Opinion ID: 1349697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Michigan Political Freedom Act

Text: The majority finds that Rule 1-5.7 of the Michigan Civil Service Commission violates Const. 1963, art. 11, § 5 and the political freedom act, M.C.L. § 15.401 et seq.; M.S.A. § 4.1702(1) et seq., because the rule applies to employees' activities outside the commission's regulatory power. Op. at 264-266. I cannot agree. The constitution gives the commission authority over classified state employees. Const. 1963, art. 11, § 5. However, the scope of this authority is also defined by the political freedom act. M.C.L. § 15.401 et seq.; M.S.A. § 4.1702(1) et seq. Council No. 11 AFSCME v. Civil Service Comm., 408 Mich. 385, 292 N.W.2d 442 (1980). Under the act, the commission may prohibit political activity by a state employee during those hours when that person is being compensated for the performance of that person's duties as a public employee. M.C.L. § 15.404; M.S.A. § 4.1702 (4). The majority reads this to allow the commission to regulate such activity when two conditions are met: (1) the employee is being compensated by the employer, and (2) such compensation is for the performance of the employee's duties as a public employee. Op. at 264. However, I disagree with the first prong of the majority's test. In this prong, the majority adds the words by the employer to the statutory language. However, the act does not identify the source of the compensation. Thus, when correctly interpreted, the statute does not allow a classified employee to engage in political activity whenever he is being compensated for the performance of the duties of a public employee. The source of the compensation is irrelevant. This Court should not be so quick to read additional language into a clear statute. Nor is this a distinction without a difference. The majority uses this first prong to find that the commission exceeded its authority in terms of the seventeen employees who invoked the union officer leave provision of the collective bargaining agreement. Op. at 264. The majority determines that these employees were not compensated by the employer because the state was reimbursed for the total costs of these employees' wages and benefits. Id. Thus, according to the majority, their activity is protected by the political freedom act. However, under the correct reading of the statute, the source of the compensation is irrelevant. Rather, the fact that these employees were compensated merely presents the question whether they were engaged in the performance of their duties as public employees. [1] B. The performance of duties as public employees. The majority also concludes that activities done while on union leave are not part of the duties of public employees. I disagree with this conclusion. First, the state, as employer, controls the duties of its employees. This Court has recognized that the commission has plenary and absolute powers in its field, and its actions are subject to limited judicial review. Viculin v. Dep't of Civil Service, 386 Mich. 375, 398, 192 N.W.2d 449 (1971). The commission has the authority to regulate job specifications, discipline, and job performance. Council No 11, supra at 406-407, 292 N.W.2d 442. Consistent with this authority, it is clear that the union could not remove these employees from their normal duties without the consent of the commission. Rather, the union must request the release of represented employees for union leave, and the commission has the ability to refuse this request. Also, these employees were presumably subject to discipline by the state had they failed to attend the assigned union function. Thus, it is clear that the commission assigned these employees to work as employees of the Union. Second, the majority assumes that union activities are always contrary to the employer's interests. Op. at 266. This leads the majority to conclude that employees on union leave must not be performing their duties as public employees while on union leave. Id. I cannot agree with this analysis. While parties may enter the collective bargaining process with interests that are to an extent antagonistic, NLRB v. Ins. Agents' Int'l Union, 361 U.S. 477, 488, 80 S.Ct. 419, 427, 4 L.Ed.2d 454 (1960), that does not necessarily mean that labor unions and management always have diametrically opposed interests. Union activities often provide mutual benefit to both the union and the employer. [2] When properly used, union leave contributes to a peaceful and productive relationship between the state and its employees. This, in turn, provides a benefit to the state by improving state services. Thus, the state does reap a benefit from union leave. This is consistent with the state's willingness to assign its employees to union leave, and leads to the conclusion that union leave is very much a part of employees' duties as public employees. The majority relies on Tegels v. Kaiser-Frazer Corp., 329 Mich. 84, 44 N.W.2d 880 (1950), to support the proposition that an employee on union leave is not performing the duties of a public employee. However, this reliance is misplaced. Tegels addressed the question whether the employee's injury was sustained in the course of employment under the Worker's Disability Compensation Act. Tegels was limited to its facts, and expressly stated that such cases are to be determined on their facts. Id. at 86-87, 44 N.W.2d 880. Moreover, the facts of Tegels are distinguishable from this case. In Tegels, the employee was injured on an unpaid lunch hour, during which he was free to come and go as [he] pleased. Id. at 85, 44 N.W.2d 880. In this case, all but one of the employees was compensated for their time. Further, they had been assigned to union leave by their employer and were not free to use the time as they pleased. Thus, I do not believe that Tegels is persuasive in this case. [3] Similarly, the majority's resort to private sector federal labor law is also unavailing. The majority cites three cases, BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Local 227, Int'l Chemical Workers Union, 791 F.2d 1046 (C.A.2, 1986), NLRB v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 798 F.2d 849 (C.A.5, 1986), and Communications Workers of America v. Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc., 670 F.Supp. 416 (D.D.C., 1987), for the proposition that compensation to employees on leaves of absence for union business is not compensation for work performed by the employer. Op. at 265, n. 7. I am not persuaded. These cases all deal with the application of § 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. § 186(a). That statute prohibits payments by an employer to unions or their representatives. Id. The act is aimed at the prevention of bribery of union officials. NLRB, supra at 855. However, there are several exceptions to the act's prohibition. 29 U.S.C. § 186(c). The first authorizes payments to a union representative if that individual's established duties include labor relations. 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(1). It is this exception that concerned each of the three cases cited by the majority. These opinions were clear that they were not examining whether the employees' activities were for the employer, but only whether the employee was a bona fide employee of the employer. Id., Local 227, supra at 1049; NLRB, supra at 855-856. Each opinion found that employees on union leave were employees of the employer, so that compensation for time spent on union leave was proper under § 302. Local 227, supra at 1049-1050, NLRB, supra at 855-856, Communications Workers, supra at 423-424. This finding was reached despite the fact that the employees' union activities were not for direct services to the employer. Local 227, supra at 1049. The majority apparently seeks to twist the direct services comment in Local 227 to mean that these employees were found not to be working for their employers in any form while on union leave. However, the actual holdings of these cases belie this result. The fact that compensation for these employees was found to be proper under the Labor Management Relations Act required a finding that the employees were still bona fide employees of their employers while performing union activities while on union leave. Indeed, union leave was found to offer an indirect benefit to the employer. Communications Workers, supra at 422. Thus, these opinions actually stand for the proposition that, though union activities may not be direct services to the employer, such activities are still part of the employment duties of union members. If these federal private sector cases have any relevance in this case, they support the proposition that the activities of state employees while on union leave are part of their duties as public employees and within the authority of the commission. Third, the majority's inclusion of political activity in the phrase union activities violates the collective bargaining agreement and the political freedom act. Political activity is a prohibited subject of bargaining under the commission rules that authorize collective bargaining. Civil Service Rule 6-2.1 ( l )(3). Thus, there is no authority in the contract for the assignment of an employee to political activity. This prohibition is also found in § 5 of the political freedom act: A public employer, public employee or an elected official or appointed official may not personally, or through an agent, coerce, attempt to coerce, or command another public employee to pay, lend, or contribute anything of value to a party, committee, organization, agency, or person for the benefit of a person seeking or holding elected office, or for the purpose of furthering or defeating a proposed law, ballot question or other measure that may be submitted to a vote of the electors. [M.C.L. § 15.405; M.S.A. § 4.1702(5).] I cannot understand how the assignment of a state employee to work on a political campaign is consistent with this provision. Rather, the majority's holding forces the commission to violate both the collective bargaining agreement and the political freedom act. Thus, I must conclude the majority's conclusion is flawed. Employees on union leave are performing their duties as public employees. Employees are assigned to these types of leave by the state. Further, legitimate union activities contribute to a productive relationship between the state and its employees. Thus, the state, as employer, derives a benefit from those activities. The majority's holding to the contrary violates both the political freedom act and the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, excluding the one employee who may not have been compensated, I would find that the application of Rule 1-5.7 to these employees did not violate the act.