Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 423 / Act 176 of 1939
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.16 (2026)

Company unions; interference with unions and discrimination prohibited.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION


Act 176 of 1939


423.16 Company unions; interference with unions and discrimination prohibited.

Sec. 16.

    It shall be unlawful for an employer or any officer or agent of an employer (1) to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in section 8; (2) to initiate, create, dominate, contribute to, or interfere with the formation or administration of, any labor organization: Provided, That an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay; (3) to discriminate in regard to hire, terms or other conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization; (4) to encourage membership in, or initiate, create, dominate, or contribute to a company union; (5) to discriminate against any employee because he has given testimony or instituted a proceeding under this act; or (6) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representative of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 26.

History: 1939, Act 176, Imd. Eff. June 8, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 423.16 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 230, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1949 ;-- Am. 1965, Act 282, Imd. Eff. July 22, 1965

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1955–1986 · leading case: Smigel v. Southgate Cmty. Sch. Dist., 202 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smigel v. Southgate Cmty. Sch. Dist., 202 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. 1972). · cites it 10× “Though MCLA 423.16; MSA 17.454(17) is nearly identical to MCLA 423.”
Judges of the 74th Jud. Dist. v. Bay Cnty., 190 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1971). · cites it 4× “In the private sector, such all-union agreements are permissible, despite the language of MCLA § 423.16[3] (Stat Ann 1968 Bev § 17.”
Michigan Emp. Relations Comm'n v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc, 223 N.W.2d 283 (Mich. 1974). · cites it 2× “I It is the position of plaintiff Allen Chase that he lost his employment with the Detroit Symphony Orchestra because of his continued participation in union organizational activities contrary to MCLA 423.16; MSA 17.454(17). Undisputed evidence introduced at an evidentiary…”
Gen. Teamsters Union, Local No. 406 v. Uptown Cleaners & Hatters, Inc., 97 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. 1959). · cites it 4× “Section 16 (CL 1948, § 423.16 as amended by PA 1949, No 230 [CLS 1956, § 423.”
Cortez v. Ford Motor Co., 84 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. 1957). “8, CLS 1954, §423.16 (Stat Ann 1950 .Rev §§ 17.454 [8], 17.”
Schoolcraft Coll. Ass'n of Off. Pers. v. Schoolcraft Cmty. Coll., 401 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “IV The union's final argument is that MERC erred in holding that respondent did not impermissibly interfere with the union's members' exercise of their rights under PERA, MCL 423.16; MSA 17.454(17); MCL 423.210(1); MSA 17.”
Sitek v. Forest City Enter., Inc., 587 F. Supp. 1381 (E.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 423.16] which makes it unlawful for employers to interfere with or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights relative to unionization.”
Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 230 N.W.2d 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “"Though MCLA 423.16; MSA 17.454(17) is nearly identical to MCLA 423.”
Douglas v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Union, Local No. 498, 136 F. Supp. 68 (W.D. Mich. 1955). “1948, §§ 423.16 and 423.17). The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants have entered into an arrangement or conspiracy to violate § 2 of Act No.”
Eglash v. Detroit Inst. of Tech., 134 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1965). “Plaintiff union and some of its charter members who were employed as instructors by defendant educational institution filed a complaint against defendant alleging that defendant had refused to renew the individual plaintiffs’ employment contracts in violation of CLS 1961, §…”
Detroit Motion Picture Projectionists Union, Local 199 v. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 242 N.W.2d 806 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “No contract was ever reached between plaintiff and defendants, and defendants finally discharged Holmes and Klokis.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Michigan Council 7 v. Dep't of Health, 260 N.W.2d 115 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “455(10), and § 16 of the LMA, MCLA 423.16; MSA 17.454(17). Specifically, the Board and WCR were found to have refused to bargain as joint employers with AFSCME.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.16(1) — 2 cases
Detroit Motion Picture Projectionists Union v. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 403 Mich. 491 (Mich. 1978).
Serv. Employees' Int'l Union, Local 79 v. Monroe Mercy Hosp., 216 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.16(3) — 3 cases
Smigel v. Southgate Cmty. Sch. Dist., 202 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. 1972). “Though MCLA 423.16; MSA 17.454(17) is nearly identical to MCLA 423.”
Judges of the 74th Jud. Dist. v. Bay Cnty., 190 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1971). “In the private sector, such all-union agreements are permissible, despite the language of MCLA § 423.16[3] (Stat Ann 1968 Bev § 17.”
Detroit Motion Picture Projectionists Union v. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 403 Mich. 491 (Mich. 1978).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.