pera violation in Michigan

2022“In reviewing an agreement for any PERA violation, the MERC’s initial charge is to determine whether the agreement ‘covers’ the dispute[,]” and “[i]f the term or condition in dispute is ‘covered’ by the agreement, the details and enforceability of the provision are left to arbitration.” Id.

2022“In reviewing an agreement for any PERA violation, the MERC’s initial charge is to determine whether the agreement ‘covers’ the dispute[,]” and “[i]f the term or condition in dispute is ‘covered’ by the agreement, the details and enforceability of the provision are left to arbitration.” Id.

2022“The determination of what constitutes a mandatory subject of bargaining under the PERA is to be decided case by case.” Southfield Police Officers Ass’n v Southfield, 433 Mich 168, 178 ; 445 NW2d 98 (1989).

2022“The determination of what constitutes a mandatory subject of bargaining under the PERA is to be decided case by case.” Southfield Police Officers Ass’n v Southfield, 433 Mich 168, 178 ; 445 NW2d 98 (1989).

1998The Court of Appeals majority affirmed the trial court’s finding that § 593a violated the separation of powers and concluded that the pera challenge was accordingly moot. 228 Mich App 386 ; 579 NW2d 378 (1998).

1998The Court of Appeals majority affirmed the trial court’s finding that § 593a violated the separation of powers and concluded that the pera challenge was accordingly moot. 228 Mich App 386 ; 579 NW2d 378 (1998).

2013However, “[t]he preference for arbitration . . . is triggered only if the parties agree to arbitrate.” Id. 48 See St Clair Co Rd Comm v Local 516M Serv Employees Int’l Union, 1992 MERC Labor Op 533, 538 (“Where there is a contract covering the subject matter of a dispute, which has provisions reasonably relied on for the action in question, and the contract also has a grievance procedure with final and binding arbitration, the Commission finds that the contract controls and no PERA issue is presented.”). 13 conduct claim separately from the collective bargaining agreement, we underscore that i

1985Local 1383, International Ass’n of Fire Fighters v City of Warren, 411 Mich 642, 654 ; 311 NW2d 702 (1981).

1985Local 1383, International Ass’n of Fire Fighters v City of Warren, 411 Mich 642, 654 ; 311 NW2d 702 (1981).

1975The claim that the Due Process Clause requires a prior hearing in every case of deprivation of a property right has been rejected by the United States Supreme Court. 15 When the government seeks to deprive a person of a property right — and we accept, arguendo, that a teacher’s statutory rights under the teacher’s tenure act constitute property — due process requires a "hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306, 313 ; 70 S Ct 652 ; 94 L Ed 865 (1950).

1975The claim that the Due Process Clause requires a prior hearing in every case of deprivation of a property right has been rejected by the United States Supreme Court. 15 When the government seeks to deprive a person of a property right — and we accept, arguendo, that a teacher’s statutory rights under the teacher’s tenure act constitute property — due process requires a "hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306, 313 ; 70 S Ct 652 ; 94 L Ed 865 (1950).