The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) rejected an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Michigan Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council, challenging the County’s decision to strictly enforce a contractual 320-hour vacation cap after years of allowing employees to exceed it. The Union alleged that by reducing accumulated balances and eliminating payouts above the cap, the County unilaterally changed a longstanding past practice.
The dispute began after an October 2023 directive from the County Board ordered the payroll clerk to correct “errors” in the timekeeping system and remove hours over the 320-hour limit. Several deputies lost significant accrued time, prompting the Union to allege that the County’s action violated Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act.
MERC upheld an ALJ’s decision finding no violation. The Commission determined that the collective bargaining agreement clearly limited vacation accrual to 40 days (320 hours) and that this language had appeared unchanged in successive agreements since 2010. While the County had tolerated excess carryover in practice, MERC emphasized that a past practice cannot override clear contract terms unless both parties mutually intended to amend or waive the provision. Citing Port Huron Education Association v. Port Huron School District, MERC explained that the burden of proving such intent rested with the Union, as the party asserting the practice, and found the Union’s mere showing that the County had acquiesced to past deviations was not sufficient to establish a binding modification to the clear contractual language.
The record showed that the County had consistently retained the 320-hour cap in each successor contract and never agreed to remove it. Enforcing the cap in 2023 therefore represented a return to compliance, not a unilateral change or repudiation. MERC also rejected the Union’s claim that trimming accrued time retroactively reduced vested benefits, finding that employees were always on notice of the cap and that the adjustment merely corrected an administrative oversight. Concluding that the County acted within its contractual rights and that no mutual intent existed to alter the limit, MERC affirmed the ALJ’s decision and dismissed the charge.
Luce County Sheriff & Luce County Board of Commissioners, 39 MPER ¶ 11, 2025 WL 2451349 (Mich. Emp’t Relations Comm’n Aug. 8, 2025).