 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Article 6-18
MICHIGAN – CITY OF DETROIT - MANAGEMENT HAS RIGHT TO
PROCEED WITH LAYOFFS, DEMOTE BATTALION CHIEFS AND
RESTRUCTURE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING - UNLESS THERE IS PROOF OF SERIOUS SAFETY RISK -
CASE REMANDED TO CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR SAFETY HEARING
On July 23, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court in Detroit Fire Fighters
Association IAFF Local 344 v. City of Detroit, 2008 Mich. LEXIS 1404, held
(6 to 1) held that a preliminary injunction was improperly issued by a
Circuit Court judge preventing the City from implementing a layoff in 2005
of 65 firefighters, demotion of 10 battalion chiefs, reduction of number of
battalions from 8 to 5, and shut down engine / ladder companies in a
restructuring plan. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled, “Here, not only did
the circuit court fail to resolve the safety claims on the merits, it entered
what amounted to a permanent injunction without applying the traditional
injunctive standards.”
The Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect from 1998 – 2001
specifically provided that “ the City reserves the right to lay off personnel
for lack of work or funds….” When the CBA expired in 2001, the parties
were unable to reach agreement on a new contract. In Dec. 2002, the Local
invoked compulsory arbitration under Michigan Act 312 (MCL 423.236).
The statute requires that an arbitrator hold a hearing within 15 days,
conclude the hearing within 30 days, and then issue a written opinion
within 30 days. The Local and the City waived the expedited procedures,
and the “binding” arbitration process has been on going for the past 5
years.
The City of Detroit’s serious budget shortfalls resulted in Detroit
announcing in September, 2005 layoffs of 65 FF, and demotion of 10
battalion chiefs, and deactivation of five engine and ladder companies.
Local 344 filed suit in Wayne Circuit Court on September 12, 2005, seeking
a preliminary injunction. The Local argued that this was a safety issue,
and also that the City’s unilateral implementation of the restructuring plan
violated Michigan law (under Article 312 of Michigan law, parties are
required to maintain the “status quo” during binding arbitration).
The circuit judge held a series of hearings, and issued an injunction on
Oct. 17, 2005, based on the concern for the safety of the FF. The judge
directed the arbitrator in the binding arbitration proceedings to determine
if safety concerns were meritorious. The arbitrator on October 27, 2005
reported to the trial judge that he lacked jurisdiction to make such a
decision. The judge on Oct. 30, 2005, following another hearing, granted
another preliminary injunction, ruling that there continues to be “a serious
question of fact as to whether or not [the restructuring plan] would have
an impact on fire fighter’s safety, or indeed upon working conditions or
working hours.”
The City filed an appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled in
2006 for Local 344, holding that the layoffs would affect the “safety of
working conditions for firefighters” and therefore the proposed layoffs
and restructuring plan “are mandatory subjects of bargaining.”
The City filed an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to
hear the appeal. Following oral argument before the Court by attorneys for
both sides, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs. The
Court then ordered second round of oral arguments.
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and vacated
the preliminary injunction of the Circuit Court judge. The majority held that
the Circuit Court judge failed to make any findings about whether
firefighter safety was in fact at risk. “Given the magnitude of a decision to
restrain an employer’s exercise of a management prerogative [to layoff
personnel], this level of uncertainty in a circuit court ruling is untenable.”
The case has therefore been sent back to the circuit judge for further
hearing on the safety issue.
LEGAL LESSONS LEARNED: This decision will be closely read by
municipalities facing budget problems throughout the nation.
Lawyer/FF/EMT and Professor at University of Cincinnati Larry Bennett.
Author of "Fire Service Law."
To read more about the case check out,
http://www.uc.edu/cas/firescience/bennett/fire-ems-safe.aspx
Each month a new case will be brought out and discussed. Use the
contact page to post comments about this article. Contact Us.
MICHIGAN – CITY OF DETROIT - MANAGEMENT HAS RIGHT TO
PROCEED WITH LAYOFFS, DEMOTE BATTALION CHIEFS AND
RESTRUCTURE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING - UNLESS THERE IS PROOF OF SERIOUS SAFETY RISK -
CASE REMANDED TO CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR SAFETY HEARING
On July 23, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court in Detroit Fire Fighters
Association IAFF Local 344 v. City of Detroit, 2008 Mich. LEXIS 1404, held
(6 to 1) held that a preliminary injunction was improperly issued by a
Circuit Court judge preventing the City from implementing a layoff in 2005
of 65 firefighters, demotion of 10 battalion chiefs, reduction of number of
battalions from 8 to 5, and shut down engine / ladder companies in a
restructuring plan. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled, “Here, not only did
the circuit court fail to resolve the safety claims on the merits, it entered
what amounted to a permanent injunction without applying the traditional
injunctive standards.”
The Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect from 1998 – 2001
specifically provided that “ the City reserves the right to lay off personnel
for lack of work or funds….” When the CBA expired in 2001, the parties
were unable to reach agreement on a new contract. In Dec. 2002, the Local
invoked compulsory arbitration under Michigan Act 312 (MCL 423.236).
The statute requires that an arbitrator hold a hearing within 15 days,
conclude the hearing within 30 days, and then issue a written opinion
within 30 days. The Local and the City waived the expedited procedures,
and the “binding” arbitration process has been on going for the past 5
years.
The City of Detroit’s serious budget shortfalls resulted in Detroit
announcing in September, 2005 layoffs of 65 FF, and demotion of 10
battalion chiefs, and deactivation of five engine and ladder companies.
Local 344 filed suit in Wayne Circuit Court on September 12, 2005, seeking
a preliminary injunction. The Local argued that this was a safety issue,
and also that the City’s unilateral implementation of the restructuring plan
violated Michigan law (under Article 312 of Michigan law, parties are
required to maintain the “status quo” during binding arbitration).
The circuit judge held a series of hearings, and issued an injunction on
Oct. 17, 2005, based on the concern for the safety of the FF. The judge
directed the arbitrator in the binding arbitration proceedings to determine
if safety concerns were meritorious. The arbitrator on October 27, 2005
reported to the trial judge that he lacked jurisdiction to make such a
decision. The judge on Oct. 30, 2005, following another hearing, granted
another preliminary injunction, ruling that there continues to be “a serious
question of fact as to whether or not [the restructuring plan] would have
an impact on fire fighter’s safety, or indeed upon working conditions or
working hours.”
The City filed an appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled in
2006 for Local 344, holding that the layoffs would affect the “safety of
working conditions for firefighters” and therefore the proposed layoffs
and restructuring plan “are mandatory subjects of bargaining.”
The City filed an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to
hear the appeal. Following oral argument before the Court by attorneys for
both sides, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs. The
Court then ordered second round of oral arguments.
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and vacated
the preliminary injunction of the Circuit Court judge. The majority held that
the Circuit Court judge failed to make any findings about whether
firefighter safety was in fact at risk. “Given the magnitude of a decision to
restrain an employer’s exercise of a management prerogative [to layoff
personnel], this level of uncertainty in a circuit court ruling is untenable.”
The case has therefore been sent back to the circuit judge for further
hearing on the safety issue.
LEGAL LESSONS LEARNED: This decision will be closely read by
municipalities facing budget problems throughout the nation.
Lawyer/FF/EMT and Professor at University of Cincinnati Larry Bennett.
Author of "Fire Service Law."
To read more about the case check out,
http://www.uc.edu/cas/firescience/bennett/fire-ems-safe.aspx
Each month a new case will be brought out and discussed. Use the
contact page to post comments about this article. Contact Us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Case Study of the Month |