Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 423 / Act 312 of 1969
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.239 (2026)

Findings, opinions, and orders; factors considered; financial ability of governmental unit to pay.

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

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF LABOR DISPUTES IN POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS


Act 312 of 1969


423.239 Findings, opinions, and orders; factors considered; financial ability of governmental unit to pay.

Sec. 9.

    (1) If the parties have no collective bargaining agreement or the parties have an agreement and have begun negotiations or discussions looking to a new agreement or amendment of the existing agreement and wage rates or other conditions of employment under the proposed new or amended agreement are in dispute, the arbitration panel shall base its findings, opinions, and order upon the following factors:

    (a) The financial ability of the unit of government to pay. All of the following shall apply to the arbitration panel's determination of the ability of the unit of government to pay:

    (i) The financial impact on the community of any award made by the arbitration panel.

    (ii) The interests and welfare of the public.

    (iii) All liabilities, whether or not they appear on the balance sheet of the unit of government.

    (iv) Any law of this state or any directive issued under the local financial stability and choice act, 2012 PA 436, MCL 141.1541 to 141.1575, that places limitations on a unit of government's expenditures or revenue collection.

    (b) The lawful authority of the employer.

    (c) Stipulations of the parties.

    (d) Comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the arbitration proceeding with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services and with other employees generally in both of the following:

    (i) Public employment in comparable communities.

    (ii) Private employment in comparable communities.

    (e) Comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees of the unit of government outside of the bargaining unit in question.

    (f) The average consumer prices for goods and services, commonly known as the cost of living.

    (g) The overall compensation presently received by the employees, including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays, and other excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, the continuity and stability of employment, and all other benefits received.

    (h) Changes in any of the foregoing circumstances while the arbitration proceedings are pending.

    (i) Other factors that are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of employment through voluntary collective bargaining, mediation, fact-finding, arbitration, or otherwise between the parties, in the public service, or in private employment.

    (j) If applicable, a written document with supplementary information relating to the financial position of the local unit of government that is filed with the arbitration panel by a financial review commission as authorized under the Michigan financial review commission act.

    (2) The arbitration panel shall give the financial ability of the unit of government to pay the most significance, if the determination is supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.

History: 1969, Act 312, Eff. Oct. 1, 1969 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 116, Imd. Eff. July 20, 2011 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 189, Imd. Eff. June 20, 2014

Constitutionality Notes:

    This act is clearly constitutional. Local 1277, Metropolitan Council No 23, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v City of Center Line, 414 Mich 642; 327 NW2d 822 (1982).

PopularName Notes:

Act 312
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2023 · leading case: City of Detroit v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, 294 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Detroit v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, 294 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. 1980). · cites it 16× “[5] Furthermore, after careful review of the record and its relationship to the act's § 9 factors, MCL 423.239; MSA 17.455(39), relative to both economic and non-economic issues, and mindful of the statutorily prescribed standard of judicial review codified in § 12, we hold that…”
Dearborn Fire Fighters Union Local No 412 v. City of Dearborn, 231 N.W.2d 226 (Mich. 1975). · cites it 4× “" MCLA 423.239; MSA 17.455(39). [41] MCLA 423.”
Elher v. Misra, 870 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” MCL 423.239. Although the trial court did not reference any factors other than (a), (b) and (e), defendants have not argued that any other factors also bear relevance.”
City of Alpena v. Alpena Fire Fighters Ass'n, 224 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “455(38); (2) base its decision on the criteria set out in MCLA 423.239; MSA 17.455(39); (3) make a verbatim record of the proceedings as required by MCLA 423.”
Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Governor, 367 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1985). “” MCL 423.239; MSA 17.455(39). 77 Ante, p 56.”
City of Grand Rapids v. Grand Rapids Lodge No 97, Fraternal Order of Police, 330 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. 1982). “, MCL 423.239; MSA 17.455(39). See Local 1518, AFSCME v St Clair Comm’rs, 43 Mich App 342, 344-345 ; 204 NW2d 369 (1972).”
Dearborn Fire Fighters Union Local No 412, IAFF v. City of Dearborn, 201 N.W.2d 650 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “Defendant also argues, in this context, that the standards set forth in the statute (MCLA 423.239; MSA 17.455[39]) are insufficient to adequately circumscribe the arbitrator's exercise of authority.”
City of Hillsdale v. Michigan State Fire Fighters Union Local 961, 418 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The Court held that competent, material, and substantial evidence must be adduced with respect to each applicable factor and that the failure of the parties to submit evidence on an applicable factor would require remand for further proofs. Detroit Police Officers Ass’n, supra,…”
Local 1518, Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. v. St. Clair Cty. Bd. of Commrs, 204 N.W.2d 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “" 'Interests’ arbitration decides the substantive terms of a new contract, thereby resolving a bargaining impasse, whereas 'grievance’ arbitration settles disputes over the interpretation of an existing contract.”
City of Roseville v. Local 1614, Intern. Ass'n of Firefighters, Afl-cio, 220 N.W.2d 147 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). “MCLA 423.239; MSA 17.455(39). MCLA 423.215; MSA 17.”
Werdlow v. Detroit Policemen & Firemen Ret. Sys. Bd. of Trs., 711 N.W.2d 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “MCL 423.239 provides the factors on which the arbitration panel is to base its findings, opinion, and order.”
Phillips v. City of Flint, 225 N.W.2d 780 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “MCLA 423.239; MSA 17.455(39) provides that, in the compulsory arbitration of labor disputes involving police and firemen, the arbitration panel consider as a factor "the financial ability of the unit of government to meet [salary] costs”.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.239(1) — 2 cases
City of Wayne v. Wayne Prof'l Fire Fighters Union Local 1620 (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
City of Wayne v. Wayne Prof'l Fire Fighters Union Local 1620 (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.239(1)(a) — 2 cases
City of Wayne v. Wayne Prof'l Fire Fighters Union Local 1620 (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
City of Wayne v. Wayne Prof'l Fire Fighters Union Local 1620 (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.239(2) — 2 cases
City of Wayne v. Wayne Prof'l Fire Fighters Union Local 1620 (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
City of Wayne v. Wayne Prof'l Fire Fighters Union Local 1620 (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.239(b) — 1 case
City of Hillsdale v. Michigan State Fire Fighters Union Local 961, 418 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “The Court held that competent, material, and substantial evidence must be adduced with respect to each applicable factor and that the failure of the parties to submit evidence on an applicable factor would require remand for further proofs. Detroit Police Officers Ass’n, supra,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.239(h) — 1 case
City of Alpena v. Alpena Fire Fighters Ass'n, 224 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). “455(38); (2) base its decision on the criteria set out in MCLA 423.239; MSA 17.455(39); (3) make a verbatim record of the proceedings as required by MCLA 423.”
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.