Lake Michigan Federation of Teachers v. Lake Michigan College, Docket No. 19816

• Decision Date: 28 April 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 19816,No. 1,1
• Citation: 231 N.W.2d 538,60 Mich.App. 747
• Parties: , 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2100, 77 Lab.Cas. P 53,779 LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKE MICHIGAN COLLEGE, Defendant-Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 538

231 N.W.2d 538

60 Mich.App. 747, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2100,

77 Lab.Cas. P 53,779

LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKE MICHIGAN COLLEGE, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 19816.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

April 28, 1975.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1975.

Released for Publication Aug. 1, 1975.

Fieger, Golden & Cousens by Bernard J. Fieger, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellant.

Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, Chicago, Ill. by Robert C. Claus, Chicago, Ill. and James R. Denbo, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.

Before D. E. HOLBROOK, P.J., and DANHOF and KAUFMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a decision and order of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission affirming the decision and adopting the recommended order of an administrative law judge dismissing the unfair labor practice charges filed against the defendant college under the provisions of the public employment relations act (PERA), M.C.L.A. § 423.201 Et seq.; M.S.A. § 17.455(1) Et seq.

The Lake Michigan Federation of Teachers has been the bargaining agent for the faculty at Lake Michigan College since 1966 when it received certification. The federation entered into a number of collective-bargaining agreements with the college, the last of which became effective on December 28, 1970, and expired on August 12, 1972. This contract included as its central feature a 'salary grid' whereby compensation was computed based upon length of service as the vertical increments, while academic degree and credits earned comprised the horizontal increments. Bargaining for the succeeding contract began on February 8, 1972.

From February 8 to August 8, 1972, the parties held approximately 16 negotiating sessions. However, there still remained numerous unresolved issues including salary and duration of the contract. The federation reduced its original salary demands by $400, but the college held firm to the position that no salary increase could be paid during the next school year. Later in August, the college requested mediation and sessions were held then and in September. Little was accomplished, and subsequently the federation requested fact-finding.

The fact-finder's report, which included a recommendation that the current salary grid be increased by 5.5 percent, was issued on January 11, 1973 and was accepted by the federation but rejected by the college. Further meetings were held in February at which the college offered a salary increase for subsequent years coupled with a salary freeze for the current year but demanded that the salary grid itself be eliminated. These provisions, with the addition of agreement on subsidiary issues, formed the basis of a tentative contract agreed to by the union negotiating team. However, on February 8, this tentative agreement was rejected by vote of the federation membership.

At this point, the college insisted upon elimination of the salary grid, taking the position that a salary increase would not be considered unless the federation came within the 'ball park' by agreeing to this provision. Another unproductive meeting was held on February 13, 1973; on February 14 unfair labor practice charges were filed by the federation; and on February 15 the federation called a strike in which at least 40 teachers participated. Following a warning, the striking teachers were terminated on March 6, 1973, and replacements were hired. The propriety of this action on the part of the college is not involved in the present lawsuit.

On March 19, 1973, a hearing was held before administrative law judge Joseph B. Bixler, but negotiations continued between the parties. On March 22, the federation made an offer involving implementation of the fact-finder's report if the decision of the administrative law judge was favorable to the federation, and acceptance of the salary freeze if it was not. The college declined this offer, and, following another meeting with a mediator, made an offer to the federation allowing the terminated teachers to resign and including a modified salary freeze. The federation rejected this offer, and no further negotiations were held.

On July 2, 1973, the administrative law judge issued his opinion and recommended order. He concluded that the respondent college: 'has fulfilled its bargaining obligation. What the respondent has engaged in is nothing more than hard bargaining. The record, up to the time of the hearing on March 19, does not support a finding that respondent has failed to fulfill the duty to bargain in good faith as imposed by section 10(e) of PERA (M.C.L.A. § 423.210(e); M.S.A. § 17.455(10)(e)).' The administrative law judge recommended 'to the commission that the charges and amended charges in this matter be dismissed in their entirety'. This recommendation was accepted by the commission, which, in a unanimous decision and order dated February 25, 1974, stated: '(W)e conclude that the administrative law judge correctly determined that the employer engaged in no more than hard bargaining and did not violate its duty to bargain in good faith as defined by section 10(e) and is further defined by section 15, M.C.L.A. § 423.215; M.S.A. § 17.455(15) which specifically provides that 'such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession." From this decision, the federation appeals.

The scope of review by an appellate court of factual determinations made by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission has recently been discussed by Justice Fitzgerald writing for the Michigan Supreme Court in Michigan Employment Relations Commission v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 121, 223 N.W.2d 283, 286 (1974):

'The standard of appellate review of MERC Board findings of fact is set forth in the labor mediation act as follows:

"* * * The findings of the board with respect to questions of fact if supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be conclusive. * * * ' M.C.L.A. § 423.23(e); M.S.A. § 17.454(25)(e).

'This standard comports with Const.1963, art. 6, § 28 which sets forth the minimum constitutional scope of judicial review of administrative decisions.

"All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct review by the courts as provided by law. This review shall include, as a minimum, the determination whether such final decisions, findings, rulings and orders are authorized by law; and, In cases in which a hearing is required, whether the same are...