psik, Betty Nash, and Donald Russell Makowski filed the present action in this Court on April 4, 2012. The action was brought against Defendants Edward Callaghan, chairman of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (“MERC”), Christine Derdarian, MERC member, and Nino Green, MERC member, in their official capacities. The Complaint alleges equal protection and first amendment violations and requests declaratory and injunctive relief.
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The matter has been fully briefed and the Court has considered oral arguments. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.
The Unions are a collection of statewide and local affiliate unions that advocate for the interests of public school employees in Michigan. The Unions' advocacy efforts are primarily supported by membership dues and fees, which are largely collected through payroll deductions administered by the public school district pursuant to collective bargaining agreements. Payroll deductions are the most convenient and efficient way to collect membership dues.
During the 2011 legislative session, the Unions advocated against the passage of four bills that eventually became Public Acts 100, 101, 102, and 103. These bills limited the scope of collective bargaining for teachers. After enactment, several of the statewide Unions initiated a public campaign to recall legislators that were in support of those public acts. In July 2011, the Speaker of the House of Representatives stated that the MEA had “declared war.” On September 9, 2011, the Senate Majority Leader stated that “[t]he teachers union[s], specifically Michigan Education Association, have lost their way and public school employees should no longer be forced to join them.”
On September 8, 2011 House Bill 4929 was introduced. House Bill 4929 deemed it unlawful interference for a school employer to utilize public school resources to collect membership dues and fees for a labor organization. It passed in the House and was transmitted to the Senate on September 20, 2011. House Bill 4929 sat for five months without action.
On March 6, 2012, the Unions announced a petition to place an amendment to the Michigan Constitution on the November 2012 ballot. The proposed amendment would create a state constitutional right to collective bargaining. On March 7, 2012, the Senate submitted an altered House Bill 4929 for vote and it passed 20 to 18. On the same day, the House voted to pass House Bill 4929 by a vote of 56 to 54. Governor Rick Snyder signed it into law on March 15, 2012.
Public Act 53 amended section 10(1)(b) of the PERA. Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.210(1)(b). Act 53 made “[a] public school employer's use of public school resources to assist a labor organization in collecting dues or service fees from wages of public school employees ... a prohibited contribution to the administration of a labor organization.” Id. However, Act 53 allowed the continued collection of dues pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement until the expiration, termination, extension, or renewal of the collective bargaining agreement. The collection of dues through payroll deductions was immediately terminated for several Unions that did not have collective bargaining agreements presently. These actions resulted in the filing of the present action.
The Court must balance and consider four factors when determining the appropriateness of a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a): (1) movant's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury absent the injunction; (3) the harm to others that will occur if the injunction is granted; and (4) whether the injunction would serve the public interest. Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 809 (6th Cir.2001); In re Eagle–Picher Industries, Inc., 963 F.2d 855, 858 (6th Cir.1992); Lucero v. Detroit Pub. Sch., 160 F.Supp.2d 767, 778 (E.D.Mich.2001). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the relative positions of the parties pending a resolution on the merits. Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). The Court must make specific findings on each factor unless fewer factors would be dispositive. Bonnell, 241 F.3d at 809;Lucero, 160 F.Supp.2d at 779. In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1229 (6th Cir.1985).
The Unions concede, for the purpose of this motion, that the Court should analyze their Equal Protection claim under rational scrutiny. Accordingly, “if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996). “In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous.” Id. at 632, 116 S.Ct. 1620. However, there must be some independent and legitimate purpose for the legislation that is separate from the “purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.” Id. at 633, 116 S.Ct. 1620.
When interpreting the PERA, the Michigan Supreme Court looks to federal precedent on the analogous National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) for guidance. Grandville Municipal Executive Ass'n v. City of Grandville, 453 Mich. 428, 436, 553 N.W.2d 917 (1996) (); Gibraltar School District v. Gibraltar MESPA–Transportation, 443 Mich. 326, 335, 505 N.W.2d 214 (1993) ( ) (internal citations omitted). Section 8(2)(a) of the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice “to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2). This language mirrors the language found in section 10(1)(b) of the PERA. Section 8(2)(a) was envisioned to promote union independence from employers. See 78 Cong. Rec. 10560 (1934).
Defendants argue that the purpose of Act 53 and section 10(1)(b) is “to declare and protect the rights and privileges of public employees.” This is but one phrase in the title of Act 53.1 Defendants have simply handpicked one descriptor out of many for Act 53 and declared it the purpose of Section 10(1)(b) as a whole. The Court will look to the original purpose of section 10(1)(b) when determining whether the amendment is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Given that neither the Unions nor Defendants have provided any evidence on the original intent of section 10(1)(b), the Court, as does the Michigan Supreme Court, will look to the NLRA for guidance. Act 53 will be analyzed against the purpose of promoting union independence.
Defendants offer the Court three reasons for the recent amendment: (1) cost savings; (2) the union's accountability to its members; and (3) a check on union power. None of these three reasons, in any sense,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wis. Educ. Ass'n Council v. Walker
...to distinguish Ysursa in finding First Amendment problems with payroll deduction statutes similar to Act 10. See Bailey v. Callaghan, 873 F.Supp.2d 879, 885–86 (E.D.Mich.2012); United Food & Commercial Workers Local 99 v. Brewer, 817 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125 (D.Ariz.2011). But the Unions' reaso......
- Newsome v. Young Supply Co.