Pontiac Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Pontiac

220 N.W.2d 794, 54 Mich. App. 282, 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2173, 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 876

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 1, 1973
• Docket: Docket 14843
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supplemental Opinion

Quinn, J.

An order of the Supreme Court in the above entitled cause dated April 18, 1974, and designated CR 12-98, provides:

"We grant ieave to appeal and sua sponte vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 50 Mich App 382; 213 NW2d 217 (1973).

"On the authority of Detroit Police Officers Association v City of Detroit, 391 Mich 44; 214 NW2d 803 (1974), we hold that a residency requirement is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

"We remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration, in light of D.P.O.A. v City of Detroit, supra, of the question whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is a 'mandatory’, 'permissive’ or 'illegal’ subject of collective bargaining.” 1

Pursuant thereto we have reconsidered our prior holding. Contrary to the language of the foregoing order, this case does not involve the question, "whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is a 'mandatory’, 'permissive’ or 'illegal’ subject of collective bargaining”.

The question originally before this Court was

"Is the question of a civilian trial board for policemen a mandatory subject for collective bargaining when the city charter provides for a police trial board?” Police Officers Association v Pontiac, 50 Mich App 382, 383; 213 NW2d 217 (1973).

For the reasons expressed in our prior opinion, we affirm our negative answer to this question. We do not read Detroit Police Officers Association, supra, as a refutation of that reasoning. The question of a civilian trial board on the facts of this case is a permissive subject of collective bargaining.

All concurred.

1 391 Mich 814 (1974).