Judicial review of a decision from the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) concerning alleged unfair labor practices; Whether the pay-for-service fee policy violates the union’s duty of fair representation & is invalid regardless of whether it also violates MCL 423.209 or MCL 423.210 of Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act (PERA); Janus v AFSCME Council 31

Addressing an issue of first impression in Michigan, the court held that in “the absence of legislative authorization, the pay-for-service fee policy at issue violates the union’s duty of fair representation and is invalid regardless of whether it also violates MCL 423.209 or MCL 423.210.” The court struck “down the Union’s pay-for-service fee policy because it violates the Union’s duty of fair representation, which makes it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether the pay-for-service fee policy also constitutes an unfair labor practice in violation of § 9 or § 10 of PERA.” The court affirmed “the analysis and holding contained in Part III of the Court of Appeals’ opinion to the extent it held that the Union’s pay-for-service fee policy was invalid on the basis that it violated the duty of fair representation, and” it affirmed “the Court of Appeals’ analysis and conclusion that Janus did not hold that a union can unilaterally fashion a policy or procedure imposing fees for services on only nonunion employees.” Considering the court’s “holding as to the duty of fair representation and the recent substantive amendments of PERA enacted by 2023 PA 9 and 2023 PA 114, we vacate as unnecessary the Court of Appeals analysis and holdings as to the alleged violations of § 9 and § 10 of PERA.” The court concluded that MERC’s findings of fact here “were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. To the extent MERC’s conclusions of law reflected a finding that the pay-for-services fee policy violated the duty of fair representation, this decision does not constitute a substantial and material error of law, nor does it violate a statutory or constitutional provision.” However, consistent with how the court handled the Court of Appeals’ decision, it vacated “MERC’s conclusions of law to the extent that MERC also determined that the pay-for-services fee policy violated § 9 and § 10 of PERA. With these qualifications, the decision of MERC is affirmed.”