Court Opinion

ID: 2049383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-30 08:10:46.707766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:39.626147
License: Public Domain

54 Mich. App. 282 (1973)
220 N.W.2d 794
PONTIAC POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
v.
CITY OF PONTIAC.
Docket No. 14843.
Michigan Court of Appeals.
Decided November 1, 1973.
Gregory, Van Lopik & Higle (by J. Douglas Korney), for plaintiff Pontiac Police Officers Association.
Tolleson, Burgess & Mead (by J. Douglas Dahn), for defendant City of Pontiac.
*283 Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Francis W. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, for the Employment Relations Commission.
Before: LESINSKI, C.J., and R.B. BURNS and QUINN, JJ.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
QUINN, J.
An order of the Supreme Court in the above entitled cause dated April 18, 1974, and designated CR 12-98, provides:
"We grant leave to appeal and sua sponte vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 50 Mich. App. 382; 213 NW2d 217 (1973).
"On the authority of Detroit Police Officers Association v City of Detroit, 391 Mich. 44; 214 NW2d 803 (1974), we hold that a residency requirement is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.
"We remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration, in light of D.P.O.A. v City of Detroit, supra, of the question whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is a `mandatory', `permissive' or `illegal' subject of collective bargaining."[1]
Pursuant thereto we have reconsidered our prior holding. Contrary to the language of the foregoing order, this case does not involve the question, "whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is a `mandatory', `permissive' or `illegal' subject of collective bargaining".
The question originally before this Court was
"Is the question of a civilian trial board for policemen a mandatory subject for collective bargaining when the city charter provides for a police trial board?" Police *284 Officers Association v Pontiac, 50 Mich. App. 382, 383; 213 NW2d 217 (1973).
For the reasons expressed in our prior opinion, we affirm our negative answer to this question. We do not read Detroit Police Officers Association, supra, as a refutation of that reasoning. The question of a civilian trial board on the facts of this case is a permissive subject of collective bargaining.
All concurred.
NOTES
[1]  391 Mich. 814 (1974).