Court Opinion

ID: 9702453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:12:02.354368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:37.684795
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, P. J.
(dissenting). Central Michigan University is established by Const 1963, art 8, § 6. As a "public employer” it is subject to the provisions of the public employment relations act (PERA). MCLA 423.201 et seq.; MSA 17.455(1) et seq. See Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University v Labor Mediation Board, 384 Mich 561; 184 NW2d 921 (1971). PERA requires a public employer to bargain collectively with the employees’ representative on "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment”. MCLA 423.215; MSA 17.455(15). The employer is guilty of an unfair labor practice for refusal to bargain collectively on these subjects. MCLA 423.210; MSA 17.455(10). When a subject is classified as a mandatory subject of bargaining, neither party can take unilateral action on that subject without an impasse in negotiations with the other party. Detroit Police Officers Association v City of Detroit, 391 Mich 44, 54-55; 214 NW2d 803, 808 (1974).
The aspect of the teaching effectiveness program which constitutes the gravamen of the unfair labor practice charge is contained in part I of the document:
*112"c. Students as well as departmental faculty should evaluate the faculty of said department.”
I
The administrative law judge found upon an ample record that the university administration intended to enforce this "recommendation” as mandatory; academic departments which failed to submit additional "quantitative” evidence of teaching effectiveness with faculty tenure recommendations would be subject to discipline.
The majority opinion of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission rejected that finding as inconsistent with the language of the document; since the teaching effectiveness document only suggested a change, there had been no change in terms or conditions of employment. I can discern no record support for the MERC’s assertion that the university did not unilaterally change the promotion procedure. Both parties agreed on the effect of implementation of the document, indeed, that is the basis of this proceeding. I would reject the MERC finding as unsupported by the record as a whole.
II
I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that incorporation of student evaluations into the criteria for faculty promotion and tenure is a matter of "educational policy” outside of the arena of mandatory collective bargaining.
Our first task is to determine whether the mandatory inclusion of student evaluations within criteria for faculty tenure and promotion is a "term and condition of employment” within § 15 of the PERA; MCLA 423.215; MSA 17.455(15). While *113this Court respects the judgment of the agency charged with special competence to construe the PERA, the classification of bargaining subjects as "terms and conditions of employment” remains a task of statutory construction. Detroit Police Officers Association v Detroit, 61 Mich App 487, 491; 233 NW2d 49 (1975), lv den 395 Mich 756 (1975). In accomplishing that task, "we must keep in mind that because public employees in Michigan are forbidden to strike, 'section 15 of PERA must be even more expansively construed than its NLRA counterpart’ in order to adequately protect public employees’ rights. Van Buren Public School District v Wayne Circuit Judge, 61 Mich App 6; 232 NW2d 278 (1975).” Detroit Police Officers Association v Detroit, supra, at 491; 233 NW2d at 51.
The criteria which determine promotion and tenure are a critical component of faculty employment conditions. The means chosen to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of an untenured faculty member may ultimately determine whether he or she may continue to teach. There can be little doubt that criteria for promotion would affect the performance of an established member of the faculty. Detroit Police Officers Association v Detroit, supra. Mandatory inclusion of student evaluations clearly affected the conditions of employment.
Our second task is to determine whether the unique function and collegial organization of the university justifies excluding the subject pf promotion and tenure evaluation criteria from the scope of matters within the mandatory bargaining obligation. This concern stems from respect for the traditional, independent governance systems of our state universities and from the unique status accorded the state universities by Const 1963, art 8, §§ 5 and 6. The issue is analogous to a problem *114familiar in the private labor relations sector: to interpret the collective bargaining obligation to preserve management control over the "basic direction of [the] corporate enterprise” without stripping employees of their right to bargain over important aspects of their employment. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp v National Labor Relations Board, 379 US 203, 223; 85 S Ct 398; 13 L Ed 2d 233 (1964) (concurring opinion of Stewart, J.).
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that evaluative criteria for purposes of tenure and promotion are strictly "educational policy”. This matter bears directly on the means by which the administration will determine whether or not untenured faculty members will continue their positions. Surely the criteria for that decision are important to the members of the bargaining unit. While evaluation of teaching effectiveness is not a trivial element of the university’s educational program, I cannot perceive the method of that evaluation to be integral to the university’s mission: to educate.1 I would strike the balance in favor of the limited obligation to bargain before unilateral imposition of new criteria. This would not block the ultimate adoption of student evaluations as part of the criteria of teaching effectiveness; it would merely impose the reasonable burden upon the university to consult the association and discuss the program before its implementation.
I would reverse the decision of the MERC.

 More fundamental matters such as curriculum, degree requirements, or research facilities might not be subject to mandatory collective bargaining. Regents of the University of Michigan v Employment Relations Commission, 389 Mich 96, 107; 204 NW2d 218, 224 (1973). However, such an issue is not present in this case.