Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.240 (2026)

Majority decision of arbitration panel final and binding; enforcement; effect of new municipal fiscal year; awarding increased rates or benefits retroactively; amending or modifying award of arbitration.

✓ 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

423.240 Majority decision of arbitration panel final and binding; enforcement; effect of new municipal fiscal year; awarding increased rates or benefits retroactively; amending or modifying award of arbitration.

Sec. 10.

A majority decision of the arbitration panel, if supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record, shall be final and binding upon the parties, and may be enforced, at the instance of either party or of the arbitration panel in the circuit court for the county in which the dispute arose or in which a majority of the affected employees reside. The commencement of a new municipal fiscal year after the initiation of arbitration procedures under this act, but before the arbitration decision, or its enforcement, shall not be deemed to render a dispute moot, or to otherwise impair the jurisdiction or authority of the arbitration panel or its decision. Increases in rates of compensation or other benefits may be awarded retroactively to the commencement of any period(s) in dispute, any other statute or charter provisions to the contrary notwithstanding. At any time the parties, by stipulation, may amend or modify an award of arbitration.

History: 1969, Act 312, Eff. Oct. 1, 1969 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 303, Imd. Eff. Jan. 3, 1978

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 13 cases, 1972–2016 · 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 10× “Thus, although the tribunal's order "shall be final and binding upon the parties", MCL 423.240; MSA 17.455(40), that decision "shall be reviewable * * * for reasons that the arbitration panel was without or exceeded its jurisdiction; the order is unsupported by competent,…”

Ottawa Cnty. v. Police Officers Ass'n, 760 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 15× “The County claims that the phrase “[fin-creases in rates of compensation or other benefits” in MCL 423.240 refers only to economic benefits.”

Detroit Fire Fighters Assoc. v. City of Detroit, 293 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. 1980). “15 MCL 423.240, 423.242; MSA 17.455(40), 17.”

City of Detroit v. Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 344, 517 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “The dffa filed an action pursuant to MCL 423.240; MSA 17.455(40) to enforce the award and enjoin Detroit from failing to provide the four-person minimum for each company.”

Local 1518, Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. v. St. Clair Cty. Bd. of Commrs, 204 N.W.2d 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “…Mich App 51 (1972), sustaining the constitutionality of this compulsory arbitration act against several challenges. 9 MCLA 423.240; MSA 17.455(40).”

City of Detroit v. Killingsworth, 210 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “14698 the appealing intervenor, Detroit Police Officers Association (DPOA), contends that the trial court erred in failing to overturn the award on the basis that the wage parity provisions resulted in its being neither final nor binding and, hence, allegedly violative of MCLA…”

Werdlow v. Detroit Policemen & Firemen Ret. Sys. Bd. of Trs., 711 N.W.2d 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “MCL 423.240 provides for a final and binding majority decision and circuit court enforcement: A majority decision of the arbitration panel, if supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record, shall be final and binding upon the parties, and may be…”

Local 1277, Metro. Council No. 23 v. City of Ctr. Line, 283 N.W.2d 741 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “MCL 423.240; MSA 17.455(40). The city answered the petition, challenging various portions of the award.”

Cnty. of Ingham v. Michigan Ass'n of Police (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “Instead, relying on MCL 423.240 and MCL 423.242, the County maintained that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction to enforce and review an Act 312 award.”

Warren Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Warren, 280 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “The pertinent provision of MCL 423.240; MSA 17.455(40), in effect at the time of the award, provided: 1 "* * * The commencement of a new municipal fiscal year after the initiation of arbitration procedures under this act, but before the arbitration decision, or its enforcement,…”

Local 1917, Metro. Council No. 23 v. Bd. of Commissioners, 272 N.W.2d 681 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “The statute provides: "A majority decision of the arbitration panel, if supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record, shall be final and binding upon the parties, and may be enforced, at the instance of either party or of the arbitration panel in…”

Werdlow v. City of Detroit Policemen & Firemen Ret. Sys. Bd. of Trs., 722 N.W.2d 428 (Mich. 2006). “Pub Acts 312 (Act 312), MCL 423.240, provides that arbitration awards are final and binding on the parties to the arbitration.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.