Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 423 / Act 176 of 1939
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.25 (2026)

Written findings as to matters in disagreement; availability of writings to public.

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

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION


Act 176 of 1939


423.25 Written findings as to matters in disagreement; availability of writings to public.

Sec. 25.

    (1) When in the course of mediation under section 7 of Act No. 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 and publicly known, the commission may make written findings with respect to the matters in disagreement. The findings shall not be binding upon the parties but shall be made public.

    (2) A writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by the mediation panel in the performance of an official function shall be made available to the public in compliance with Act No. 442 of the Public Acts of 1976.

History: Add. 1949, Act 230, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1949 ;-- Am. 1954, Act 86, Eff. Aug. 13, 1954 ;-- Am. 1956, Act 140, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 17, Imd. Eff. Feb. 20, 1976 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 203, Imd. Eff. Nov. 17, 1977 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1959–2017 · leading case: Southfield Police Officers Ass'n v. Southfield, 445 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Southfield Police Officers Ass'n v. Southfield, 445 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. 1989). · cites it 2× “, MCL 423.25; MSA 17.454(27). Additionally, § 13 of Act 312, MCL 423.”
Watson v. Bureau of State Lottery, 569 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “In their petition, petitioners stated that they were not able to assign their lottery winnings to Prosperity unless the trial court issued an order permitting the assignment pursuant to MCL 423.25(1); MSA 18.969(25)(1). The trial court subsequently ordered that respondents show…”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 25 v. Wayne Cnty., 393 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “Section 25 of the Labor Mediation Act, MCLA 423.25; MSA 17.454(27), provides for fact-finding under pera when, in the discretion of the Commission, it determines that "matters in disagreement between the parties might be more readily settled if the facts involved in the…”
Garden City Sch. Dist. v. Labor Mediation Bd., 99 N.W.2d 485 (Mich. 1959). “* See, also, CLS 1954, § 423.25 (Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp § 17.454 127]).”
Wayne Cnty. v. Michigan Afscme Council 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “MCL 423.25(1) provides specifically for the process of fact-finding.”
Wayne Cnty. v. Michigan Afscme Council 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “MCL 423.25(1) provides specifically for the process of fact-finding.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.25(1) — 4 cases
Watson v. Bureau of State Lottery, 569 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “In their petition, petitioners stated that they were not able to assign their lottery winnings to Prosperity unless the trial court issued an order permitting the assignment pursuant to MCL 423.25(1); MSA 18.969(25)(1). The trial court subsequently ordered that respondents show…”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Council 25 v. Wayne Cnty., 393 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “Section 25 of the Labor Mediation Act, MCLA 423.25; MSA 17.454(27), provides for fact-finding under pera when, in the discretion of the Commission, it determines that "matters in disagreement between the parties might be more readily settled if the facts involved in the…”
Wayne Cnty. v. Michigan Afscme Council 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “MCL 423.25(1) provides specifically for the process of fact-finding.”
Wayne Cnty. v. Michigan Afscme Council 25 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “MCL 423.25(1) provides specifically for the process of fact-finding.”
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.