From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Teamsters v. Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals
Feb 17, 1981
303 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

Docket No. 55432.

Decided February 17, 1981.

Kasoff, Young, Gottesman, Kovinsky, Friedman Walkon, P.C. (by Howard L. Shifman), for plaintiff. George G. Matish, Acting Corporation Counsel, and Anna Diggs-Taylor and Michael A. Hurvitz, Assistants Corporation Counsel, for defendants.

Before: D.C. RILEY, P.J., and M.J. KELLY and BEASLEY, JJ.

ON REMAND


This matter was submitted to our Court on March 19, 1979. Our opinion was filed on July 10, 1979, 91 Mich. App. 273; 283 N.W.2d 722 (1979). An appeal was taken to the Michigan Supreme Court where this matter was ordered held in abeyance on November 16, 1979, pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Metropolitan Council 23, AFSCME v Oakland County Prosecutor.

On December 23, 1980, the Supreme Court, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated the judgment of our Court and remanded this case for reconsideration in light of their decision in Metropolitan Council 23, AFSCME v Oakland County Prosecutor, 409 Mich. 299; 294 N.W.2d 578 (1980), issued July 16, 1980. 410 Mich. 876 (1980).

Having reviewed this matter in light of the Supreme Court decision in Metropolitan Council 23, supra, we conclude that the MERC board determination should be reversed and the plaintiffs held not entitled to compulsory arbitration because their duties were of a "noncritical service nature" and not within the purview of the compulsory arbitration statute, MCL 423.231 et seq.; MSA 17.455(31) et seq.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Teamsters v. Detroit

Michigan Court of Appeals
Feb 17, 1981
303 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Teamsters v. Detroit

Case Details

Full title:LOCAL NO 214, TEAMSTERS v CITY OF DETROIT (ON REMAND)

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 17, 1981

Citations

303 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
303 N.W.2d 892

Citing Cases

Capitol City Lodge No. 141 v. Ingham County Board of Commissioners

On the authority of Metropolitan Council No 23, AFSCME v Oakland Co Prosecutor, we hold that Act 312…

Oakland Cnty. v. Oakland Cnty. Deputy

We find it unnecessary to resolve this issue of statutory construction because it is not necessary to the…