Court Opinion

ID: 9686325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:42:29.611522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:17.789572
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
I concur with the result of the per curiam opinion, but write separately to clarify the application of the substantial evidence standard.
The opinion states: “Decisions of the MERC regarding residual bargaining units are generally to be given significant deference under this standard.” Ante, p 308. This statement implies a more limited review under the substantial evidence standard than this Court has adopted. This Court’s interpretation of the substantial evidence standard was described in MERC v Detroit Symphony Orchestra, 393 Mich 116, 124; 223 NW2d 283 (1974):
What the drafters of the Constitution intended was a thorough judicial review of administrative decision, a review which considers the whole record — that is, both sides of the record — not just those portions of the record supporting the findings of the administrative agency. Although such a review does not attain the status of de *310novo review, it necessarily entails a degree of qualitative and quantitative evaluation of evidence considered by the agency. Such review must be undertaken with considerable sensitivity in order that the courts accord due deference to administrative expertise and not invade the province of exclusive administrative fact-finding by displacing an agency’s choice between two reasonably differing views.
Detroit Symphony Orchestra still controls our application of the standard.
I agree that it is correct to affirm the MERC decision that an election may be conducted to determine whether the residual employees want to join the existing clerical employee bargaining unit. I do so because a thorough review of the whole record reveals a close decision. On the one hand, the functions of the residual employees seem too diverse to share a “community of interest.” On the other, these employees clearly share supporting roles in the college community. Given that reliance on either of these factors is reasonable, it is not our place to reverse the merc’s decision. The result in this case is further supported by the policy articulated in Hotel Olds v State Labor Mediation Bd, 333 Mich 382; 53 NW2d 302 (1952), which seeks to create the largest unit possible.
For the reasons above, I concur separately.