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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.9 (2026)

Prerequisites for strike or lockout; notice of dispute and statement of issues; mediation.

✓ 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


423.9 Prerequisites for strike or lockout; notice of dispute and statement of issues; mediation.

Sec. 9.

    A strike or lockout shall not take place or be put into effect until and unless each of the steps are taken and the requirements complied with as follows:

    (a) If the parties thereto are unable to settle any labor dispute, the employees or their representatives, in the case of impending strike, or the employer or his agent, in the case of an impending lockout, shall serve notice of the dispute together with a statement of the issues involved upon the commission and the other party to the dispute. The notice may be served personally on any member of the commission and a copy thereof personally served upon the other party, or sent by registered mail to the commission at a regularly established office thereof and to the employer or the representative of his employees at his regular address not less than 10 days before the strike or lockout is to become effective.

    (b) Upon receipt of the notice the commission shall exercise the powers granted in this act to effect a settlement of the dispute by mediation between the parties. Each of the parties to the dispute shall actively and in good faith participate in the mediation thereof.

History: 1939, Act 176, Imd. Eff. June 8, 1939 ;-- Am. 1947, Act 318, Eff. Oct. 11, 1947 ;-- CL 1948, 423.9 ;-- Am. 1949, Act 230, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1949 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 17, Imd. Eff. Feb. 20, 1976 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1959–1989 · leading case: Salenius v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 189 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Salenius v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 189 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 4× “y were employed because: (a) the laborers employed by Cullen had not engaged in a slowdown, gone on strike, set up picket lines, or otherwise interfered with their employer’s operations; (b) the laborers and Cullen had agreed to accept the results of the negotiations between the…”
United Steelworkers v. City of Frankfort, 395 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “MCL 423.9(e); MSA 17.454(10.4). No position in city government is more intimately related to policy-making than the assessor's.”
Detroit Bd. of Educ. v. Local 28, Org. of Sch. Administrators & Supervisors, 308 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “As noted in Dearborn School Dist v Labor Mediation Board, 22 Mich App 222, 228 ; 177 NW2d 196 (1970), MCL 423.9(e); MSA 17.454(10.4) "does not prohibit those employees engaged in executive or superviso^ positions from organizing, but only that they shall not be included in a…”
Davidson v. Michigan State Carpenters Council, 97 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. 1959). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff, however, avers that at no time has he received notice required by PA 1939, No 176, as amended, specifically by PA 1949, No 230, being CLS 1956, § 423.9 (Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.454[9]), and that all of his information with respect to such dispute and progress…”
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. City of Sterling Heights, 439 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “As noted in Dearborn School Dist v Labor Mediation Board, 22 Mich App 222, 228 ; 177 NW2d 196 (1970), MCL 423.9(e); MSA 17.454(10.4) "does not prohibit those employees engaged in executive or supervisory positions from organizing, but only that they shall not be included in a…”
Sch. Dist. of City of Dearborn v. Labor Mediation Bd., 177 N.W.2d 196 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “” In this regard it is interesting to note that § 9e of MLMA, MCLA § 423.9(e) (Stat Ann 1968 Eev § 17.454 [10.”
Metro. Detroit Plumbing & Mech. Contractors Ass'n v. Michigan Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 317 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “This was in violation of MCL 423.9; MSA 17.454(9), which requires a minimum of ten days notice before instituting a lockout.”
Mecosta Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Michigan Council 25, 420 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “MCL 423.9(e); MSA 17.454(10.4). No position in city government is more intimately related to policy-making than the assessor’s.”
Detroit Motion Picture Projectionists Union, Local 199 v. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 242 N.W.2d 806 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Assuming compliance with MCLA 423.9; MSA 17.454(9) when it is applicable, 2 an employer may temporarily lock out the workers or temporarily lay them off when a strike is threatened or imminent, American Ship Building Co v NLRB, 380 US 300 ; 85 S Ct 955 ; 13 L Ed 2d 855 (1965).”
Metro. Detroit Plumbing & Mech. Contractors Ass'n v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 55,675 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 10× “This was a violation of MCL 423.9; MSA 17.454(9), which requires a minimum of ten days notice before instituting a lockout.”
Local 547, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers v. Henry Ford Hosp., 229 N.W.2d 925 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “MCLA 423.9(e); MSA 17.454(10.4). MERC is provided with sufficient discretionary authority to utilize its expertise in selecting appropriate bargaining units to effectuate the broad policies of the law, as well as to insure employee collective bargaining rights.”
State Barbers Union v. Barbers Union, 163 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). “” CL 1948, § 423.9(e) as amended by PA 1965, No 282 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 17.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.9(a) — 1 case
Metro. Detroit Plumbing & Mech. Contractors Ass'n v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 105 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 55,675 (Mich. 1986). “This was a violation of MCL 423.9; MSA 17.454(9), which requires a minimum of ten days notice before instituting a lockout.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.9(e) — 8 cases
United Steelworkers v. City of Frankfort, 395 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “MCL 423.9(e); MSA 17.454(10.4). No position in city government is more intimately related to policy-making than the assessor's.”
Detroit Bd. of Educ. v. Local 28, Org. of Sch. Administrators & Supervisors, 308 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “As noted in Dearborn School Dist v Labor Mediation Board, 22 Mich App 222, 228 ; 177 NW2d 196 (1970), MCL 423.9(e); MSA 17.454(10.4) "does not prohibit those employees engaged in executive or superviso^ positions from organizing, but only that they shall not be included in a…”
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. City of Sterling Heights, 439 N.W.2d 310 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “As noted in Dearborn School Dist v Labor Mediation Board, 22 Mich App 222, 228 ; 177 NW2d 196 (1970), MCL 423.9(e); MSA 17.454(10.4) "does not prohibit those employees engaged in executive or supervisory positions from organizing, but only that they shall not be included in a…”
Sch. Dist. of City of Dearborn v. Labor Mediation Bd., 177 N.W.2d 196 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). “” In this regard it is interesting to note that § 9e of MLMA, MCLA § 423.9(e) (Stat Ann 1968 Eev § 17.454 [10.”
Mecosta Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Michigan Council 25, 420 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “MCL 423.9(e); MSA 17.454(10.4). No position in city government is more intimately related to policy-making than the assessor’s.”
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.