Case ID: mich-app_103/html/0782-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "D. C. Riley, P.J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOCAL NO 214, TEAMSTERS v CITY OF DETROIT (ON REMAND)
    Docket No. 55432.
    Submitted January 5, 1981, at Lansing. —
    Decided February 17, 1981.
    Teamsters Local No. 214, as union representative of correctional officers employed at the Detroit House of Correction (DeHoCo), petitioned the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) for a determination as to whether the officers were eligible for arbitration under the statute providing for compulsory arbitration of labor disputes in municipal police and fire departments. MERC ruled that the officers were within the coverage of the statute and were entitled to compulsory arbitration. The City of Detroit and DeHoCo appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the MERC decision, 91 Mich App 273; 283 NW2d 722 (1979). The city and DeHoCo sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which, in lieu of granting leave, vacated the Court of Appeals decision and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of a recent Supreme Court decision. 410 Mich 876 (1980). On remand, held:
    
    The duties of the correctional officers are of a noncritical service nature and are not within the purview of the compulsory arbitration statute. The officers are, therefore, not entitled to compulsory arbitration.
    The decision of MERC is reversed.
    Labor Relations — Detroit House of Correction — Correctional Officers — Compulsory Arbitration — Statutes.
    The duties of correctional officers employed at the Detroit House of Correction are of a noncritical service nature and are not within the purview of the statute providing for compulsory arbitration of labor disputes in municipal police and fire departments (MCL 423.231 et seq.; MSA 17.455[31] et seq.).
    
    
      Kasoff, Young, Gottesman, Kovinsky, Friedman & Walkon, P.C. (by Howard L. Shifman), for plaintiff.
    References for Points in Headnote
    [1] 48A Am Jur 2d, Labor and Labor Relations §§ 1772, 1773, 1856, 2070.
    
      
      George G. Matish, Acting Corporation Counsel, and Anna Diggs-Taylor and Michael A. Hurvitz, Assistants Corporation Counsel, for defendants.
    Before: D. C. Riley, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and Beasley, JJ.
   On Remand

D. C. Riley, P.J.

This matter was submitted to our Court on March 19, 1979. Our opinion was filed on July 10, 1979, 91 Mich App 273; 283 NW2d 722 (1979). An appeal was taken to the Michigan Supreme Court where this matter was ordered held in abeyance on November 16, 1979, pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Metropolitan Council 23, AFSCME v Oakland County Prosecutor.

On December 23, 1980, the Supreme Court, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated the judgment of our Court and remanded this case for reconsideration in light of their decision in Metropolitan Council 23, AFSCME v Oakland County Prosecutor, 409 Mich 299; 294 NW2d 578 (1980), issued July 16, 1980. 410 Mich 876 (1980).

Having reviewed this matter in light of the Supreme Court decision in Metropolitan Council 23, supra, we conclude that the MERC board determination should be reversed and the plaintiffs held not entitled to compulsory arbitration because their duties were of a "noncritical service nature” and not within the purview of the compulsory arbitration statute, MCL 423.231 et seq.; MSA 17.455(31) et seq.

Reversed.