Opinion ID: 2163453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Pre-Arbitral Deferral City of Flint Doctrine

Text: In City of Flint, 1970 MERC Lab Op 367, a unanimous MERC predated the NLRB's Collyer decision by deferring resolution of an arguably contractual, training-schedule negotiation dispute to the parties' contractually established arbitral mechanism insofar as [t]he record discloses that the issue dividing the [parties] is basically one of contract interpretation. Id., 369. In adopting this pre-arbitral deferral posture whereby [t]he contract procedure should be exhausted before the parties seek to have their contract disagreement settled by government, id., 369, MERC approved the following general guidelines and policy rationale: `If there is any situation in which the Board should defer to the parties' own agreed-upon methods for resolving contract disputes, this is the case. Thus, the parties have an established bargaining history; they have a dispute involving substantive contract interpretation, each party asserting a reasonable claim in good faith   ; and they have contractual grievance-arbitration procedures which Respondent has urged the Union to use for resolving their dispute. In this context, the [sic] mindful of our competency in the area, we believe that the policy of promoting industrial peace and stability through collective bargaining impels us to defer to the grievance-arbitration procedures the parties themselves have voluntarily established.' Id., 370, quoting Unit Drop Forge Division, Eaton, Yale & Towne, Inc, 171 NLRB 600, 604; 68 LRRM 1129, 1133 (1968) (dissent). (Emphasis supplied.) Concluding, MERC stated its acceptance of the post-award deferral Spielberg doctrine and remarked: There will be situations in which we should, and will take jurisdiction of the controversies which may involved [sic] contract construction as well as an alleged unfair labor practice. But employers and unions should make every effort to resolve issues primarily contractual under the contract dispute-settling procedure. 1970 MERC Lab Op 371. (Emphasis supplied.) In University of Michigan, 1971 MERC Lab Op 994, MERC considered deferring to arbitration a charge of unilateral alteration of the lunch hour. MERC approved the pre-arbitral deferral doctrine and elaborated on the propriety of exercising such authority, stating: We note that the collective bargaining agreement contained an arbitration provision. The presence of this arbitration clause does not divest this Commission of jurisdiction from passing on the unfair labor practice. However, left to this Commission is considerable discretion as to whether we should decline to exercise our unfair labor practice jurisdiction in the face of an invoked grievance arbitration procedure. Under the facts and circumstances in the present case, we hold that the dispute between the parties is susceptible to `the therapy of arbitration.' Carey v Westinghouse Electric Corp, 375 US 261, 272. 1971 MERC Lab Op 998. (Citations omitted in part.) The posture assumed by MERC in both the City of Flint and University of Michigan decisions was reaffirmed in Wayne County Road Comm, 1972 MERC Lab Op 1035, wherein the NLRB's Collyer decision was, for the first time, expressly cited with approval and extensively quoted. MERC opined that pre-arbitral deferral is appropriate where the dispute arises under the contract, id., 1040, since `disputes such as these can better be resolved by arbitrators with special skill and experience in deciding matters arising under established bargaining relationships than by the application    of a particular provision of our statute.' Id., 1041, quoting Collyer, supra, 839. Pre-arbitral deferral was described as advancing the declared    public policy of this state evidenced in § 1 of the labor mediation act (LMA), MCL 423.1; MSA 17.454(1), to promote the prevention or prompt settlement of labor disputes and other forms of industrial strife, Wayne County, 1041-1042. The Commission concluded: Under this policy, the Commission has the authority to decline to accept jurisdiction in a proceeding    and to defer to arbitration as a means which the parties themselves have agreed to for the prompt and efficient resolution of disputes arising over contract terms. Id., 1042.