Flynn v. City of Fraser
Opinion
C. J. Byrns, J.
Plaintiffs brought this declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that they are municipal employees who are "engaged in fire fighting or subject to the hazards thereof’, and thus may not be compelled by the defendant City of Fraser to work hours which differ from those specified by MCLA 123.841; MSA 5.3331, 1925 PA 125, as amended by 1947 PA 335. 1 *348 The trial court agreed with plaintiffs and granted the requested relief.
The facts are stipulated. Plaintiffs are employees of the defendant city, assigned to the fire protection division of the city’s Department of Public Safety. 2 Plaintiffs work a 40-hour, 5-day week, subject to extra time for emergencies, which occasionally push the weekly total to in excess of 40 hours.
Defendant claims, first, that plaintiffs do not fall within the scope of the above-cited statute, inasmuch as they are engaged in actual fire fighting during only a small portion of their on-duty hours, and also on the ground that the hazards presented by most fires are "small”.
Such a contention is frivolous. The statutory language is clear and unambiguous. See MCLA 8.3a; MSA 2.212(1). 3 There is no qualification in the statute to the effect that only "large”, as opposed to "small”, hazards are sufficient to bring a fireman within the terms of the act. Any person assigned to a fire protection unit, who is ready and able to respond to summons for fire aid, and who is on duty for that purpose, irrespective of the intensity or dangers which characterize any particular fire, is "engaged in fire fighting or subject to the hazards thereof’.
Second, defendant argues that MCLA 123.841; *349 MSA 5.3331, supra, was repealed by implication with the passage of § 15 of 1947 PA 336, as added by 1965 PA 379, §1; MCLA 423.215; MSA 17.455(15), 4 which authorizes public employers and their employees to bargain collectively with respect to, inter alia, hours of employment. Similarly, defendant asserts, repeal was impliedly effected by 1969 PA 312; MCLA 423.231; MSA 17.455(31), 5 which, under certain circumstances, mandates submitting labor disputes concerning hours of employment for policemen and firemen, as well as concerning other terms and conditions of employment, to compulsory and binding arbitration.
Preliminarily, we note that repeals by implica *350 tion are not favored in the law; the burden is on the party claiming repeal to establish that fact. Lansing School Dist v School Dist No 3, 327 Mich 436, 440 (1950). The statutes here considered are not repugnant to one another. MCLA 123.841; MSA 5.3331, establishes the maximum permissible working hours for paid or part-paid firemen and the minimum time off that must be provided, as well as controlling the distribution of those hours throughout the workweek. Within the parameters of that act, however, fire fighters and their employers may bargain collectively for fewer or differently arranged hours of émployment, MCLA 423.215; MSA 17.455(15), or be compelled, in some cases, to submit the question of work hours to arbitration, MCLA 423.231; MSA 17.455(31).
Any duly consummated collective bargaining agreement or arbitration award controls the respective rights of such parties with respect to the hours of employment, with the sole proviso that such an agreement or award not contravene the limits set by MCLA 123.841; MSA 5.3331. The latter statute sets minimum time-off requirements, but does not prohibit public safety employees and their employers, such as plaintiffs and defendant in the case at bar, respectively, from mutually agreeing to less onerous hours of employment pursuant to the legislative directives contained in MCLA 423.215; MSA 17.455(15), and MCLA 423.231; MSA 17.455(31).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
206 N.W.2d 448 (Flynn v. City of Fraser) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.