|
No. 127503
| Police Officers Association of Michigan, |
|
Frank A. Guido |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
|
|
|
Ottawa County Sheriff, Ottawa County, |
|
Douglas W. Van Essen |
| and Ottawa County Board of Commissioners, |
|
|
| Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| ______________________________________ |
|
|
| |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendants-Appellants' Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Supplemental Brief>>
Michigan Municipal League's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
The plaintiff, the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM), is a labor organization that serves as the bargaining agent for the sheriff’s deputies, who are employed by the Ottawa County defendants. The collective bargaining agreement between POAM and the Ottawa County defendants expired on December 31, 1999. Several months later, POAM filed a petition on behalf of the sheriff’s deputies seeking arbitration under 1969 PA 312, which provides for compulsory arbitration of labor disputes in municipal police and fire departments. At a prehearing conference, the arbitration panel found that the eighteen issues raised by POAM and the Ottawa County defendants were “economic issues.” During the next few months, the parties settled all but two of the issues; these two issues were submitted to the arbitration panel for resolution. POAM then sought to raise a new issue, seeking retroactive arbitration of twelve grievances that had arisen since the collective bargaining agreement expired. The Ottawa County defendants argued this new issue was not timely raised. A majority of the arbitration panel agreed. The panel noted its authority under MCL 432.238 to identify the economic issues in dispute “[a]t or before the conclusion of the hearing.” It concluded that the use of the word “or” in the statute permitted it to make its determination of the economic issues in dispute before the arbitration hearing. POAM filed a complaint in the Ottawa County Circuit Court, seeking to vacate the panel’s refusal to consider its additional issue. The trial court ruled against POAM. POAM then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed in a published opinion, ruling that the arbitration panel erred in not considering POAM’s additional issue. The Ottawa County defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
