Pontiac Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Pontiac, Docket No. 14843

• Decision Date: 22 July 1974
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 14843,1
• Citation: 220 N.W.2d 794,54 Mich.App. 282
• Parties: , 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2173, 75 Lab.Cas. P 53,496 PONTIAC POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF PONTIAC, Defendant-Appellant, and Michigan Employment Relations Commission, Defendant-Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 794

220 N.W.2d 794

54 Mich.App. 282, 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2173,

75 Lab.Cas. P 53,496

PONTIAC POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF PONTIAC, Defendant-Appellant, and Michigan Employment Relations Commission, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 14843.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

July 22, 1974.

Released for Publication Aug. 20, 1974.

Leave to Appeal Granted Oct. 16, 1974.

Douglas C. Dahn, Tolleson, Burgess & Mead, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

J. Douglas Korney, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Hyman Parker, Francis W. Edwards, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and R. B. BURNS and QUINN, JJ.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

QUINN, Judge.

An order of the Supreme Court in the above entitled cause dated April 18, 1974, and designated CR 12--98, provides:

'We grant leave to appeal and Sua sponte vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 50 Mich.App. 382, 213 N.W.2d 217 (1973).

'On the authority of Detroit Police Officers Association v. City of Detroit, 391 Mich. 44, 214 N.W.2d 803 (1974), we hold that a residency requirement is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

'We remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration, in light of D.p.o.a.v. City of Detroit, Supra, the question whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is a 'mandatory', 'permissive' or 'illegal' subject of collective bargaining.' ¹

Pursuant thereto we have reconsidered our prior holding. Contrary to the language of the foregoing order, this case does not involve the question, 'whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is 'mandatory', 'permissive' or 'illegal' subject of collective bargaining'.

The question originally before this Court was

'Is the question of a civilian trial board for policemen a mandatory subject for collective bargaining when the city charter provides for a police trial board?' Police Officers Association v. Pontiac, 50 Mich.App. 382, 383, 213 N.W.2d 217 (1973).

For the reasons expressed in our prior opinion, we affirm our negative answer to this question. We do not read Detroit Police Officers Association, supra, as a refutation of that reasoning. The question of a civilian trial board on the facts of this case is a permissive subject of collective bargaining.

1 391 Mich. 814, 216 N.W.2d 759 (1974).