Court Opinion

ID: 9535813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:44:37.881166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:20.724558
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(concurring). I concur in the majority’s opinion, but write separately in an attempt to clarify the procedures to be followed when a teacher subject to an agency shop fee agreement refuses to pay the stipulated fee.
The majority’s reference to the remedy of dismissal for nonpayment, established in Detroit Board of Education v Parks, 98 Mich App 22; 296 NW2d 815 (1980), addresses only the situation of a refusal to pay under a collective bargaining agreement requiring payment as a condition of employment. MCL 423.210(1); MSA 17.455(10X1). However, in the absence of a contract provision making the fee a condition of employment (or where the union does not want to initiate a dismissal hearing) a second remedy is available, although not exactly ravishing.
The union could pursue recovery in a civil action brought against the nonpaying teacher. It has been held that "[w]hen a statute provides a beneficial right but no civil remedy for its securance, the common law on its own hook provides a remedy”. See B F Farnell Co v Monahan, 377 Mich 552, 555; 141 NW2d 58 (1966). See also Cort v Ash, 422 US 66; 95 S Ct 2080; 45 L Ed 2d 26 (1975), and the cases cited therein for a discussion of the four factors to be considered in determining whether a private remedy may apply to a statute not expressly providing one. The Legislature has manifested a clear intent to eliminate "free riders” from receiving benefits acquired in collective bargaining, without bearing the costs of union support. MCL 423.210; MSA 17.455(10). The consequent requirement that a nonunion employee be *321liable in a civil action for payment of the agency shop fee merely recognizes the unions’ right of recovery in quantum meruit for services provided. See Detroit Board of Education v Parks, supra, fn 15. See also, Central Michigan University v U X (Docket No. 77-1040, released August 1, 1977 [unreported]), a decision on petitioner’s application for leave to appeal, recognizing the option of a civil suit for recovery. Thus, a union has a choice of remedies against a nonmember refusing to pay the agency shop fee. The union could notify the board of education that a nonmember has refused payment, thus requiring the board to initiate a dismissal hearing. The union could also institute a suit to recover the fees directly from the teacher refusing payment. Should a collective bargaining agreement require payment of agency shop fees without making the obligation a condition of employment, the union may still pursue its private remedy to recover the fee.