Case Name: DEARBORN FIRE FIGHTERS UNION LOCAL NO 412, IAFF, v. CITY OF DEARBORN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1972-07-24
Citations: 42 Mich. App. 51
Docket Number: Docket No. 11306; Docket No. 11920
Parties: DEARBORN FIRE FIGHTERS UNION LOCAL NO 412, IAFF, v CITY OF DEARBORN
Judges: Before: Bronson, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 42
Pages: 51–58

Head Matter:
DEARBORN FIRE FIGHTERS UNION LOCAL NO 412, IAFF, v CITY OF DEARBORN
Opinion op the Court
1. Labor Relations — Arbitration and Award — Jurisdiction.
An employer’s failure to designate a panel member for arbitration proceedings in a labor dispute as required by the statute compelling arbitration in labor disputes between municipal corporations and their policemen and firemen does not affect the panel’s jurisdiction (MCLA 423.234). . «
Opinion op V. J. Brennan, J.
2. Municipal Corporations — Constitutional Law — Labor Relations — Statutes—Arbitration and Award.
A statute requiring compulsory arbitration in labor disputes between municipal corporations and their policemen and Bremen employees does not divest home-rule cities of powers granted to them by the Constitution since the Legislature may enact laws providing for the resolution of disputes concerning public employees (Const 1963, art 4, § 48).
3. Constitutional Law — Delegation of Power — Arbitration and Award.
The test to determine whether an arbitration statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative and administrative power to pri vate persons is to look to the public or private nature of the panel’s character, relations, and functions.
References for Points in Headnotes
5 Am Jur 2d, Arbitration and Award §§ 9, 67, 68.
48 Am Jur 2d, Labor and Labor Relations § 1401.
Power of municipal corporation to submit to arbitration, 40 ALR 1370.
[2, 3, 5-7] 5 Am Jur 2d, Arbitration and Award §§ 8, 9.
48 Am Jur 2d, Labor and Labor Relations § 1196.
Constitutionality of arbitration statutes, 55 ALR2d 432.
48 Am Jur 2d, Labor and Labor Relations § 1401.
51 Am Jur, Taxation §§ 389, 390.
5 Am Jur 2d, Arbitration and Award § 51.
Waiver of arbitration provision in contract, 94 ALR 509; 117 ALR 306, s. 161 ALR 1429.
4. Municipal Corporations — Constitutional Law — Delegation of Power — Arbitration and Award.
The delegation of authority to a panel to arbitrate labor disputes between municipalities and their policemen and Bremen renders the panel a public body.
5. Municipal Corporations — Arbitration and Award — Constitutional Law.
The statute providing for compulsory arbitration of labor disputes between municipalities and their policemen and Bremen contains sufBcient standards to properly direct and limit the authority of the arbitrators and to provide the basis for judicial review (MCLA 423.239).
6. Municipal Corporations — Constitutional Law — Arbitration and Award.
The statute compelling arbitration in labor disputes between municipalities and their policemen and Bremen does not surrender the power to impose taxes to an arbitration panel in that an award increasing the expenses of a city to maintain its police and Bre departments would necessarily force the city to increase its taxes, since the city is free to reallocate present resources to meet an arbitration award.
7. Labor Relations — Arbitration and Award — Jurisdiction.
The statute compelling arbitration in labor disputes between municipalities and their policemen and.Bremen speaks in mandatory terms requiring a three-member panel, and a two-man panel has no jurisdiction to conduct proceedings pursuant to the statute despite the fact that defendant’s noncompliance with the statutory provisions created the situation (MCLA 423.234).
8. Labor Relations — Arbitration and Award — Municipal Corporations.
The failure of a city to appoint a member to an arbitration panel in a labor dispute between the city and its policemen and Bremen as required by statute did not act as an estoppel to prevent the city from subsequently attacking the arbitration award on procedural grounds, since no misrepresentation necessary to give rise to the application of equitable estoppel was present, and since a municipality may not be estopped by the illegal acts of its employees.
Appeal from Wayne, Theodore R. Bohn, J. Submitted Division 1 February 8, 1972, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 11306.)
Decided July 24, 1972.
Leave to appeal granted, 388 Mich 785.
Appeal from Wayne, Charles Kaufman, J. Submitted Division 1 February 8, 1972, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 11920.)
Decided July 24, 1972. Leave to appeal granted, 388 Mich 785.
Complaints by Dearborn Fire Fighters Union Local No. 412, IAFF, and Police Officers Association of Dearborn against the City of Dearborn for mandamus to compel the city to implement arbitration awards. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Rothe, Marston, Mazey, Sachs, O'Connell, Nunn & Freid, P. C. (by Theodore Sachs and Ronald R. Helveston), for plaintiff Dearborn Fire Fighters Union.
Winston L. Livingston and J. Douglas Korney, for plaintiff Police Officers Association of Dear-born.
Joseph Burtell and Eugene A. Forbes, for defendant.
Before: Bronson, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
O'Hara, J.
(concurring except as to remand). Judge Bronson and I agree with Judge Brennan in all respects except as to the necessity for further arbitrational proceedings.
The failure of the city to designate a member of the arbitration panel, does not affect the panel's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction stems from the legislative grant over the subject matter. Whatever the effect of the presence or absence of the kind panel member might have been, it was the city's doing that there were only two. Neither the city nor the union, were the situation reversed, can vitiate the arbitration procedure simply by inaction.
It would be quixotic, to say the least, were we to accept the city's contention that because it refused to designate a panel member it can now compel the union to go through arbitration proceedings all over again.
Affirmed.
Bronson, J., concurred.