Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.214 (2026)

Elections; eligibility to vote; rules; runoff election; effect of collective bargaining agreement.

✓ 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

423.214 Elections; eligibility to vote; rules; runoff election; effect of collective bargaining agreement.

Sec. 14.

An election must not be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding 12-month period, a valid election was held. The commission shall determine who is eligible to vote in the election and shall promulgate rules governing the election. In an election involving more than 2 choices, if none of the choices on the ballot receives a majority vote, a runoff election must be conducted between the 2 choices receiving the 2 largest numbers of valid votes cast in the election. An election must not be directed in any bargaining unit or subdivision of any bargaining unit if there is in force and effect a valid collective bargaining agreement that was not prematurely extended and that is of fixed duration. A collective bargaining agreement does not bar an election upon the petition of persons not parties to the collective bargaining agreement if more than 3 years have elapsed since the agreement's execution or last timely renewal, whichever was later.

History: Add. 1965, Act 379, Imd. Eff. July 23, 1965 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 18, Imd. Eff. Feb. 20, 1976 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 76, Imd. Eff. Apr. 10, 2012 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 349, Eff. Mar. 28, 2013 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 145, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025

Compiler's Notes:

Enacting section 1 of Act 349 of 2012 provides:

"Enacting section 1. If any part or parts of this act are found to be in conflict with the state constitution of 1963, the United States constitution, or federal law, this act shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the state constitution of 1963, the United States constitution, and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid or inoperative shall be severable from the remaining portions of this act."

PopularName Notes:

Public Employment Relations

AdminRule Notes:

R 423.101 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1979–2015 · leading case: Gibraltar Sch. Dist. v. Gibraltar Mespa-Transp., 505 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gibraltar Sch. Dist. v. Gibraltar Mespa-Transp., 505 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 2× “Section 14 of the act, MCL 423.214; MSA 17.455(14), provides in part: An election shall not be directed in any bargaining unit or subdivision thereof where there is in force and effect a valid collective bargaining agreement which was not prematurely extended and which is of…”

Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 551 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 423.214; M.S.A. § 17.455(14) (interfering with bargaining groups' internal structure of elections), and M.”

Michigan Educ. Support Pers. Ass'n v. Southfield Pub. Schs., 384 N.W.2d 768 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “" MCL 423.214; MSA 17.455(14). In the instant case, the bargaining agreement between MESPA and the school district was to expire by its own terms on August 26, 1984.”

Crestwood Educ. Ass'n v. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 276 N.W.2d 592 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “MCL 423.214; MSA 17.455(14). Since the one-year period has no doubt already passed, the discharged teachers, upon reinstatement, would be able to petition once more for representation by the CEA.”

Lansing Sch. Dist. v. Michigan Emp. Relations Comm'n, 288 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “Finally, we reject the school district’s contention that an election to determine the appropriate bargaining unit is prohibited under MCL 423.214; MSA 17.455(14). The statute provides, in part, that: "An election shall not be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision…”

Angela Steffke v. Taylor Fed'n of Teachers (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “” In their motion for summary disposition, plaintiffs further argued that both MCL 423.214 and MCL 423.215b preclude the existence of two CBAs in effect at the same time, but that have different expiration dates.”

Traverse City Educ. Ass'n v. Traverse City Pub. Schs., 443 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 7× “Respondent claims that MCL 423.214; MSA 17.455(14) barred petitioner’s accretion petition as to the detention study hall supervisor.”

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.