The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) considered a case involving the Police Officers Association of Michigan and its affiliate, the Leelanau County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, and Leelanau County Sheriff’s Office. The dispute arose after the parties reached a tentative collective bargaining agreement in January 2023, which both parties ratified, but the Association subsequently refused to execute. The Association also filed a petition for Act 312 arbitration, which allows for the arbitration of unresolved contract disputes for public safety personnel. In response, the County filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Association failed to bargain in good faith pursuant to Section 10(3)(d) of the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) by refusing to execute the CBA and by filing the Act 312 petition.
In July 2022, the Leelanau County Deputy Sheriff’s Association notified Leelanau County and its Sheriff’s Office of its desire to begin negotiations for a successor contract. The previous CBA, covering 2020-2022, had a five-step wage scale where newly hired employees started at Step 1 and advanced through the steps based on their anniversary dates. During negotiations, the County proposed eliminating the first step of the wage scale and renumbering the remaining steps. This proposal was presented at a bargaining session on November 17, 2022, along with a written explanation of how the changes would be implemented. Paragraph 4 of that proposal stated: “Drop ‘Start’ step from current scale and re-name remaining four steps: Start, 1 Year, 2 Years, 3 Years. Implementation of the new wage scale by placing employee at the step in the new scale that results in a pay increase over the employee’s current step at the time of implementation if not at the top (e.g. first payroll in January 2023 or following ratification by both parties, whichever is later). Next step increase will occur on employee’s anniversary date in 2024, at which point employees will advance in step scale (if applicable) in the new scale.”
The Association did not object to this proposal, and it was included in the final tentative agreement, which the Association membership ratified. However, after receiving a draft of the new contract and a spreadsheet detailing the wage increases, Association President James Tiganelli raised concerns about a deputy’s rate of pay. Tiganelli argued that the deputy, who had started in January 2021, should have been placed at Step 3 of the new wage scale, reflecting his two years of service. The County explained that the deputy was placed at Step 2 because that step resulted in a pay increase over his wage rate as of December 31, 2022, and that he would advance to Step 3 on his anniversary date in 2024.
Tiganelli responded by asserting that the Association had not agreed to a system that would push employees’ seniority raises into the second year of the contract. Subsequently, the Association refused to sign the CBA and filed the Act 312 petition. The Association argued that there was a mutual mistake regarding the application of the new wage scale and that the County never clearly explained the significance of Paragraph 4 as it applied to 2023 wage scale increases.
The ALJ found that the Association violated its statutory duty to bargain under Section 10(3)(d) of PERA by refusing to execute the CBA and by filing the Act 312 petition, concluding that the Association made a unilateral mistake in failing to calculate the significance of Paragraph 4. The ALJ issued a cease-and-desist order directing the Association to execute the CBA and withdraw the Act 312 petition. The Association filed exceptions to the ALJ’s decision, contending that the ALJ erred in concluding it made a unilateral mistake.
MERC affirmed the ALJ’s decision. MERC held that the Association violated its statutory duty to bargain by refusing to execute the CBA and by filing a petition for compulsory arbitration because the mistake was unilateral.
MERC found that the Association’s position ignored the clear wording of the contract language proposed by the County and tentatively agreed upon by both parties. MERC emphasized that “where the parties have ratified a contract containing an unambiguous provision and where there is no evidence of fraud or bad faith, a party cannot later repudiate that provision by claiming that it did not intend to agree to the provision and/or failed to read the tentative agreement carefully before ratifying it.”
MERC rejected the Association’s argument that there was a mutual mistake regarding the application of the new wage scale, concluded that the Association’s exceptions lacked merit and affirmed the ALJ’s decision in its entirety. It ordered the Association to cease and desist from refusing to bargain in good faith and to withdraw the Act 312 arbitration petition.
Leelanau County and Leelanau County Sheriff’s Office, Case No. 23-H-1297-CU (MERC 2024).