Hillsdale Community Schools v. Michigan Labor Mediation Bd., Docket No. 6697
| Citation | 24 Mich.App. 36,179 N.W.2d 661 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 6697,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | , 75 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2443, 63 Lab.Cas. P 52,400 HILLSDALE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHIGAN LABOR MEDIATION BOARD, and Hillsdale Community Schools Principals' and Supervisor Ass'n, Defendants-Appellees, and Michigan Education Association, Special Intervenor |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Alan M. Dimmers, Dimmers & Moes, Hillsdale, Leonard A. Keller, Keller, Thoma, McManus & Keller, Detroit, for amicus curiae Michigan Association of School Boards for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert Reese, Corp. Counsel, Nick Sacorafas, Peter D. Jason, Asst. Corp. Counsels, Detroit, for amicus curiae City of Detroit.
Charles Fine, Giffiths & Griffiths, Detroit, for amicus curiae Schools of Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, Brandon, Huron Valley and Waterford Township.
G. Franklin Killeen, Flint, for amicus curiae City of Flushing.
Nancy Jean Van Lopik, Livingston, Gregory, Van Lopik & Higle, Detroit, for amicus curiae Michigan Assn. of Elementary School Principals. Francis W. Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., Detroit, for Labor mediation bd.
Everett R. Trebilcock, Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Foster, Lansing, for Hillsdale School Prin.
Theodore W. Swift, Foster, Campbell, Lindemer & McGurrin, Lansing, for MEA.
Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and DANHOF and VAN DOMELEN, * JJ.
The Hillsdale Community Schools Principals' and Supervisory Association (PSA), petitioned the Michigan Labor Mediation Board (MLMB) for an election of a unit of employees of the Hillsdale Community Schools. The unit contained the following personnel:
'High school, junior high, and elementary school principals, curriculum coordinator, reading coordinator, ESEA coordinator, head libarian, and physical educaton director; Excluding: teachers, superintendent, assistant superintendent, business manager and all non-certified employees.'
The School District opposed the petition and the Labor Mediation Board (LMB) ruled that PSA was a proper unit. The district appealed this decision before the representation election was held. The PSA lost the election, but we granted leave to appeal as this is an important case with continuing application.
The plaintiff is a public employer within the meaning of P.A.1947, No. 336 P.A.1965, No. 379 (PERA), M.C.L.A. § 423.201 et seq. (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 17.455(1) et seq.) The personnel composing the PSA membership are public employees within the provisions of § 2 PERA, M.C.L.A. § 423.202 (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 17.455(2). The LMB found that they are all supervisory personnel but are not 'employees who formulate determine and effectuate management policies.' We are bound by this determination as it is supported by competent, material and substantial evidence. Villella v. Employment Security Commission (1969), 16 Mich.App. 187, 167 N.W.2d 864; Williams v. Lakeland Convalescent Center (1966), 4 Mich.App. 477, 145 N.W.2d 272. PSA is a labor organization within the meaning of §§ 9 and 12 PERA, M.C.L.A. §§ 423.209, 212 (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. §§ 17.455(9), (12).)
The main issue raised in this appeal is whether under the provisions of PERA, supervisory personnel who are public employees constitute a proper collective bargaining unit and are entitled to be represented by representatives of their own choosing.
The preamble to the PERA shows one of its purposes is 'to declare and protect the rights and privileges of public employees * * *' This policy has been effectuated by permitting public employees to engage in collective bargaining. M.C.L.A. § 423.209 (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 17.455(9)) provides:
'It shall be lawful for public employees to organize together or to form, join or assist in labor organizations, to engage in lawful concerted activities for the purpose of collective negotiation or head librarian, and physical education or to negotiate or bargain collectively with their public employers through representatives of their own free choice.'
The legislature designated the MLMB as the agency to determine the appropriate bargaining units, M.C.L.A. § 423.213 (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 17.455(13)). The determination to the bargaining unit is based upon criteria set forth in P.A.1939, No. 176, § 9e as last amended by P.A.1965, No. 282, M.C.L.A. § 423.9e (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 17.454(10.4)). This section is a part of the Michigan Labor Mediation Act (MLMA), M.C.L.A. § 423.1 et seq. (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 17.454(1) et seq.) and states:
Plaintiff and defendants disagree as to the correct interpretation of § 9e. An examination of that section's structure shows that there are 4 choices of bargaining units; (1) a unit consisting of all of the employees employed in one plant or business enterprise within the state, (2) a craft unit, (3) a plant unit, and (4) a subdivision of any of the foregoing units.
The language in § 9e '* * * not holding executive or supervisory positions, * * *', is a modification of only the first type of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Lansing v. Carl Schlegel, Inc.
..."public employee" to distinguish those individuals covered under PERA from private employees. Hillsdale Community Schools v. Labor Mediation Bd., 24 Mich.App.36, 40-41, 179 N.W.2d 661 (1970). PERA, M.C.L. § 423.201(1)(e), defines a "public employee" a person holding a position by appointmen......
-
Grandville Mun. Executive Ass'n v. City of Grandville
...School Dist. v. Labor Mediation Bd., 22 Mich.App. 222, 229-230, 177 N.W.2d 196 (1970), and Hillsdale Community Schools v. Labor Mediation Bd., 24 Mich.App. 36, 41-42, 179 N.W.2d 661 (1970).] * * * * * * In this case, the MERC's ruling was wholly contrary to the above case law. As we held in......
-
Muskegon County Professional Command Ass'n v. County of Muskegon (Sheriff's Dept.), Docket No. 115399
...public employees to engage in collective bargaining. M.C.L. Sec. 423.209; M.S.A. Sec. 17.455(9); Hillsdale Community Schools v. Labor Mediation Bd., 24 Mich.App. 36, 40, 179 N.W.2d 661 (1970); Dearborn School Dist. v. Labor Mediation Bd., 22 Mich.App. 222, 226, 177 N.W.2d 196 (1970). The Le......
-
Regents of University of Mich. v. Michigan Employment Relations Commission
...not, however, define what is meant by the words 'public employees.' Some help is found in Hillsdale Community Schools v. Labor Mediation Board, 24 Mich.App. 36, 41, 179 N.W.2d 661, 663 (1970), where it was held 'The words 'public employee' are to identify the employees Other than private an......