Court Opinion

ID: 9532259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:19:40.067863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:42.983327
License: Public Domain

N. J. Kaufman, P.J.
(concurring). I concur wholeheartedly in the well-written opinion of Judge Riley. However, I find it necessary to write separately because of the fact that I was one of the members of the panel in Local 1383 of the International Ass’n of Firefighters v City of Warren, 89 Mich App 135; 279 NW2d 556 (1979).
Simply put, the Warren case does not stand for the proposition that all matters within the province of Act 78 are precluded from collective bar-, gaining. If anything, quite the contrary is true. The factual situation in Warren regarding promotions is not analogous to the facts in this case. In this case we have a collective bargaining agreement authorized by PERA which allows arbitration in matters involving disciplinary matters, which includes discharges and suspensions, and the language therein, as properly noted by Judge Riley, cannot be read at all to reach the proposition that a city and its employees’ bargaining agent cannot agree to arbitration of their disputes in regard to disciplinary actions.
Therefore, I concur.