Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.207 (2026)

Request for mediation of grievances; powers of commission; notice of status of negotiations; appointment of mediator.

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

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS


Act 336 of 1947


423.207 Request for mediation of grievances; powers of commission; notice of status of negotiations; appointment of mediator.

Sec. 7.

    (1) Upon the request of the collective bargaining representative defined in section 11 or, if a representative has not been designated or selected, upon the request of a majority of any given group of public employees evidenced by a petition signed by the majority and delivered to the commission, or upon request of any public employer of the employees, the commission forthwith shall mediate the grievances set forth in the petition or notice, and for the purposes of mediating the grievances, the commission shall exercise the powers and authority conferred upon the commission by sections 10 and 11 of Act No. 176 of the Public Acts of 1939, as amended, being sections 423.10 and 423.11 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

    (2) At least 60 days before the expiration date of a collective bargaining agreement, the parties shall notify the commission of the status of negotiations. If the dispute remains unresolved 30 days after the notification on the status of negotiations and a request for mediation is not received, the commission shall appoint a mediator.

History: 1947, Act 336, Eff. Oct. 11, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 423.207 ;-- Am. 1965, Act 379, Imd. Eff. July 23, 1965 ;-- Am. 1973, Act 25, Imd. Eff. June 14, 1973 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 18, Imd. Eff. Feb. 20, 1976

PopularName Notes:

Public Employment Relations
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1954–2016 · leading case: Judges of the 74th Jud. Dist. v. Bay Cnty., 190 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1971).
Judges of the 74th Jud. Dist. v. Bay Cnty., 190 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 1971). · cites it 4× “The District Judges argue that the commission is without jurisdiction because neither a designated collective bargaining representative nor a majority of the court’s employees have petitioned for mediation under MCLA § 423.207 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev §17.455 [7]).”
Goolsby v. City of Detroit, 358 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “Consequently, since the rights and responsibilities imposed on labor organizations representing public sector employees by PERA, see MCL 423.207(1); MSA 17.455(7)(1), MCL 423.”
Dearborn Fire Fighters Union Local No 412 v. City of Dearborn, 231 N.W.2d 226 (Mich. 1975). · cites it 2× “ble by the circuit court for the county in which the dispute arose or in which a majority of the affected employees reside, but only for reasons that the arbitration panel was without or exceeded its jurisdiction; the order is unsupported by competent, material and substantial…”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 25 v. Wayne Cnty., 393 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “336 of the Public Acts of 1947, as amended, being section 423.207 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, it shall become apparent to the commission that matters in disagreement between the parties might be more readily settled if the facts involved in the disagreement were determined…”
In Re Petition of Metro. Council 23, 280 N.W.2d 600 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “However, in its present posture, the dispute before us involves neither the mediation of a grievance within the scope of MCL 423.207; MSA 17.455(7), nor the resolution of an unfair labor practice charge, MCL 423.”
Labor Med. Bd. v. Jackson Cty. Rd. Comrs., 114 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. 1962). “Section 7 of said act (CL 1948, § 423.207 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.455(7)]) reads as follows: "Upon the request of a majority of any given group of public employees evidenced by a petition signed by said majority and delivered to the labor mediation board, or upon request of any…”
Gaidamavice v. Newaygo Bd. of Cnty. Road Commissioners, 67 N.W.2d 178 (Mich. 1954). “” (CL 1948, §423.207 [Stat Ann 1950 Rev §17.455 (7)].”
Labor Mediation Bd. v. Jackson Cnty. Road Commissioners, 365 Mich. 645 (Mich. 1962). “Section 7 of said act (CL 1948, §423.207 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.455(7)]) reads as follows: “Upon the request of a majority of any given group of public employees evidenced by a petition signed by said majority and delivered to the labor mediation board, or upon request of any…”
Garden City Sch. Dist. v. Labor Mediation Bd., 99 N.W.2d 485 (Mich. 1959). “” CL 1948, § 423.207 (Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.455[7].”
Local 1325, Mich. Council 55, Am. Fed'n v. Mckervey, 233 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “*693 Section 7 of PERA, MCLA 423.207; MSA 17.455(7) provides the procedure for "mediation” of disputes.”
Sch. Dist. for City of Holland v. Holland Ed. Assn., 152 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967). “1 CL 1948, § 423.207, as amended by PA 1965, No 379 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 17.”
Afscme Council 25 Local 2394 v. Neil Sweat (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Consequently, since the rights and responsibilities imposed on labor organizations representing public sector employees by PERA, see MCL 423.207(1); MSA 17.455(7)(1), MCL 423.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.207(1) — 2 cases
Goolsby v. City of Detroit, 358 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. 1984). “Consequently, since the rights and responsibilities imposed on labor organizations representing public sector employees by PERA, see MCL 423.207(1); MSA 17.455(7)(1), MCL 423.”
Afscme Council 25 Local 2394 v. Neil Sweat (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Consequently, since the rights and responsibilities imposed on labor organizations representing public sector employees by PERA, see MCL 423.207(1); MSA 17.455(7)(1), MCL 423.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.207(2) — 1 case
Dearborn Fire Fighters Union Local No 412 v. City of Dearborn, 231 N.W.2d 226 (Mich. 1975). “ble by the circuit court for the county in which the dispute arose or in which a majority of the affected employees reside, but only for reasons that the arbitration panel was without or exceeded its jurisdiction; the order is unsupported by competent, material and substantial…”
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.