Opinion ID: 2086381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the legislative intent of act 312

Text: Since  1, 2(1) and 3 evidence an inherent ambiguity respecting public police department eligibility to invoke the act's benefits for resolving a public police    department employee's dispute, resort must be made to a determination of the act's underlying intent. Once this intent is discerned, that ambiguity must be resolved in such a manner as to effectuate the Legislature's intendment. In response to a February, 1967 Report of the Governor's Advisory Committee on Public Employee Relations, Act 312 was enacted in 1969 as an experiment designed to relieve the tension involved in the limited area of police and fire fighters labor disputes. Dearborn Fire Fighters Union Local No 412, IAFF v Dearborn, 394 Mich 229, 279, fn 5; 231 NW2d 226 (1975) (opinion of COLEMAN, J.). As stated in  14, MCL 423.244; MSA 17.455(44), Act 312 was enacted as supplemental to the public employment relations act (PERA) which prohibits strikes by all public employees but, significantly, does not provide for binding arbitration of their interest disputes. MCL 423.201 et seq.; MSA 17.455(1) et seq. As a consequence of the fact that illegal strikes in the public sector nonetheless resulted from negotiation impasses, Act 312 was enacted to afford an alternate, expeditious, effective and binding procedure for the resolution of disputes [in public police and fire departments, where the right of employees to strike is by law prohibited], MCL 423.231; MSA 17.455(31). The availability of the act's alternate    and binding procedure was legislatively deemed necessary to effectuate the public policy of this state that in public police and fire departments,    it is requisite to the high morale of such employees and the efficient operation of such departments. MCL 423.231; MSA 17.455(31). Although as originally enacted  2 merely defined [p]ublic police and fire departments to include [county department] employees engaged as policemen,    or subject to the hazards thereof, 1969 PA 312, it was subsequently amended in both 1976 and 1977 to embrace emergency medical service personnel employed by a police or fire department [1976 PA 203], or an emergency telephone operator employed by a police or fire department [1977 PA 303], MCL 423.232(1); MSA 17.455(32(1); expressly excluded from the act's scope by the former amendment were persons employed by a private, contracting emergency medical service company as well as emergency service personnel whose duties are solely of an administrative or supporting nature. MCL 423.232(3); MSA 17.455(32)(3). In the analysis of 1976 House Bill 5371 prepared by the Analysis Section of the House of Representatives Committee on Labor which considered the emergency medical service personnel amendment, it emerges that this legislative modification was addressed to the position of the City of Detroit that since [civilian] EMS personnel were not engaged in actual police or fire work they could not invoke the act's provisions. In the Analysis Section summary of the argument against the inclusion of such parties, it was remarked by the Analysis Section that [t]he intent of Act 312 is to ensure against a strike by employees whose service is unique and essential, and EMS personnel do not fit this criteria [sic].  The thrust of the argument for their inclusion was succinctly stated: The obvious intent of the Legislature was to forestall any serious disruption of [municipal police and fire departments], not only of a particular group of employees within the department.    The service [emergency medical service personnel] provide is as valuable to the public as that provided by other fire or police department employees, and a disruptive labor dispute among these employees would be just as detrimental to the public welfare as a strike by policemen or firemen. These employees need and deserve the protection of the act. Comparing the practical impact of the PERA and Act 312 supplementary concepts, now-Chief Justice COLEMAN summarized the raison d'etre of the compulsory interest arbitration scheme in the following terms: PERA procedurally requires the parties to meet at the bargaining table and confer in good faith with an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement. It does not mandate agreement. If the parties fail to agree on one or more mandatory subjects, an `impasse' situation is reached and the employer may take unilateral action on an issue consistent with its final offer to the employees' representative. The duty to bargain is then suspended until there is a change in the surrounding conditions or circumstances. In the private sector `impasse' often results in a strike. The employees refuse to accept the unilateral conditions imposed by the employer and withhold their services as a bargaining weapon. In the public sector strikes are prohibited but nevertheless occur. If the public employees do strike, the public employer may resort to the courts in order to return the labor situation to the status quo. By the time that court relief is obtained, however, the public may well have been left for a long period without the services and protection of the striking employees. When policemen engage in a strike, the community becomes immediately endangered by the withdrawal of their services. Likewise, our case law has often focused on the fact that fire fighters have a distinct and crucial employment relationship with a public employer. The Legislature, with knowledge of the vital character of police and fire services and with reference to the specific recommendations of the Governor's Advisory Committee on Public Employee Relations (February, 1967) moved to foreclose strikes to police officers and fire fighters by enacting 1969 PA 312. Dearborn, supra, 278-279 (footnotes omitted). In Dearborn, supra, four members of this Court had occasion to assess the constitutional propriety of Act 312. In this pursuit, the purpose as well as legislative intent underlying the act's provisions were variously described by three Justices. As quoted above, Justice COLEMAN discerned that the Legislature promulgated Act 312 with knowledge of the vital character of police and fire services, id., 279, including the characteristic that [w]hen policemen engage in a strike, the community becomes immediately endangered by the withdrawal of their services. Id. Implicitly distinguishing Act 312 compulsory binding interest arbitration from PERA grievance arbitration, Justice LEVIN cast the former in terms of a new concept designed to avoid the disastrous economic and social consequences of labor strife and having as its underlying rationale: the preservation and advancement of the public interest. Id., 255. It is the public interest which justifies governmental intervention and governmental imposition of a resolution upon the parties so that the flow of essential goods and services may continue and the economy and government can function in an orderly and productive manner. Id., 255. Justice LEVIN summarized the legislative intent animating Act 312 as follows: The challenged act represents a legislative attempt to prevent the dire consequences of strikes or work stoppages by certain public employees ÔÇö policemen and firemen. Id., 247. As characterized by Justice WILLIAMS: Compulsory [interest] arbitration is a practical response to the impasse experienced from time to time in collective bargaining where the public welfare cannot endure the impact of a work stoppage while awaiting the resolution of problems through normal negotiations. Id., 292-293. The principal advantage of the Act 312 arbitration scheme was described by Justice WILLIAMS as providing a successful and effective labor management tool that has prevented costly work stoppages which could produce crisis situations. Id., 323. These various formulations of the legislative intent underlying Act 312 were tersely expressed by our Court of Appeals in Lincoln Park Detention Officers v Lincoln Park, 76 Mich App 358, 364-365; 256 NW2d 593 (1977), where it was held that a voluntary association of two detention officers employed in the county police department were outside of the Legislature's intended scope of the act since their coverage would not effectuate the intent that [w]ork stoppages by certain public employees, e.g., police officers and fire fighters, can threaten the safety of the entire community, Dearborn   , supra, at 247, 279, 293, and these statutes aim at preventing such work stoppages. See Metropolitan Council 23 v Center Line, 78 Mich App 281, 284; 259 NW2d 460 (1977). See also Oakland County Sheriff's Dep't, 1977 MERC Lab Op 843, 847 (Act 312,    was enacted in order to prevent strikes in the most vital areas of public safety.). Thus, although variously described, it is evident that Act 312 was legislatively intended to provide an alternate, binding procedure for the resolution of interest disputes in critical-service municipal police and fire departments as well as the aversion of otherwise proscribed critical-service strikes which, because of the vital, unique and essential character of police and fire services, would likely cause an imminent, serious threat to the public order, safety and welfare as well as undermine the high morale and efficient operation of the departments.