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

• Citation: 213 N.W.2d 217,50 Mich.App. 382
• Decision Date: 01 November 1973
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 14843,1
• Parties: , 86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2475, 73 Lab.Cas. P 53,225 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 (US)

Page 217

213 N.W.2d 217

50 Mich.App. 382, 86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2475,

73 Lab.Cas. P 53,225

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.

Nov. 1, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1973.

Released for Publication Dec. 28, 1973.

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

J. Douglas Korney, Detroit, for Pontiac Police Officers Ass'n.

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

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

QUINN, Judge.

This appeal on leave granted from a decision and order of MERC involves two questions:

1. Is the charter residency requirement for policemen of defendant city a mandatory subject for collective bargaining?

2. 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? MERC answered both questions in the affirmative and ordered collective bargaining on these issues. We answer both questions in the negative and reverse.

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 analysis which follows strengthens those holdings.

M.C.L.A. § 117.36; M.S.A. § 5.2116 provides:

'No provision of any city charter shall conflict with or contravene the provisions of any general law of the state.'

M.C.L.A. § 423.215; M.S.A. § 17.455(15) requires public employers to bargain collectively with representatives of its employees with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. This is a general law of the state and would appear to prevail over defendant city's charter provisions on residency for policemen and police trial boards.

However, Pontiac is a home rule city. Const.1963, art. 7, § 22, provides:

'Under general laws the electors of each city and village shall have the power and authority to frame, adopt and amend its charter, and to amend an existing charter of the city or village heretofore granted or enacted by the legislature for the government of the city or village. Each such city and village shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law. No enumeration of powers granted to cities and villages in this constitution shall limit or restrict the general grant of authority conferred by this section.' ¹

Is the management, operation and control of its police department a municipal concern? An emphatic affirmative answer may be found in Smith v. Flint City Commission, 258 Mich. 698, 242 N.W. 814 (1932).

By authorizing...