Court Opinion

ID: 9724744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:11:19.465925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:05.297089
License: Public Domain

Williams, C.J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority’s holding that the pendency of unfair labor practice charges before the merc does not preclude arbitration of contract claims arising from the same controversy. I agree that there is no conflict requiring decision by this Court in Bay City because an arbitrator has not yet heard or decided the disputed questions. I also agree in Redford that the arbitration awards should be affirmed. In Redford, however, I disagree with one or more of the majority’s observations and would emphasize a somewhat different rationale.
*446In Bedford, the question presented to the fact-finders was whether discharge of the three union stewards was justified, either by the pera (in the case before the merc) or by the union contract (in the cases before the arbitrators). Although the arbitrators found that contract language did not validate the discharges, the merc found the discharges of Brown and Moran were justified under the pera. This Court must initially decide whether these findings conflict.
Article XII, § 1 of the collective bargaining contract prohibits employees from "calling or causing” a strike. It does not provide for penalties. Neither does it state that only those employees calling or causing a strike may be discharged for strike activity. The arbitrators found that the stewards had not violated this provision of the contract, because they had not called or caused the strike.
In the merc proceeding, the union argued that the township had committed an unfair labor practice by: 1) engaging in a lockout of the employees, and (2) discriminatorily discharging only the three union stewards on the basis of their union activity. The merc found that Bedford Township had not engaged in a lockout. The commissioner further found that the employees, including the three stewards, had participated in an unlawful strike in violation of the pera.1 Public employees who engage in strikes in violation of the pera may be discharged. Rockwell v Crestwood School Dist, 393 Mich 616; 227 NW2d 736 (1975).
Having rejected the union’s claim of a lockout, the question before the merc then became whether the township had committed an unfair labor practice by discharging only the three stewards. The merc reviewed the applicable law and concluded *447that the stewards could not be subjected to more severe penalties solely on the basis of their status as union stewards, but that employees who instigated or exercised a leadership role in an illegal strike could be selectively discharged. On the facts, the merc found that Haney had neither instigated the strike nor led the strikers and, therefore, could not be subjected to the harsher penalty. As to Brown and Moran, the merc found that, although they had not instigated the strike, they had assumed leadership roles once the strike was underway and therefore their selective discharges were justified.
However, I agree with the majority that the arbitrators’ findings that the employees did not violate the contract are not inconsistent with the merc’s finding. Both factfinders concluded that the stewards did not instigate (or, in the contract language, "call or cause”) the strike. The merc made a further finding regarding Brown’s and Moran’s leadership roles that was not at issue before the arbitrators. Since the discharge notices in this case stated specifically that the employees were being discharged for violation of Article XII, § 1 of the collective bargaining contract, the relief ordered by the arbitrators was not in conflict with the merc decision.
Boyle, J., concurred with Williams, C.J.
Archer, J., took no part in the decision of this case._

 Specifically I cannot agree with the majority’s statement that, "The merc finding that Redford had not violated the pera did not constitute a finding that the unions or the stewards had violated the pera.” In my opinion, the findings cannot logically be separated. That a work stoppage occurred on April 9, 1981, is undisputed. A finding *447that Redford had not locked out the employees compels the conclusion that the work stoppage was a strike. MCL 423.202; MSA 17.455(2) prohibits strikes by public employees. Aside from questions of logic, the merc decision explicitly stated, "The [hearing referee] concluded on the basis of the record that employees in Respondent’s Sanitation and Water Departments engaged in an unlawful strike, within the definition of that term in Section 1 of pera . . . .” The full commission adopted the findings and conclusions of the referee except for the conclusion regarding Thelma Haney.