Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass'n v. City of Detroit
| Decision Date | 14 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | L,Docket Nos. 195835,AFL-CI,195872 |
| Parties | , 154 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3046 SENIOR ACCOUNTANTS, ANALYSTS & APPRAISERS ASSOCIATION, UAW Local 2211, and Teamsters Local 214, and Operating Engineers Local 547, voluntary unincorporated association, and Ron Gracia, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, and Michigan Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,ocals 23, 26, 62, 207, 214, 229, 273, 312, 457, 542, 836, 1023, 1206, 1220, 1227, 1642, 2394, 2799 and 2920 voluntary unincorporated associations and Saundra Williams and William Harper, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant, and Detroit Charter Revision Commission, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellee. SENIOR ACCOUNTANTS, ANALYSTS & APPRAISERS ASSOCIATION, UAW Local 2211, Teamsters Local 214, Operating Engineers Local 547, voluntary unincorporated association, Ron Gracia, Michigan Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,ocals 23, 26, 62, 207, 214, 229, 273, 312, 457, 542, 836, 1023, 1206, 1220, 1227, 1642, 2394, 2799 and 2920 voluntary unincorporated associations and Saundra Williams and William Harper, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellant, and Detroit Charter Revision Commission, Defendant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Steinberg, O'Connor, Paton & Burns, P.L.L.C. by Doyle O'Connor, Detroit, for Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Association and others.
Miller, Cohen, Martens, Ice & Geary, P.C. by Michael J. Bommarito, Southfield, for Michigan Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 23 and others.
Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, P.L.C. by Leonard D. Givens, Jerome R. Watson, and John H. Willems, Detroit, for City of Detroit and Detroit Charter Revision Commission in Docket No. 195835.
David J. Masson, Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel, and Jack P. Timmony, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for City of Detroit in Docket No. 195872.
Ronald Zajac, Detroit, amicus curiae, for Board of Trustees of the General Retirement System for the City of Detroit.
Before REILLY, P.J., and CORRIGAN and YOUNG, JJ.
On June 28, 1996, defendants Detroit Charter Revision Commission and City of Detroit sought emergency leave to appeal the June 21, 1996, injunctive order of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued against the commission only, striking certain provisions of a proposed 1997 revised city charter that was to be submitted by the commission for voter approval at the August 6, 1996, election. Plaintiffs are several labor organizations with collective bargaining agreements with the city and several individuals who are affiliated with these labor organizations and are city employees or retirees, including one current member of the board of trustees for the city's general retirement system.
This Court granted leave because of the importance of the issues presented. However, because defendants did not request a stay, the injunction remained in place during the pendency of the appeal. 1 As a consequence, the proposed charter revision, shorn of the provisions removed as a result of the injunction, was submitted to the voters and was passed on August 6, 1996. Given the apparent complexity of the legal issues involved and the public significance attached to enjoining, at least in part, a political election, the Court invited the parties to submit additional briefs and present oral arguments. 2
At issue are proposed revisions to §§ 11-102 and 11-103 of the city charter concerning the city's general pension or retirement system. Two kinds of proposed revisions are challenged here. 3 The first would require so-called "excess earnings" from pension investments to be allocated among certain pension benefit funds in proportion to each fund's percentage of total system assets, with the remainder to be credited to the fund contributed to by the city, thereby reducing the city's future contribution obligations. This revision would limit the discretion exercised under the current charter by the pension board of trustees to allocate excess earnings among the several pension funds in its sole determination.
The second type of revision would change the composition of the pension board of trustees by adding a second retiree member (currently only one retiree member serves), requiring that all trustees be Detroit residents, and allowing the mayor, who is currently an ex-officio trustee, to appoint a designee to attend meetings of the board in his stead.
Each of these proposed revisions were challenged by plaintiffs on the ground that they represented unilateral changes in the collective bargaining agreements between the city and the city's labor organizations concerning matters that are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. 4 Following the adoption of these proposed pension revisions by the commission in April 1996, plaintiffs brought in the Wayne Circuit Court two actions for mandamus and injunctive relief, seeking to prevent the referenced pension revisions from being submitted with the other proposed charter revisions to the voters for adoption.
At a June 21, 1996, hearing, the circuit court refused to grant any relief as to the city and declined to issue mandamus, but enjoined the commission from including the challenged provisions among the charter revisions to be submitted to the voters. The circuit court found three bases for the injunction it issued. First, the challenged pension revisions were illegal and beyond the scope of the commission's authority under the home rule cities Act (HRCA), M.C.L. § 117.1 et seq.; M.S.A. § 5.2071 et seq., because those provisions violate or conflict with the public employment relations act (PERA), M.C.L. § 423.201 et seq.; M.S.A. § 17.455(1) et seq. In particular, the circuit court reasoned that the commission's authority even to propose charter provisions is limited by § 36 of the HRCA, M.C.L. § 117.36; M.S.A. § 5.2116, which states:
No provision of any city charter shall conflict with or contravene the provisions of any general law of the state.
Second, the circuit court found that enactment of those provisions would destroy a "level playing field" in collective bargaining with the city because they "will impact the playing field at the bargaining table unfairly on the issue of pensions," thereby precluding "real good faith bargaining on this subject." Finally, the circuit court found that presenting the revisions to the voters in the proposed form would constitute a harm to the public because the provisions were stated in unqualified terms but, as defendants concede, could not be implemented for union employees without collective bargaining. Consequently, the circuit court found that the proposed revisions would mislead the public into believing that they were voting for provisions that could not, in fact, become effective on January 1, 1997, as stated in the proposed charter revision.
The circuit court order allowed the commission the opportunity to prepare alternative pension revisions that comported with the court's findings on the HRCA and the PERA. The commission declined this opportunity and, with the city, appealed.
Although the underlying issues involve complex questions concerning the relationships between the PERA and the HRCA, the narrow legal question before this Court is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. We review the grant of an injunction for an abuse of discretion. Lansing Ass'n of School Administrators v. Lansing School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 216 Mich.App. 79, 85, 549 N.W.2d 15 (1996).
An injunction represents an extraordinary and drastic act of judicial power that should be employed sparingly and only with full conviction of its urgent necessity. Reed v. Burton, 344 Mich. 126, 132, 73 N.W.2d 333 (1955). As a consequence, the courts have fashioned an array of principles designed to clarify when such extraordinary powers are appropriately exercised. Generally, three core elements must be established by a party seeking an injunction: (1) justice requires that the court grant the injunction; (2) a real and imminent danger of irreparable injury arises if an injunction is not issued; and (3) there exists no adequate remedy at law. Peninsula Sanitation, Inc. v. Manistique, 208 Mich.App. 34, 43, 526 N.W.2d 607 (1994).
Because the injunction issued in this case does not merely affect the rights of private parties, but the right of the citizens of the City of Detroit to vote on a proposal by their elected charter revision commission, overlain on these basic elements is another. Our Supreme Court has stated it as follows:
"Although there is authority to the contrary, the general rule is that an injunction will not issue to prevent the holding of an election whether or not the election is illegal, and that this is so whether the election relates to the filling of public office or other matters, such as changes in boundaries of political subdivisions and kindred matters." [Kavanagh v. Coash, 347 Mich. 579, 583, 81 N.W.2d 349 (1957) (quoting 43 CJS, Injunctions, § 115[b], p 644).]. 5
The wisdom of the principle of judicial restraint expressed by our Supreme Court in Coash is self-evident; the notion that our courts may precipitously intervene in the political arena and preempt a vote of the people is inconsistent with both the role of the courts and the principles of our democracy.
Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of showing an urgent necessity for injunctive relief, which is necessary to satisfy the requirements of justice. The injunction was premature. The harm, if any, to plaintiffs is at least two removes from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. City of Detroit Fin. Review Team
...Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Michigan, 231 Mich.App. 549, 551, 587 N.W.2d 821 (1998). 135.Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass'n v. Detroit, 218 Mich.App. 263, 269, 553 N.W.2d 679 (1996). 136.Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Mic......
-
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service v. Caruso
...Bloomfield v. Oakland Cty. Clerk, 253 Mich.App. 1, 654 N.W.2d 610, 632 (2002) (citing Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass'n v. City of Detroit, 218 Mich. App. 263, 553 N.W.2d 679, 683 (1996)). ...
-
Stand Up for Democracy v. State
...speech, and we cannot join this result. As the Court of Appeals so eloquently stated in Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass'n v. Detroit, 218 Mich.App. 263, 270, 553 N.W.2d 679 (1996): The wisdom of the principle of judicial restraint expressed by our Supreme Court in [Attorney Ge......
-
Saginaw Educ. Ass'n v. Eady-Miskiewicz
...through resort to injunctive relief, to prevent or correct [unfair labor practices]." Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass'n v. Detroit , 218 Mich.App. 263, 272, 553 N.W.2d 679 (1996), citing MCL 423.216.At issue is whether the MERC properly exercised jurisdiction over the question......