Court Opinion

ID: 9732359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:17:58.500225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:26.467363
License: Public Domain

Danhof, J.
This ease involves the city of Escanaba in relation to the right of its police officers to join Local No. 328, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. In March of 1966, Local No. 328 petitioned the Michigan Labor Mediation Board (hereinafter referred to as MLMB) for an election in a unit of all patrolmen and sergeants of the Escanaba police department, pursuant to the provisions of the *276public employment relations act (hereinafter referred to as PERA).1
2A hearing was held May 18, 1966, with the city objecting to the ordering of an election. At the hearing Local No. 78 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees intervened claiming that MLMB should not certify a labor union which represented employees in private industry as the exclusive representative of law enforcement officers. At the time, Local No. 78 had been recognized by the city of Escanaba as the city employees’ representative. On November 3, 1966, the labor mediation board determined that a unit of patrolmen and sergeants was appropriate for bargaining and ordered an election which was held November 17, 1966. The 12 police officers and 4 sergeants voted in favor of being represented by Teamsters Local No. 328, and the union was formally certified by the MLMB on November 25,1966.
The city of Escanaba refused to bargain with Teamsters Local No. 328 and on February 7, 1967, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the city for alleged violation of § 10 (a) and (e) and § 16 of the PERA.2 On February 15, 1967, the Escanaba city council adopted a resolution,3 ****stat*277ing in effect that tlie city would not recognize as bargaining agents for tbe police officers any labor union that included outside interests or membership or any personnel other than law enforcement or police officers. On March 6, 1967, the city of Escanaba filed a motion for a rehearing with the MLMB of its finding’s and order of November 3, 1966, and to dismiss the petition of the Teamsters, Local No. 328, on the ground that under the State and city public policy, police officers are limited in selecting a labor union as their representative for collective bargaining purposes to a labor organization composed solely *278of law enforcement officers. This motion was denied by the MLMB on April 21, 1967.
The bearing on the complaint of Local No. 328 to the MLMB was beard April 4,1967. At tbis bearing the city sought to introduce evidence to show a conflict of interest if police officers were permitted to join a union representing private employees in industry. Such evidence was rejected. The trial examiner did state that the board would take administrative notice of the fact that strikes in public employment have occurred in Michigan; that there have been periodic occurrences of labor disputes, including picket line disturbances; and of the role of police officers in controlling such situations.
The trial examiner’s determination and recommended order was issued April 26, 1967, and the resulting MLMB order of July 14,1967, incorporated in the record the record made at the representation bearing. This decision4 required the city to recognize and bargain collectively with Local No. 328 of the Teamsters union as the exclusive representative of the patrolmen and sergeants of the police force of the city.
On May 1, 1967, the city of Escanaba filed delayed application with tbis Court and the Supreme Court for leave to appeal from the findings of fact, conclusions of law and directive of election in the rep*279resentation case issued by tbe MLMB November 3, 1966. On June 21, 1967, tbe Supreme Court denied tbe application as not timely filed and for insufficient showing of lack of culpable negligence in regard to tbe application for delayed appeal. On July 12, 1967, tbis Court denied leave to appeal for lack of jurisdiction of tbe cause.
At the time in question, the interpretation of tbe law as to wbetber this Court bad jurisdiction in an appeal from tbe representative proceedings was not clear. Thereafter tbe Supreme Court ruled in the case of Michigan State University Board of Trustees v. State Labor Mediation Board (1968), 381 Mich 44 that tbe Court of Appeals does have jurisdiction to review representation proceedings. Tbe city of Escanaba filed with this Court a complaint for review pursuant to tbe provisions of § 16(e) of the PERA, and a petition for the enforcement of the bargaining order by tbe MLMB was likewise filed pursuant to the provisions of § 16(d) of the PERA. Tbe complaint of tbe city and tbe matter of tbe enforcement order have been consolidated for consideration on tbis appeal.
It appears that tbe city of Escanaba failed to appeal from tbe representation decision timely because tbe PERA was new and it was not clear as to tbe proper method to be followed i.e., wbetber it bad to wait for a bearing on tbe merits of tbe complaint of tbe labor union charging an unfair labor practice or appeal directly from tbe representation bearing determination to tbis Court or tbe Supreme Court. Tbe status of tbe law was considered by tbe MLMB to be uncertain because it ordered tbe incorporation of tbe minutes of tbe representation proceedings in tbe record of tbe bearing on tbe complaint of the Teamsters Local No. 328 charging an unfair labor practice by tbe city. For these reasons *280and because this Court denied leave to appeal to the city of Escanaba from the representation hearing stating it did not have jurisdiction, we will review in this case both orders of the MLMB.
Teamsters Local No. 328 and MLMB assert that § 9 of the PERA5 is applicable to this case.
“It shall be lawful for public employees to organize together or to form, join or assist in labor organizations, to engage in lawful concerted activities for the purpose of collective negotiation or bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to negotiate or bargain collectively with their public employers through representatives of their own free choice.”
It is the claim of the city of Escanaba that (1) under the public policy of the State of Michigan and the city of Escanaba, police officers are limited in selecting a labor union as their representative for collective bargaining purposes to a labor organization composed of law enforcement officers and (2) police officers and sergeants of the police department of the city of Escanaba are officers and not employees within the meaning of the public policy of the State.
For definition of the meaning of the term “public policy” we turn to 50 CJ, Public Policy, § 62, pp 857-859:
“The term ‘public policy,’ being of such vague and uncertain meaning, and of such variable quantity, has frequently been said not to be susceptible of exact or precise definition; and some courts have said that no exact or precise definition has ever been given or can be found. Nevertheless, with respect to the administration of the law, the courts have frequently quoted and often approved of the statement that public policy is that principle of the law which holds that ‘no one’ can lawfully do that which has a tend*281ency to be injurious to the public or against the public good; that rule of law which declares that no one can lawfully do that which tends to injure the public, or is detrimental to the public good; the principles under which freedom of contract or private dealing is restricted by law for the good of the community. ‘Public policy’ has been said to be synonymous with ‘policy of the law,’ and also has been defined as ‘the public good.’ In a less technical sense, especially with respect to legislative actions, ‘public policy’ may be and often is nothing more than expediency, political expediency, or the policy upon which governmental affairs are conducted for the time being; public sentiment. In a judicial sense, public policy does not mean simply sound policy, or good policy, but it means the policy of a state established for the public weal either by law, by courts, or by general consent.
“Sources. The term has been said to mean the law of the state as found declared in its constitution, its statutory enactments, and its judicial records, some courts going so far as to say that the public policy of a state must be determined by its constitutions, latos, and judicial decisions, and that they will not resort to other sources of information; but this rule has been criticized, and a broader rule announced. Public policy is a question of law and not of fact.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Const 1963, art 4, § 48 states:
“The legislature may enact laws providing for the resolution of disputes concerning public employees, except those in the state classified civil service.”
Section 9 of the PERA, supra, added by PA 1965, No 379, states the current public policy of this State, as established by the legislature, regarding public employees joining unions. It is that they may form, join or assist in labor organizations, and bargain collectively through representatives of their own *282free choice. Section. 9 supersedes any prior public policy of this State established by statutes, the courts, or general consent regarding public employees joining unions.
Therefore, if city policemen are public employees they may join labor organizations which include in their membership persons who are neither policemen nor public employees.
The term “public employee” is defined in § 2 of the PERA6:
“No person holding a position by appointment or employment in the government of the state of Michigan, or in the government of any 1 or more of the political subdivisions thereof, or in the public school service, or in any public or special district, or in the service of any authority, commission, or board, or in any other branch of the public service, hereinafter called a ‘public employee,’ shall strike.”
This definition contains no exception for law enforcement officers, and it is our opinion that the term when used in PERA includes policemen.
Plaintiff argues that an important fact in construing § 9 is that the legislature in the same year that it added § 9 also amended § 5a of the Home Rule Cities Act to read:
“No city shall have power to deny employment to any person for the reason that he is a member of any society which is incorporated under the laws of this state, the membership of which is composed solely of law enforcement officers, unless same is contrary to his oath of office.”7
Plaintiff asserts that this reaffirmed the right of a city to prohibit police officers from becoming members in an organization not composed solely of law *283enforcement officers. Plaintiff has misconstrued § 5a. The fact that the statute prohibits a city from firing a policeman who joins a society composed solely of law enforcement officers docs not mean, conversely, that the city can prohibit a policeman from joining a union composed of both public and private employees.
We find no error in the decision of the MLMB and an order will issue enforcing the MLMB’s order dated October 25,1967.
No costs, a public question being involved.
Levin, P. J., concurred.

 PA 1947, No 336, as last amended by PA 1965, No 379 (CL 1948, § 423.201 et seq. [Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.455(1) et seq.]).

 MCLA §§ 423.210, 423.216 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev §§ 17.455[10], 17.455[16]).

 “Whereas, November 3, 1966, the Labor Mediation Board issued a decision holding (a) that police officers employed by the city of Escanaba were lawfully entitled, under the public employment relations act, Act No 336, PA Mich 1947, as amended, to be represented for collective bargaining purposes, if they so desired by a labor organization admitting to membership and representing employees who were not (law enforcement officers) and (b) that police sergeants employed by the city of Eseanaba were not supervisors within the meaning of said act.
“Whereas, every police officer who joins the Escanaba police department must take an oath of office to support the constitution and bear allegiance to his city and state and its constitution and laws and to the best of ability, skill and judgment, diligently and faith*277fully, -without partiality or prejudice, execute his office. Poliee officers are invested with broad powers, few of which are given to any other government employee. They have the legal right to earry a weapon, their powers of restraint, arrest and control of moral and physical behavior of others are grave and serious. A poliee officer is required by law and invariably becomes a neutralizer in controversies involving the right of public assemblage, neighborhood disputes, domestic difficulties and strikes, between labor and management. Again, his actions in these instances must be governed by his oath of office. He must recognize certain rights of people among which is the right of collective bargaining on the part of labor. Yet, at the same time, he must protect the rights and the property of management. In this instance, again, his neutrality must be the watchword of his every activity in the effort to protect the life and property of all those involved and to preserve peace and order during periods of sueh difficulty, and
“Whereas, if police officers are members of, and are represented for the purpose of negotiating advantageous agreements with respect to wages, hours, and the terms and conditions of employment, by a labor organization whieh also represents as members others who are not police officers, the personal and economic interests of such police officers and their fellow-members of the labor organization would necessarily from time to time conflict with the publie duties of sueh poliee officers, especially in the event of strikes, picketing, and other labor disputes; and such conflicts would undoubtedly be detrimental to the public interest of the city of Escanaba and its eitizens, and
“Whereas, the police sergeants hold positions of command, and the importance of their responsibilities has been overlooked by the decision of the Labor Mediation Board, and
“Whereas, the city council has been advised by its attorneys that the Labor Mediation Board may have been in error in failing to reeognize the public interest, as expressed herein, and in classifying the police sergeants as non-supervisors,
“Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the city of Escanaba will not reeognize, as bargaining agents for the police department, any labor union that includes outside interests or membership or any personnel other than law enforcement or police officers.”

 “It is hereby ordered that the public employer, city of Escanaba, its city council, city manager, officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
“1. Cease and desist from:
“Refusing to recognize and bargain with Teamsters Union Loeal 328, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-men and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative, for purposes of collective bargaining, of a unit of all patrolmen and sergeants in the police department, excluding the chief of police, captain, and all other employees.
“2. Take the following affirmative action:
“(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named union as the exclusive representative, for purposes of collective bargaining, of the above-described unit of employees.”

 MCLA § 423.209 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.455 [9]).

 MCLA § 423.202 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.455[2]).

 MCLA § 117.5a (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 5.2084[1]).