Steven H. Schwartz & Associates, P.L.C.

Effective January 31, 2012 NLRB Posting Required

Schipper — 2011-11-09 07:38:08

Effective January 31, 2012, the NLRB will require private sector employers, with or without a unionized workforce, to post its official notice of employee rights bulletin. The posting requirement applies to all private-sector employers within the Board's jurisdiction. This includes most private-sector employers, including labor unions, but excludes agricultural, railroad and airline employers, as well as very small employers that conduct an insufficient volume of business to have more than a slight effect on interstate commerce. In most instances, a business volume of $250,000 to $500,000 per year will subject an employer to NLRB jurisdiction. The Notice should be posted in conspicuous places, where other workplace rights notices and company notices concerning personnel rules or policies are customarily posted. A failure to post the notice may subject the employer to an unfair labor practice charge. Although the NLRB has stated it will not be independently auditing employers for complaince.

Court of Appeals Rules that Act 312 Arbitration Panel may Issue an Award for Retroactive Grievance Arbitration

Schipper — 2009-06-19 08:35:35

In Ottawa County v Police Officers Association of Michigan ("POAM"), the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that an Act 312 Arbitration Panel's adoption of the POAM's proposal for retroactive grievance arbitration is not counter to the statute. 281 Mich App 688 (2008). The County, relying on the Court's precedent, argued that Act 312 does not permit an award of non-economic benefits retroactively. The statute, in part, states, "Increases in rates of compensation or other benefits may be awarded retroactively to the commencement of any period(s) in dispute, any other statute or charter provisions to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Court ruled that grievance arbitration was such an "other benefit" as described in the statute. The Court refused to read a requirement that retroactive benefits be only economic, and found that the right to grievance arbitration is clearly a benefit to the bargaining unit members.

Michigan Codifies Garrity Rights for Law Enforcement Officers

Schipper — 2007-03-15 14:54:40

On December 29, 2006, Michigan enacted M.C.L. 15.391, codifying the protection of involuntary statements made by law enforcement officers. Such protection has been in place since the Supreme Court's ruling in Garrity v. State of N.J., 385 U.S. 493 (1967). In Garrity, the Court ruled that public sector employees are in fact under duress and deprived of free choice when asked to either incriminate themselves or forfeit their jobs. Therefore, the use of such statements is prohibited in a subsequent criminal proceeding as involuntary self-incrimination.

The new Michigan law defines an "involuntary statement" as a statement made by the officer under threat of dismissal or other employment sanction. "Law enforcement officers" include emergency dispatch workers and local corrections officers. As in Garrity, involuntary statements may not be used against the officer in a criminal proceeding. Additionally, such statements are confidential and may not be disclosed without establishing one of the following: 1) officer written consent, 2) search warrant, subpoena, or court order, 3) collective bargaining or administrative or legal proceeding involving the officer's employment status or to defend the officer or law enforcement agency in a criminal proceeding, or 4) with limited use by legal counsel in a civil action against the officer or law enforcement agency.

City Manager Exit Agreements

gabrys — 2006-04-17 16:40:10

Introduction. City Managers serve in a perilous profession. City Managers are apt to lose their jobs for a number of reasons unrelated to performance or competency: differences in policy or direction, management style, budgeting issues. City Managers may also lose their positions for less rational reasons: jealousy, power plays, retaliation for ordinance enforcement, disagreeing with a strong-willed elected official, scapegoating or other political reasons.