Opinion ID: 2086143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: for the employees of the boiler room of mount carmel mercy hospital

Text: BY: WILLIAM T. MATTHEWS MOUNT CARMEL MERCY HOSPITAL By: JOHN J. POWERS. The next event in consequential sequence was the employees designation of their representative. It is herewith set out: December 16, 1957 Mr. John J. Powers. Public Relations Counsel Mt. Carmel Mercy Hospital 6071 W. Outer Drive Detroit, Michigan Dear Mr. Powers: This is to advise you that the employees, covered by the agreement, reached with the governor's special commission, December 10, 1957, wish to be represented by Mr. J.E. Crow, 408 Park Ave. Bldg., Detroit 16, Michigan. Whenever a disagreement arises between the Mt. Carmel Mercy Hospital and the power plant employees, covered by the above mentioned agreement, which cannot be settled between the chief engineer and yourself, then Mr. J.E. Crow will take over our representation. Will you please sign and return to us confirming copies of this letter. Very truly yours, FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BOILER ROOM OF THE MT. CARMEL MERCY HOSPITAL WM. T. MATTHEWS MT. CARMEL MERCY HOSPITAL JOHN J. POWERS. The agreement remained in effect under the continuing renewal proviso. Neither party served a notice of termination nor intention to amend. On July 12, 1961, appellant Dunn's employment with the hospital came to an end. Appellee contends he was discharged for unconscionable conduct. Appellant urges that he was wrongfully discharged and he and his fellow employees locked out. Whatever may be the correct version, it appears that the grievance procedure was followed up to a point. The union negotiator agreed with the position of the defendant hospital and furnished replacements for appellants in their respective jobs. The employees sought further review and the controversy was certified to the governor by the labor mediation board. A special commission was again appointed and its findings and recommendations were sent to the labor mediation board. The findings of that commission were not made part of the record here, but it should be noted that by statute they are not binding upon the parties (CLS 1956, § 423.13b [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.454 (14.3)]). At some time not specified in the appendix, appellants retained counsel, who apparently represented them before the governor's commission, and who also represents them on this appeal. On July 2, 1962, this attorney wrote the hospital charging an illegal lockout and demanding appellants immediate reinstatement. On July 6, 1962, the labor mediation board wrote to the attorney and the hospital setting a mediation conference for July 12, 1962. The parties appeared and the employer objected to the representation by counsel on the ground that under that contract of December, 1957, which was still in effect, only Local 547 of the operating engineers could represent employees of the boiler room and posed the following question to the board by letter the day after the mediation meeting, July 13, 1962: It is the hospital's firm belief that they are bound by the contract between the parties.    Your determination of the    question as to the proper representative of these employees before the labor mediation board will be sincerely appreciated. On the same date as the above letter was directed by the employer to the labor mediation board, appellants filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court and an order to show cause why injunctive relief should not be granted during the pendency of the action, restraining the defendants from the unlawful lockout, i.e., reinstating the appellants in their jobs from which they had been separated almost exactly a year before. The return of the defendant, covering 29 pages of the 40-page appendix, recited most of the factual history hereinbefore set forth. The trial judge dismissed the bill of complaint and the show cause order without opinion. Clearly he was correct, but an opinion however brief, would have been helpful to us on review in particularizing the reasons. The involved statute commits a labor controversy in any case involving hospital employees to the jurisdiction of the labor mediation board and specifies the procedure to be followed: In case of any labor dispute involving hospital    employees the following procedure shall be followed. (Emphasis supplied.) CLS 1956, § 423.13a (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.454 [14.2]), subd (1). Subdivision (2) provides: Disputes for which a settlement procedure is provided in a collective agreement between a hospital    employer and a labor organization shall be handled in accordance with such procedure. The statute outlines further steps in the event settlement does not result. Among the questions which remain unsettled on the record before us is that of employee representation and the applicability of the settlement procedure in the collective agreement. We would do violence to the statute and the plain intention of the legislature were we to permit, by injunction or otherwise, judicial intervention in the field, unless and until the statutorily mandated steps were complete. For that reason, we affirm the trial court. No costs, construction of a statute being involved.