Board of Control of Eastern Mich. University v. Labor Mediation Bd.

• Citation: 384 Mich. 561,184 N.W.2d 921
• Decision Date: 05 April 1971
• Docket Number: No. 21,21
• Parties: , 77 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2685, 65 Lab.Cas. P 52,535 BOARD OF CONTROL OF EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY a constitutional body corporate, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LABOR MEDIATION BOARD Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 921

184 N.W.2d 921

384 Mich. 561, 77 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2685,

65 Lab.Cas. P 52,535

BOARD OF CONTROL OF EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY a constitutional body corporate, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LABOR MEDIATION BOARD Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 5, 1971.

Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, James D. Tracy, Ronald J. Santo, Daniel G. Wyllie, Detroit, for appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Eugene Krasicky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gerald F. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, for defendant-appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought this action to obtain declaratory relief, seeking a judicial determination as to whether Eastern Michigan University is a public employer within the meaning of P.A.1947, No. 336, as amended by P.A.1965, No. 379, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Labor Mediation Board. Section 15 of the act requires a public employer to bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees and authorizes a public employer to make and enter into collective bargaining agreements with such representatives. M.C.L.A. § 423.215; Stat.Ann. § 17.455(15). The Board had asserted jurisdiction in connection with a petition filed with it by Eastern Michigan University employees for certification of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Council 7 and Local 1666) as the exclusive bargaining representative for non-teaching employees at the Physical Plant Department of Eastern Michigan University.

In denying declaratory relief, The Honorable William F. Ager, Jr., Circuit Judge, rendered an opinion in which he stated as follows:

'Article VIII. Sections 5 and 6, provide that the Regents and Central Michigan Board and Eastern Michigan Board 'shall have general supervision of its institution and the control and direction of all expenditures from the institution's funds. The Court is of the opinion that Eastern Michigan Board and Central Michigan Board have the some constitutional 'The Court must determine whether these provisions conflict. The Court must harmonize different sections of the Constitution when possible, and when interpreting one section of the Constitution must assume that the framers of the Constitution when drafting that section had knowledge of the other provisions. In construing the Constitution, one part of the document is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction the two can be reconciled.

powers and rights under these provisions as the Regents so far as general supervision of the institutions is concerned and the expenditures from the Institution's funds.' Article IV, Section 48, provides that 'The legislature may enact laws providing for the resolution of disputes concerning public employees, except those in the state classified civil service.'

'It is the Court's opinion that there is no reason that the two provisions of the Constitution cannot stand together. Article VIII, Sections 5 and 5, were not meant to exempt the Regents and Boards from all laws passed by the legislature. It is not an unlimited grant. For instance, it has never been claimed that they would be exempt from the criminal laws when exercising their supervisory powers over the institutions. As the Supreme Court has stated (Branan case, ¹ 5 Mich.App. 132 (145 N.W.2d 860)) '* * * it (the University) is not an island.' It is not felt that Article IV, Section 48, would intrude on Regent's or Boards' exclusive power to supervise the affairs of their institutions. This section could just as well have excluded employees of the University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan University, or Central Michigan University as those under state classified civil service, if the framers of the Constitution had intended this. It must be remembered that the Act under consideration does not impose an obligation on parties (employer or employee) to agree to any proposal or to require the making of a concession. Neither party is forced under the act to enter into any agreement. The Act mainly deals with the rights of employees. It sets forth procedure for employees to elect exclusive bargaining units to represent them and to meet with employers. Employers must meet with them but are not compelled to agree.' (Footnote added.)

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court affirmed (18 Mich.App. 435, 171 N.W.2d 471). We granted leave to appeal (383 Mich. 774).

THE QUESTION

Is plaintiff a public employer within the meaning of the statute regulating public employees?

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

The powers and prerogatives of Michigan universities have been jealously guarded not only by the boards of those universities but by this Court in a series of opinions running as far back as 1856. See, People ex rel. Drake v. Regents of University of Michigan (1856), 4 Mich. 98; People v. Regents of University (1869), 18 Mich. 469; People, ex rel. Attorney General v. Regents of University (1874), 30 Mich. 473; Weinberg v. Regents of University of Michigan (1893), 97 Mich. 246, 56 N.W. 605; Sterling v. Regents of University of Michigan (1896), 110 Mich. 369, 68 N.W. 253; Board of Regents of University of Michigan v. Auditor General (1911), 167 Mich. 444, 132 N.W. 1037; Agler v. Michigan Agricultural College (1914), 181 Mich. 559, 148 N.W. 341; People, for use of Regents of University of Michigan v. Brooks (1923), 224 Mich. 45, 194 N.W. 602; and State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General (1924), 226 Mich. 417, 197 N.W. 160.

The above cases reflect the holdings of this Court that a constitutional corporation, such as plaintiff, has 'the entire control and management of its (the University's) affairs and property.' Weinberg v. Regents of University of Michigan, Supra. In the main, they deal with situations where the legislature attempted to impose its will upon the internal operations of a university.

Art. 4, § 48 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 reads:

'The legislature may enact laws providing for the resolution of disputes concerning public...