Goolsby v. Detroit

101 Citing cases

  1. Taylor Sch. Dist. v. Rhatigan

    900 N.W.2d 699 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)

    This duty was developed in the federal courts in a series of cases under the Railway Labor Act, and later extended to unions certified under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Goolsby v. Detroit, 419 Mich. 651, 661, 358 N.W.2d 856 (1984), citing Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). In Goolsby, 419 Mich. at 660 n. 5, 358 N.W.2d 856 (citation omitted), the Michigan Supreme Court recognized that "PERA impliedly imposes on labor organizations representing public sector employees a duty of fair representation which is similar to the duty imposed by the NLRA on labor organizations representing private sector employees."

  2. Taylor Sch. Dist. v. Rhatigan

    318 Mich. App. 617 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 9 times

    This duty was developed in the federal courts in a series of cases under the Railway Labor Act, and later extended to unions certified under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Goolsby v. Detroit, 419 Mich. 651, 661, 358 N.W.2d 856 (1984), citing Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). In Goolsby, 419 Mich. at 660 n. 5, 358 N.W.2d 856 (citation omitted), the Michigan Supreme Court recognized that "PERA impliedly imposes on labor organizations representing public sector employees a duty of fair representation which is similar to the duty imposed by the NLRA on labor organizations representing private sector employees."

  3. Afscme Council 25 Local 2394 v. Sweat

    No. 323933 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2016)

    As is the case with most issues arising under PERA, our Courts have generally been guided by decisions of federal courts relative to statutory labor law claims. In Goolsby v Detroit, 419 Mich 651, 660 n5; 358 NW2d 856 (1984), our Supreme Court acknowledged same, holding: Thus, this Court has stated that in construing our state labor statutes we look for guidance to "the construction placed on the analogous provisions of the NLRA by the [National Labor Relations Board] and the Federal courts".

  4. Police Officers Ass'n of Mich. v. Hatfield

    No. 354627 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2021)

    A union owes those employees it represents a duty of fair representation. Goolsby v City of Detroit (Goolsby I), 419 Mich 651, 664; 358 NW2d 856 (1984). To prevail on a claim of unfair representation, a charging party must first establish a breach of the collective-bargaining agreement, then establish that the union breached its duty of fair representation.

  5. Tech., Prof'l, & Office Workers Ass'n of Mich. v. Renner

    SC 162601 (Mich. Apr. 22, 2024)

    Further, although a member of a bargaining unit does not have an absolute right to have their grievance taken to arbitration, the duty of fair representation does not allow a union to arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process it in a perfunctory fashion. Michigan's PERA was modeled after the NLRA, and this Court affirmed in Goolsby v Detroit, 419 Mich. 651 (1984), that PERA includes a duty of fair representation. Additionally, the Court held in Goolsby that under PERA, bad-faith conduct is not always required to establish a breach of the duty, and the union's failure to comply with collectively bargained grievance procedure time limits constitutes a breach of the duty of fair representation.

  6. People v. Margosian

    No. 306847 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2013)

    As the appellant, defendant is required to do more than merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claim. Goolsby v Detroit, 419 Mich 651, 655 n 1; 358 NW2d 856 (1984). We note, however, that the trial court instructed the jury on defendant's alibi defense in accordance with CJI2d 7.4.

  7. Zastrow v. City of Wyoming

    No. 331791 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2017)

    The duty encompasses three responsibilities: (1) serving a member's interests without hostility or discrimination, (2) exercising discretion in good faith and honesty, and (3) avoiding arbitrary conduct. Goolsby v Detroit, 419 Mich 651, 664; 358 NW2d 856 (1984), citing Vaca v Sipes, 386 US 171, 177; 87 S Ct 903; 17 L Ed 2d 842 (1967). In processing or refusing to process a grievance, a union must act

  8. N.A.A.C.P., Detroit Branch v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n

    821 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1987)   Cited 103 times
    Requiring only that the party against whom "estoppel is sought must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding."

    Representatives designated or selected for purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the public employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the public employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment. . . . In Goolsby v. City of Detroit, 419 Mich. 651, 660-61 n. 5, 358 N.W.2d 856, 861 n. 5 (1984), the Michigan Supreme Court expressly recognized the union's duty of fair representation under the state's labor law. The Goolsby Court generally adopted the fair representation standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967).

  9. Jackson v. AFSCME Mi. Council, Local 1603

    Case No. 17-10671 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2019)

    Like the federal-law standards imposed on unions that represent private sector employees, the duty of fair representation owed by a union to public sector employees under the PERA mandates that the union's conduct toward members of the collective bargaining unit must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. See Goolsby v. City of Detroit, 419 Mich. 651, 358 N.W.2d 856, 861-62 & n.5, 870 (1984); Taylor School District v. Rhatigan, 318 Mich. App. 617, 900 N.W.2d 699, 711 (2016). As already discussed, to the extent that Plaintiff accuses Local 1603 of engaging in discrimination through its decision not to pursue arbitration of his grievance, he has failed to produce any evidence, whether of differential treatment or otherwise, that could sustain this allegation of discrimination.

  10. Lipkovitch v. Cnty. of Wayne

    Case No. 11-15081-DT (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2014)

    A union breaches its duty of fair representation if its conduct in representing the employee was "arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith." Goolsby v. Detroit, 419 Mich. 651, 661 (1984); Silbert v. Lakeview Educ. Ass'n Inc., 187 Mich. App. 21, 25 (1991); Knoke v. East Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 201 Mich. App. 480, 485 (1993). The union's duty of fair representation consists of three responsibilities: 1) to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination; 2) to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty; and, 3) to avoid arbitrary conduct.