|
No. 131463
| Detroit Firefighters Association, |
|
Ronald R. Helveston |
| I.A.F.F. Local 344, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Borman, S.) |
|
|
| City of Detroit, |
|
Bruce A. Campbell |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Nancy Sorensen Ninowski |
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
City of Iron Mountain's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Detroit Police Officers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
International Association of Fire Fighters' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Association of Police Organizations' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan AFSCME Council 25, AFL-CIO's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Association of Counties' Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Association of Counties' Supplemental Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan State AFL-CIO's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan State AFL-CIO's Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
The city of Detroit and the Detroit Firefighters Association are involved in ongoing arbitration proceedings under MCL 423.231 et seq., commonly known as Act 312. The last collective bargaining agreement between the parties expired on June 30, 2001, and they have yet to complete binding arbitration over a successor agreement. Act 312 requires parties in binding arbitration to maintain existing wages, hours and other conditions of employment pending the outcome of arbitration. In response to a severe budget crisis, the city prepared a 2005-2006 budgetary plan that called for firefighter layoffs and restructuring the fire department. The firefighters association sued in Wayne County Circuit Court, where the association obtained a court order to prevent the plan from taking effect. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge found a fact issue concerning whether implementation of the city’s proposal would implicate the hours and conditions of employment, and in particular, the firefighters’ safety. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit judge’s ruling in a published opinion. Although the collective bargaining agreement reserves the right to the city to “lay off personnel for lack of work or funds,” the Court of Appeals held that the restructuring plan is a mandatory subject of bargaining because it affects “wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.” The panel held that because proposed layoffs and restructuring could affect the safety of firefighters’ working conditions, the city cannot implement its proposals on its own during Act 312 proceedings. The city appeals.
Top of Page
|
