Opinion ID: 2086340
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 1969 PA 312, as Amended

Text: Act 312, as it read at the time of the time of the Dearborn case, substantially resembles the amended statute except as to both the § 5 mechanism for appointment of arbitrators [21] and the § 8 consideration of last offer economic issues. [22] The following precis of the act's present structure will, therefore, largely reflect the pre-amendatory as well as post-amendatory scheme except in those two significant respects. As was earlier stated, the act has as its principal objective the provision of an alternate, expeditious, effective and binding procedure for the resolution of [interest] disputes. MCL 423.231; MSA 17.455(31). Act 312 seeks to accomplish this purpose through the development of a final and binding compulsory arbitration scheme emanating from the broad constitutional grant of discretionary authority in Const 1963, art 4, § 48. Attempting to constitutionally animate the act's stated policy, the Legislature has provided through § 3 that, in those instances where the public employer and employee representatives have arrived at an impasse concerning a dispute other than a grievance within 30 days of such dispute's submission to a mediator, either party may initiate binding arbitration to avert a proscribed strike. MCL 423.233; MSA 17.455(33). [23] Binding arbitration having been initiated, the following mechanism has been legislatively prescribed for the selection of three arbitration panel members. First, pursuant to § 4, the employer and employee are each required to select a single delegate to represent their respective interests on a three-member panel. MCL 423.234; MSA 17.455(34). Next, § 5, as amended, clearly describes the important selection of the chairperson/third, public, member of the panel: (1) Within 7 days of a request from 1 or both parties, the employment relations commission shall select from its panel of arbitrators, as provided in subsection (2), 3 persons as nominees for impartial arbitrator or chairman of the arbitration panel. Within 5 days after the selection each party may peremptorily strike the name of 1 of the nominees. Within 7 days after this 5-day period, the commission shall designate 1 of the remaining nominees as the impartial arbitrator or chairman of the arbitration panel. (2) The employment relations commission shall establish and appoint a panel of arbitrators, who shall be known as the Michigan employment relations commission panel of arbitrators. The commission shall appoint members for indefinite terms. Members shall be impartial, competent, and reputable citizens of the United States and residents of the state, and shall qualify by taking and subscribing the constitutional oath or affirmation of office. The commission may at any time appoint additional members to the panel of arbitrators, and may remove existing members without cause. [24] Once the panel is composed, its action is bounded by both express time limitations and procedural guidelines. For instance, the panel is directed to commence its hearing within 15 days of impanelment and, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, to conclude its hearing within 30 days of commencement. MCL 423.236; MSA 17.455(36). Also, unless either otherwise agreed or in the event the dispute has been remanded for further bargaining subject to a three-week limitation, MCL 423.237a; MSA 17.455(37a), [25] the Legislature has mandated rendition of a decision within 30 days of the hearing's conclusion. MCL 423.238; MSA 17.455(38). Additionally, evidentiary guidelines are detailed  the onus, of course, being on the parties to introduce supporting evidence  MCL 423.236; MSA 17.455(36), subpoena power is imparted for the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses, MCL 423.237; MSA 17.455(37), and the panel is directed to make written findings of fact and to promulgate a written opinion and order upon the issues presented based upon the record developed by the parties. MCL 423.238; MSA 17.455(38). Beyond these careful time limitations and evidentiary guidelines, the panel's decisional authority has been significantly channeled by eight specific factors or standards listed in § 9. MCL 423.239; MSA 17.455(39). That section trenchantly circumscribes the arbitral tribunal's inquiry to only those disputes involving wage rates or other conditions of employment embraced by a newly proposed or amended labor agreement, and commands the panel to base its findings, opinions and order relative to those narrow disputes on the eight listed factors, as applicable: Where there is no agreement between the parties, or where there is an agreement but the parties have begun negotiations or discussions looking to a new agreement or amendment of the existing agreement, and wage rates or other conditions of employment under the proposed new or amended agreement are in dispute, the arbitration panel shall base its findings, opinions and order upon the following factors, as applicable: (a) The lawful authority of the employer. (b) Stipulations of the parties. (c) The interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the unit of government to meet those costs. (d) Comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the arbitration proceeding with the wages, hours and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services and with other employees generally: (i) In public employment in comparable communities. (ii) In private employment in comparable communities. (e) The average consumer prices for goods and services, commonly known as the cost of living. (f) The overall compensation presently received by the employees, including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays and other excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, the continuity and stability of employment, and all other benefits received. (g) Changes in any of the foregoing circumstances during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. (h) Such other factors, not confined to the foregoing, which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours and conditions of employment through voluntary collective bargaining, mediation, fact-finding, arbitration or otherwise between the parties, in the public service or in private employment. See MCL 423.238; MSA 17.455(38). Perhaps of interest here is that among the standards listed are two interacting legislative directives: first, that the panel invest its deliberations with specific contemplation of the public welfare, both as a distinct inquiry as well as an inexorable adjunct of the governmental unit's financial ability to sustain the proposed costs; and, second, that the tribunal consider comparable public- and private-sector wages, hours and conditions of employment. The panel's decisional authority is further restricted by § 8, as significantly amended by 1972 PA 127, to provide for last-offer arbitration of economic issues subject to the factors enunciated in § 9. [26] Section 8 provides in pertinent part: As to each economic issue, the arbitration panel shall adopt the last offer of settlement which, in the opinion of the arbitration panel, more nearly complies with the applicable factors prescribed in section 9. The findings, opinions and order as to all other issues shall be based upon the applicable factors prescribed in section 9. MCL 423.238; MSA 17.455(38). Significantly, the conjunction of the § 9 factors with the panel's consideration of both economic and non-economic issues, therefore, further circumscribes the panel's scope of decisional authority. Finally, the Legislature has made specific provision for appellate review of such limited orders of the panel as to both economic and non-economic issues. Thus, although the tribunal's order shall be final and binding upon the parties, MCL 423.240; MSA 17.455(40), that decision shall be reviewable    for reasons that the arbitration panel was without or exceeded its jurisdiction; the order is unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record;[ [27] ] or the order was procured by fraud, collusion or other similar and unlawful means. MCL 423.242; MSA 17.455(42). [28]