In Detroit v Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, 408 Mich. 410; 294 N.W.2d 68 (1980), our Supreme Court stated that courts are obligated to apply the Section 12 standard when reviewing decisions of Act 312 arbitration panels.Id. at 480-483 (WILLIAMS, J). Thus, where the panel acted within its jurisdiction and the order is supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence and not procured through fraud, collusion, or other unlawful means, the circuit court and our Court must enforce the award. See Hillsdale v Michigan State Fire Fighters Union Local 961, 164 Mich. App. 627, 629; 418 N.W.2d 114 (1987). As stated by this Court and our Supreme Court, we may not reassess the wisdom of the arbitration panel or engage in a review de novo. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, supra at 480; Hillsdale, supra at 629.

Minimum manning requirements for fire fighters have been held to be mandatory subjects of bargaining if the minimum manning requirement is related to the safety of the fire fighters and, therefore, is a term or condition of employment. Hillsdale v Michigan State Fire Fighters Union Local 961, 164 Mich. App. 627, 629; 418 N.W.2d 114 (1987); Alpena v Alpena Fire Fighters Ass'n, AFL-CIO, 56 Mich. App. 568, 575; 224 N.W.2d 672 (1974), lv den 394 Mich. 761 (1975), overruled in part on other grounds Detroit v Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, 408 Mich. 410, 483, n 65; 294 N.W.2d 68 (1980), reh den 409 Mich. 1101 (1980). In addition, this Court recently in Trenton v Trenton Fire Fighters Union, Local 2701, International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, 166 Mich. App. 285, 294-295; 420 N.W.2d 188 (1988), held that, where minimum manpower clauses are inextricably intertwined with safety issues, those clauses become mandatory subjects for bargaining.