Court Opinion

ID: 9665882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:58:50.68794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:19.937186
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the finding that the wwea breached its duty of fair representation with regards to Hunter.
I disagree with the majority’s finding that the pera authorizes merc to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. Nowhere in the pera is there any language specifically providing for the recovery of attorney fees. Section 16(b) of the pera, MCL 423.216(b); MSA 17.455(16)(b), does give merc the power "to take such affirmative action including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this act.” I believe that the ambiguous phrase "as will effectuate the policies of this act” is not sufficiently specific to authorize an award of attorney fees by the merc. In this regard, I disagree with the contrary holding of Amalgamated Transit Union v Detroit, 150 Mich App 605, 607; 389 NW2d 98 (1985).
Section 16(b) does specifically grant merc the power to order a defendant to cease and desist from an unfair labor practice, to order reinstatement with or without back pay, and to require defendants to show compliance with previous orders. In light of this grant of specific remedial powers, I conclude that § 16(b) does not authorize merc to grant attorney fees to a prevailing party. I would strike the award of attorney fees.