The Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) (MCL 423.201 et seq); Whether a union’s pay-for-services procedure violates its duty of fair representation; Goolsby v City of Detroit; Janus v American Fed’n of State, Cnty, & Mun Employees; Public employees’ freedom to organize or join collective bargaining units or refrain from doing so; Saginaw Educ Ass’n v Eady-Miskiewicz; Prohibition on a public employer interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of their rights; MCL 423.210(1)(a); Prohibition on labor organizations restraining or coercing public employees in the exercise of their § 9 rights; MCL 423.210(2)(a); Ability of labor organizations to prescribe their own membership rules; Grievances & disciplinary procedures as mandatory subjects of collective bargaining; St Clair Intermediate Sch Dist v Intermediate Educ Ass’n; Freedom of association; Boy Scouts of Am v Dale; Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC)

The court held that MERC’s findings of fact were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and that its decision that respondent-union’s pay-for-services procedure violated PERA § 10(2)(a) did not violate a constitutional or statutory provision or constitute a substantial and material error of law. Thus, the court affirmed its ruling. Charging-party-municipal employee (Renner) filed a PERA charge with MERC alleging respondent violated its duty of fair representation by refusing to represent him in a disciplinary dispute with the employer unless he paid a fee for its services. MERC found that respondent’s pay-for-services procedure violated § 10(2)(a) by discriminating against nonunion employees and restrained them from exercising their § 9 statutory rights to refrain from joining or assisting a labor organization, and that respondent breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to file or process Renner’s grievance unless he paid the fee. The court rejected respondent’s argument that MERC erred by finding its pay-for-services procedure violates PERA, noting the procedure “applies only to nonunion employees and has no connection to the admission of a member to the union or expulsion of a member from the union.” It explained that ¶ 9 of the procedure “when read in the context of the entire operating procedure furthers the union’s purpose by preventing a nonmember from avoiding payment for requested services by joining the union when the need for direct representation services arises. In so doing, it advances the purpose of restraining or coercing nonmember employees in the exercise of their statutory rights.” MERC correctly concluded that the procedure “violated § 10(2)(a) by discriminating against nonmembers by restraining them from exercising their § 9 rights by refusing to do anything respecting nonmembers’ grievances and thereby making it impossible for a nonmember to pursue a grievance unless fees for services are paid.” And given the effect of the procedure, “MERC’s decision and order did not involve a substantial and material error of law. MERC’s decision properly interpreted and applied applicable law.” In addition, “MERC correctly understood and properly interpreted Janus by recognizing that the case did not involve allegation of a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation or restrain of a nonunion employee’s statutory rights.” Finally, it found no merit in respondent’s contention that MERC’s decision violated respondent’s First Amendment right to freedom of association.