Livingston County v. Livingston Circuit Judge

225 N.W.2d 352, 393 Mich. 265, 1975 Mich. LEXIS 186, 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3015

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: January 21, 1975
• Docket: 55513, (Calendar No. 8)
• Status: Published

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We granted leave to appeal, 391 Mich 781 (1974), to consider questions raised by Livingston County’s Board of Commissioners in connection with the first collective bargaining contract settled upon by a local judiciary and its employees to be tested in this Court. We affirm earlier decisions in deciding that the bargaining parties basically utilized correct procedures, but we reach no conclusion as to the reasonableness or necessity of the contractual provisions.

On September 22, 1972, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) certified Michigan Council 55, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, as a bargaining representative for a unit of district and circuit court employees in Livingston County. No one has challenged the appropriateness of that unit in this Court.

The bargaining representative, employees, and representatives of the judiciary then engaged in bargaining over a contract. This was to be expected, and was correct, in light of this Court’s decision in Judges of the 74th Judicial District v Bay County, 385 Mich 710; 190 NW2d 219 (1971). During bargaining, according to the complaint and answer filed in this cause, it appears that a representative of the Board of Commissioners was excluded from the bargaining room. The specific details of the reasoning behind such exclusion are not set forth. This Court believes the best practice, in general, especially at initial bargaining sessions, is for the local judiciary to invite a representative of the commissioners to appear personally at such sessions. The commissioners’ representative cannot actively bargain, of course, but such representative may present relevant data as to other county employees, e.g., wage levels for comparable jobs, provisions in other labor contracts, general county benefits, and county budget information.

The bargaining parties arrived at a contract on June 22, 1973. Circuit Judge Paul R. Mahinske issued an administrative order implementing the contract on July 16, 1973, and then on July 18, 1973, he submitted such order to the Court Administrator for approval, pursuant to this Court’s Administrative Order No. 1971-6, 386 Mich xxix. This Court affirms those actions as being correct. The order of July 16, 1973, might not in some cases be necessary, but if it is, then review by the Court Administrator becomes a step in insuring the reasonableness and necessity of the contractual provisions. It was conceded by appellants, at oral argument, that their representatives were invited to the Court Administrator’s office for a presentation of the commissioners’ views on the contract. But it appears that the commissioners did not participate in a point-by-point, clause-by-clause, discussion of the contract, as this Court hoped would be the case under Administrative Order 1971-6. The reason for such nonparticipation appears to lie with the judgment of the commissioners’ representatives, and their decision does not aid their argument that they have been denied due process of law.

Appellants now advance two basic arguments: that separation of powers has been violated, and that due process and equal protection have been denied because they have not been afforded a neutral forum in which to determine whether or not the provisions of the contract are reasonable and necessary. But the bargaining process used here does not violate the explanation of separation of powers set forth in Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne County, 386 Mich 1; 190 NW2d 228 (1971), cert den 405 US 923; 92 S Ct 961; 30 L Ed 2d 794 (1972), and Commonwealth, ex rel Carroll, v Tate, 442 Pa 45; 274 A2d 193 (1971), cert den 402 US 974; 91 S Ct 1665; 29 L Ed 2d 138 (1971), and we continue to adhere to those precedents.

The reasonableness and necessity of such contracts are subject to review in Michigan. We already have provided for an administrative check on reasonableness through Administrative Order 1971-6. In addition, once the Court Administrator has approved a contract the Board of Commissioners may institute adversary court proceedings to test the reasonableness and necessity of the contract if it appears that the budget reflecting the contract will exceed the total appropriation. The commissioners may file suit promptly for injunctive relief in circuit court in their own county. Since the purpose of such suit would be to enjoin an administrative order of a judge of that very county, the commissioners may seek designation by the Court Administrator of a disinterested judge to decide the case on its merits. In order to expedite the settlement of disputes over wages and working conditions, any appellate review of the decision of the circuit court shall be by direct application for leave to appeal to this Court, and no writ of mandamus shall lie under Administrative Order 1971-6 until such proceedings, promptly begun and diligently pursued, are terminated.

By such holding, this Court’s intent is to afford the legislative body a neutral forum in which reasonableness and necessity may be determined after adversary hearings. This Court is aware that this procedure may prolong public employee collective bargaining, and thus may disappoint the union and its membership. This Court also is aware that the commissioners may claim that any proceeding presided over by a judge will not be a neutral forum, and thus the commissioners may also be disappointed. The Court reminds the parties, however, that the Legislature has based public employee collective bargaining in Michigan on an industrial model. Such a model contains inherent difficulties when the ultimate public employer, the voting public, has elected representatives to three separate units in order to govern itself fairly.

The Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint for superintending control, and is affirmed, without prejudice to the filing by plaintiffs-appellants of an appropriate circuit court action within 20 days of the issuance of this opinion.

T. M. Kavanagh, Swainson, Williams, M. S. Coleman, and J. W. Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred.