Sault Ste Marie Area Public Schools v. Michigan Education Ass'n

4 Citing cases

  1. Ionia Pub. Sch. v. Ionia Educ. Ass'n

    311 Mich. App. 479 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 9 times

    With regard to the IEA's argument that MERC erred by failing to hold oral argument or an evidentiary hearing, our review is for an abuse of discretion. See MCL 423.216(b) (explaining that MERC “may” take further testimony or “hear argument” after the hearing before the ALJ); Sault Ste. Marie Area Pub. Schs. v. Mich. Ed. Ass'n, 213 Mich.App. 176, 182, 539 N.W.2d 565 (1995). The use of the term “may” denotes discretion.

  2. Delhi Charter Twp. v. Delhi Twp. Firefighters

    No. 320637 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2015)

    There is no requirement that an evidentiary hearing must be conducted in every case." Sault Ste Marie Pub Sch v Mich Ed Ass'n, 213 Mich App 176, 182; 539 NW2d 565 (1995). The ALJ reviewed each asserted "disputed material fact," separating facts from argument, and properly limited testimony to exclude the RRC's subjective beliefs regarding the effect placement in Local 5359 would have on his ability to perform his duties.

  3. Wayne Cnty. v. Afscme Council 25

    No. 303672 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2014)

    Rather, a show cause order merely advises a party that the other party has apparently satisfied its burden of proof and invites the opposing party to put forth a contradictory view. See Sault Ste Marie Area Public Schools v Michigan Ed Ass'n, 213 Mich App 176, 181-182; 539 NW2d 565 (1995). Here, the essential facts were not disputed: the relevant contractual language, the parties' respective negotiating postures, and the factual nature of the layoffs were established.

  4. Oakland Cnty. v. Oakland Cnty. Deputy

    282 Mich. App. 266 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times

    The decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing is within the discretion of the MERC. Sault Ste Marie Area Pub. Schools v. Michigan Ed. Ass'n, 213 Mich.App. 176, 182, 539 N.W.2d 565 (1995).          The referee who was assigned to this matter originally scheduled an evidentiary hearing, recognizing that the parties were disputing whether certain classes of employees were eligible for Act 312 arbitration and that an evidentiary hearing would likely be necessary to resolve the disputed issues of fact.