Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Detroit
Decision Date | 02 October 1972 |
Citation | 200 N.W.2d 722,41 Mich.App. 723 |
Parties | , 81 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2529, 69 Lab.Cas. P 52,905 DETROIT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Released for Publication |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
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.
Once again we become arbiter in the 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 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 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 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 was joined on the following stipulated questions:
'1. Did the City of Detroit have the duty to bargain with the DPOA regarding residency requirements for policemen? If so, did the City of Detroit violate thie duty to bargain by enactment of a residency ordinance?
'2. Did the City of Detroit have the duty to bargain with the DPOA regarding recruiting requirements for patrolmen? If so, did the City of Detroit violate this duty by making changes in the existing recruiting requirements?
'3. When an economic item which is the subject of bargaining, has been agreed to by the respective bargaining agents of the City of Detroit and the Union, which has been approved by the Mayor, does the Common Council's action in deleting said item from the budget constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith?
'4. Under all the facts and circumstances, did the City of Detroit have a duty to bargain at one time on all mandatory subjects of bargaining at the time of the conferences concerning the proposed retirement provisions changes?
Successive hearings were conducted by the MERC trial examiner who decided that the DPOA charges were without merit. Exceptions were filed by the DPOA to the examiner's decision and upon review by the commission a decision and order issued March 18, 1971.
While MERC, in its opinion and order, passed upon all of the five issues set forth herein, only three of them were appealed to this Court--numbers 1, 4 and 5. We treat them Seriatim.
As to issue 1, MERC ruled there had been no violation of the applicable section of PERA. Subsequent to the time this case was submitted to us, our Supreme Court spoke with finality thereto. See Detroit Police Officers Association v. City of Detroit, 385 Mich. 519, 190 N.W.2d 97 (1971). We read this opinion to mean that the City is entitled to impose such residency requirement. It did so. Hence, we hold that issue no longer mandatorily negotiable.
Issues 4 and 5 both relate to the pension and retirement system. On issue 4 MERC determined that pension and retirement terms are an essential part of an employee's terms and conditions of employment and thus a mandatory subject for collective bargaining. It further held that the City's insistence 'on isolating one mandatory subject of collective bargaining from other unresolved issues constitutes a refusal to bargain under Section 10(e) of PERA.' This position has been taken by MERC in earlier employment decisions. We do not disagree therewith, except, of course, as to the constitutional guarantee of the contractual nature of pensions already vested and the absolute inviolability thereof. Const.1963, art. 9, § 24. To this extent then we affirm the holding of MERC as to issue 4.
Issue 5 as stated, in our view, does not delineate with precision the important legal question we are called upon to decide. In irreducible simplicity it is whether 'Home Rule' city charter provisions which are in conflict with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Detroit
...decision dealing with the residency requirement and pension provisions to the Court of Appeals. Detroit Police Officers Association v. Detroit, 41 Mich.App. 723, 200 N.W.2d 722 (1972). The Court of Appeals reversed MERC on the residency issue interpreting this Court's decision in Detroit Po......
-
Wexford County Prosecuting Attorney v. Pranger
...60 (1971); Detroit Police Officers Association v. Detroit, 385 Mich. 519, 190 N.W.2d 97 (1971); Detroit Police Officers Association v. Detroit, 41 Mich.App. 723, 200 N.W.2d 722 (1972); Detroit Police Officers Association v. Detroit, 391 Mich. 44, 214 N.W.2d 803 (1974), rev'g in part and aff......
-
Pontiac Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Pontiac, Docket No. 14843
...Although we are satisfied that D.P.O.A. v. City of Detroit, 385 Mich. 519, 190 N.W.2d 97 (1971) and Police Officers Association v. Detroit, 41 Mich.App. 723, 728, 200 N.W.2d 722, 725 (1972) disposed of the first question contrary to the decision of MERC in the present case, we believe the a......