Van Buren Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Decatur Pub. Sch.
| Decision Date | 17 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 320272. |
| Citation | 309 Mich.App. 630,872 N.W.2d 710 |
| Parties | VAN BUREN COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and DECATUR EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION, MEA/NEA v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
White Schneider Young & Chiodini, PC, Okemos (by Jeffrey S. Donahue ), for Van Buren County Education Association and Decatur Educational Support Personnel Association, MEA/NEA.
Thrun Law Firm, PC, East Lansing (by Roy H. Henley ), for Decatur Public Schools.
Before: JANSEN, P.J., and METER and BECKERING, JJ.
Charging parties, Van Buren County Education Association and Decatur Educational Support Personnel Association, MEA/NEA, appeal as of right the January 21, 2014 decision of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) dismissing two unfair labor practice charges against respondent, Decatur Public Schools. We affirm.
The facts in this case are largely undisputed and involve Van Buren County Education Association (VBCEA), a bargaining unit for teachers in Van Buren County, Decatur Educational Support Personnel Association (DESPA), a bargaining unit for support personnel, and the Decatur Public Schools. This case involves a public employer's contributions to its employees' health insurance costs, and whether the employer has a duty to bargain with its employees' representatives with regard to the method of calculating the limits imposed on its contributions to employees' health care costs under 2011 PA 152 (PA 152), the Publicly Funded Health Insurance Contribution Act, MCL 15.561 et seq.1
PA 152 was effective on September 27, 2011. The act places limits on the maximum amount that a public employer can contribute to medical benefit plans for its employees or elected public officials. Among other matters, PA 152 provided what the parties refer to as " hard caps" for contributions to medical benefit plans for respondent's employees. Section 3 of the act provides in relevant part:
Except as otherwise provided in this act, a public employer that offers or contributes to a medical benefit plan for its employees or elected public officials shall pay no more of the annual costs or illustrative rate and any payments for reimbursement of co-pays, deductibles, or payments into health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, or similar accounts used for health care costs, than a total amount equal to $5,500.00 times the number of employees and elected public officials with single-person coverage, $11,000.00 times the number of employees and elected public officials with individual-and-spouse coverage or individual–plus–1–nonspouse–dependent coverage, plus $15,000.00 times the number of employees and elected public officials with family coverage, for a medical benefit plan coverage year beginning on or after January 1, 2012. [MCL 15.563(1).]
In addition to the hard-caps option set forth in Section 3, a public employer, excluding the state, could elect to comply, "[b]y majority vote of its governing body," with Section 4 of PA 152. MCL 15.564(1). The option in Section 4 provides that a public employer "shall pay not more than 80% of the total annual costs of all of the medical benefit plans it offers or contributes to for its employees and elected public officials." MCL 15.564(2). Thus, subject to certain exemptions set forth in Section 8 that are not applicable to the instant matter,2 PA 152 gave a public employer two options for contributing to the costs of medical benefit plans for its employees.
In enacting PA 152, the Legislature recognized that medical benefit plans may have been subject to existing collective bargaining agreements (CBA), and it grandfathered in a public employer's contributions to medical benefit plans under existing CBAs. Nonetheless, PA 152 mandated compliance with the act for any CBAs negotiated on or after September 27, 2011, the effective date of PA 152. Collective bargaining agreements in effect on September 27, 2011, remained in effect until their expiration. In this regard, Section 5 of PA 152 provides:
Section 9 of the act contains a penalty for failure to comply with the contributions limit:
If a public employer fails to comply with this act, the public employer shall permit the state treasurer to reduce by 10% each economic vitality incentive program payment received under 2011 PA 63 and the department of education shall assess the public employer a penalty equal to 10% of each payment of any funds for which the public employer qualifies under the state school aid act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 to [MCL] 388.1772, during the period that the public employer fails to comply with this act. Any reduction setoff or penalty amounts recovered shall be returned to the fund from which the reduction is assessed or upon which the penalty is determined. The department of education may also refer the penalty collection to the department of treasury for collection consistent with section 13 of 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.13. [MCL 15.569.]
Charging party VBCEA and respondent were parties to a CBA that became effective on July 1, 2011, and expired on June 30, 2012. On or about May 14, 2012, before the first bargaining session on the new CBA, superintendent Elizabeth Godwin sent a memorandum to VBCEA members regarding their insurance premiums for the upcoming school year. The memorandum indicated that effective July 1, 2012, the day after the then-current CBA expired, respondent intended to implement a hard cap3 on its contributions as set forth in PA 152. Godwin also sent letters to VBCEA members regarding the deductions that would be taken from their last paychecks in June 2012 that would be necessary to cover those members' increased health care contributions.
On or about May 22, 2012, respondent and VBCEA held their first bargaining session for the new CBA. According to Godwin's affidavit, which the charging parties did not refute, respondent and VBCEA began to negotiate at this session, among other matters, the hard-cap option chosen by respondent. Although the parties met and bargained, they did not reach an agreement, and respondent proceeded with implementing the hard caps on health care costs.
On June 29, 2012, VBCEA filed an unfair labor practice charge against respondent, alleging that health insurance benefits were a mandatory subject of collective bargaining under the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA). See MCL 423.215(1). VBCEA also alleged that respondent had a duty to maintain the terms and conditions of the existing CBA until the parties either reached a successor agreement or an impasse.
VBCEA contended that respondent implemented the hard-cap limits with no meaningful bargaining, in violation of PERA. VBCEA requested that respondent be found in violation of PERA for refusing to bargain and that insurance coverage contribution amounts be returned to the amounts that existed under the expired CBA until the parties reached either a successor agreement or an impasse.
Respondent and charging party DESPA were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that took effect on November 14, 2011, and expired on June 30, 2012. In May 2012, respondent, just as it had done with VBCEA, sent notices to DESPA members regarding increased insurance costs associated with respondent's decision to implement the hard-cap limits set forth in PA 152. At that time, respondent and DESPA had not yet scheduled their first bargaining session for a new CBA, nor had DESPA requested bargaining.
In response to the memorandum indicating respondent's choice of the hard-cap limits and the increased deductions associated with the hard-cap limits, DESPA filed an unfair labor practice charge against respondent that was virtually identical to the charge filed by VBCEA.
On December 20, 2012, the parties presented arguments to an administrative law judge (ALJ), who issued a decision and recommended order dismissing the unfair labor practice charges. Recognizing that there is a mandatory duty to bargain over health insurance benefits under PERA, the ALJ agreed with the charging parties' contentions that there was a duty to bargain over the employer's choice of implementing the hard caps in MCL 15.563 or the 80% contribution plan (80/20 plan) in MCL 15.564, but nevertheless found that respondent did not violate its duty to bargain in this case. First, as to DESPA, the ALJ found, based on unrebutted evidence, that DESPA never requested bargaining; therefore, respondent could not have violated a duty to bargain with regard to DESPA. Second, as to VBCEA, which did request bargaining, the ALJ found that the expiration of an existing CBA amounted to a "statutorily imposed impasse" under PA 152, and permitted respondent to take unilateral action in implementing the hard-caps plan. Therefore, respondent's actions were permitted under PERA, and there was no merit to VBCEA's unfair labor practice charge.
The charging parties and respondent filed exceptions to the ALJ's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor Sch. Dist. v. Rhatigan, Docket No. 326128.
...of MERC."We review MERC decisions pursuant to Const. 1963, art. 6, § 28, and MCL 423.216(e)." Van Buren Co. Ed. Ass'n v. Decatur Pub. Sch., 309 Mich.App. 630, 639, 872 N.W.2d 710 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). MERC's factual findings are "conclusive if they are supported by ......
-
Technical v. Renner
...REVIEW Our review of MERC decisions is guided by Const. 1963, art. 6, § 28, and MCL 423.216(e). Van Buren Co. Ed. Ass'n v. Decatur Pub. Sch. , 309 Mich. App. 630, 639, 872 N.W.2d 710 (2015). "MERC's findings of fact are conclusive if they are supported by competent, material, and substantia......
-
Tomasik v. State
...the principle of separation of powers, the Court must give effect to the Legislature's intent. Van Buren Co. Ed. Ass'n v. Decatur Pub. Sch. , 309 Mich. App. 630, 643, 872 N.W.2d 710 (2015). "The Legislature is presumed to intend the meaning clearly expressed, and this Court must give effect......
-
Batton-Jajuga v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Mich.
...duty in interpreting a statute or a contract is to give effect to the intent of the drafter. Van Buren Co. Ed. Ass'n v. Decatur Pub. Sch. , 309 Mich.App. 630, 643, 872 N.W.2d 710 (2015) ; In re Smith Trust , 274 Mich.App. 283, 285, 731 N.W.2d 810 (2007). In both the statutory and contractua......