Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Detroit

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
• Writing for the Court: O'HARA
• Citation: 200 N.W.2d 722,41 Mich.App. 723
• Decision Date: 02 October 1972
• Parties: , 81 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2529, 69 Lab.Cas. P 52,905 DETROIT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Released for Publication

Page 722

200 N.W.2d 722 41 Mich.App. 723, 81 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2529,
69 Lab.Cas. P 52,905 DETROIT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. Released for Publication Oct. 2, 1972. Defendant-Appellant,
and
Michigan Employment Relations Commission, Appellee. Docket No. 11477. Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1. July 18, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1972.
Released for Publication Oact. 2, 1972.
Leave to Appeal Granted Nov. 28, 1972.

[41 Mich.App. 724]

Page 723

Michael M. Glusac, Corp. Counsel, Detroit, Nick Sacorafas, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for defendant-appellant.

Winston L. Livingston, Detroit, for Officers.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Francis W. Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., for MERC.

Before BRONSON, P.J., and V. J. BRENNAN and O'HARA, ^* JJ.

O'HARA, Judge.

Once again we become arbiter in the [41 Mich.App. 725] continuing tug of war between the municipalities asserting their rights under the 'Home Rule Act' ¹ and the rights of municipal employees who are denied the legal right to strike, ² but who are also granted the right to collective bargaining representation. ³

Because of the length of the names of the parties and the concerned agencies and a statute, namely the Detroit Police Officers Association, the City of Detroit, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission and the Public Employment Relations Act, we will use throughout the opinion the acronyms DPOA, MERC, PERA and refer to the City of Detroit simply as the 'City'.

With the adoption in 1965 of section 15 of the P.E.R.A., ⁴ municipalities became bound to bargain collectively with the representatives of their employees. Accordingly, the City recognized the DPOA as the bargaining representative of all patrolmen and policewomen of the Detroit Police Department on January 18, 1966. Negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement began in March, 1966 between the City and the DPOA and continued with interruptions through the Spring of 1968. This case grows out of the complexities of those negotiations.

It would appear from the record that both parties approached the bargaining table with certain preconceived objectives. In addition to the traditional wage demands, the representatives for the DPOA sought to remove a thirty-year-old residency requirement as a condition of employment. The DPOA also opposed the lowering of several recruitment qualifications initiated by the police commissioner[41 Mich.App. 726] apart from negotiations. ⁵ The City, for its part, sought to initiate certain changes in the Policemen and Firemen Retirement Systems, (Detroit Charter, Title 9, Ch. 7) recommended by the Mayor's Task Force Committee on City Finances. The proposed changes were to provide: (1) a retirement pay of 2% Of average final compensation for each year of service without a ceiling of 50%; (2) a minimum retirement

Page 724

age of 55, ⁶ (3) an escalation clause of 2% Per year, identical to that of general city employees; and (4) a guaranteed pension after 25 years of service. The pension changes were to be prospective in application with respect to future members while present members would have the option to come under the new program; an option exercisable within a limited deadline period. ⁷

In the course of negotiations the City took certain actions to which the DPOA took exception. While the Detroit Labor Relations Bureau, with the support of the mayor, neared agreement with the DPOA in bargaining on the elimination of residency requirements, the Common Council, in separate action, conducted hearings and adopted a new ordinance which required all city employees to reside within the city limits, to which the DPOA expressed strong opposition. The association also opposed modification of police recruitment qualifications mentioned earlier.

Finally, the DPOA took issue with the Common Council's unilateral submission of the mayor's proposed amendments to the Policemen and Firemen [41 Mich.App. 727] Retirement System charter provision to popular referendum ⁸ absent meaningful bargaining on pension matters. Moreover, the association objected to the City's insistence on discussing pension matters apart from other items subject to agreement such as promotion, seniority and job classification.

On July 10, 1968 the DPOA filed a formal unfair labor practice complaint under M.C.L.A. § 423.210(a) and (e); M.S.A. § 17.455(10)(a) and (e) with the State Labor Mediation Board. ⁹ The DPOA amended its complaint following passage of the retirement system referendum amendment charging the foregoing actions on the part of the City constituted a failure to bargain under PERA. Issue...