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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.242 (2026)

Judicial review; scope; stay.

✓ 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


423.242 Judicial review; scope; stay.

Sec. 12.

    Orders of the arbitration panel shall be reviewable 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 evidence on the whole record; or the order was procured by fraud, collusion or other similar and unlawful means. The pendency of such proceeding for review shall not automatically stay the order of the arbitration panel.

History: 1969, Act 312, Eff. Oct. 1, 1969

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 18 cases, 1974–2016 · 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× “This case involves two major issues: (1) whether 1969 PA 312 , as amended, includes an unconstitutional delegation of "legislative and political responsibility to politically unaccountable arbitrators", to use the words of the plaintiff City of Detroit; and (2) whether the…”
Dearborn Fire Fighters Union Local No 412 v. City of Dearborn, 231 N.W.2d 226 (Mich. 1975). · cites it 10× “MCLA 423.242; MSA 17.455(42). C. Tenure and Public Exposure.”
Metro. Council No 23 v. Oakland Cnty. Prosecutor, 294 N.W.2d 578 (Mich. 1980). · cites it 2× “454(25)(2)(e), MCL 423.242; MSA 17.455(42). In reviewing the MERC finding in this matter that the prosecutor's investigators "are clearly subject to the hazards of police work and thus within the scope of Act 312", Oakland County, *331 supra, 331-332, the Court of Appeals stated…”
City of Alpena v. Alpena Fire Fighters Ass'n, 224 N.W.2d 672 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “First, we must answer the threshold question: Are these alleged statutory violations subject to judicial review? With regard to the scope of review, MCLA 423.242; MSA 17.455(42), provides: "Orders of the arbitration panel shall be reviewable by the circuit court for the county…”
City of Detroit v. Detroit Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 344, 517 N.W.2d 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “Detroit filed a complaint to vacate the award pursuant to MCL 423.242; MSA 17.455(42), essentially arguing that the issues were not within the jurisdiction of the Act 312 arbitration panel and, even if they were, the award was unsupported by competent, material, and substantial…”
City of Grand Rapids v. Grand Rapids Lodge No 97, Fraternal Order of Police, 330 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. 1982). “If the union was dissatisfied with the results of the interest arbitration — with the form of the grievance procedure — -its only remedies were to appeal from the decision of the interest arbitration panel, see MCL 423.242; MSA 17.455(42), or to negotiate for a better procedure…”
Ottawa Cnty. v. Police Officers Ass'n, 760 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” i The orders of an Act 312 arbitration panel are subject to judicial review in the circuit court, “but only for *670 reasons that the arbitration panel was without or exceeded its jurisdiction; the order is unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the…”
Werdlow v. Detroit Policemen & Firemen Ret. Sys. Bd. of Trs., 711 N.W.2d 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “[MCL 423.242.] MCL 423.243 provides: During the pendency of proceedings before the arbitration panel, existing wages, hours and other conditions of employment shall not be changed by action of either party without the consent of the other but a party may so consent without…”
In Re Petition of Metro. Council 23, 280 N.W.2d 600 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). “MCL 423.242; MSA 17.455(42). We now turn to the merits of the instant controversy.”
City of Roseville v. Local 1614, Intern. Ass'n of Firefighters, Afl-cio, 220 N.W.2d 147 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). “On May 18, 1972, plaintiff instituted proceedings in circuit court seeking a determination that the arbitration panel was without or exceeded its jurisdiction in making the award, under MCLA 423.242; MSA 17.455(42). On April 11, 1973, the Honorable George R.”
City of Hillsdale v. Michigan State Fire Fighters Union Local 961, 418 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “Judicial review was sought in the circuit court, which ruled that the arbitral decision was not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. Initially, we note that judicial review of an Act 312 arbitration decision is circumscribed by' statute.”
Police Officers Ass'n v. Ottawa Cnty. Sheriff, 694 N.W.2d 757 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “While circuit courts are limited in their review of arbitration decisions pursuant to statute, MCL 423.242, we may review an error of law that is substantial and apparent on its face.”
Show all 18 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.