August 2018

Amalgamated Transit Workers Union, Local 25 -and- Eva M. Turner

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Respondent did not Violate its Duty of Fair Representation to Charging Party; Based on Undisputed Facts, Respondent’s Decision Not to File Grievance Regarding Charging Party’s Discharge Not Outside the Range of Reasonableness When Grievance Was Unlikely to Succeed if Filed.

CU18 E-010

(no exceptions)
 

Bloomfield Township -and- Bloomfield Township Water and Sewer Unit Association -and- AFSCME Council 25

Election Directed – Crew Leaders in Bloomfield Township’s Water and Sewer Department Share a Community of Interest with Maintenance Workers in Such Department and Do Not Hold Supervisory Powers Over Such Maintenance Workers.  Employer, the Party Who Sought to Exclude Crew Leaders from the Proposed Unit, Failed to Establish That Crew Leaders Exercised Supervisory Powers Over Maintenance Workers.  A Supervisor is an Employee Who Has Authority, In The Interest of the Employer, to Hire, Transfer, Suspend, Lay Off, Recall, Promote, Discharge, Direct, Reward, or Discipline Employees, to Adjust Their Grievances, or to Effectively Recommend Any of Those Actions, if the Exercise of That Authority Is Not of a Merely Routine or Clerical Nature, But Requires the Consistent Use of Independent Judgment.  The Fact That an Employee Has Input Into or Makes Recommendations Concerning Personnel Decisions Does Not Necessarily Mean That The Employee Has Effective Authority to Carry Out the Aforementioned Actions Against Other Employees and Is Insufficient to Establish Supervisory Authority.

R17 A-010

Waterford School District -and- Waterford Educational Support Personnel Association III, MEA/NEA

Unfair Labor Practice Not Found: Record Devoid of Evidence that Any Administrator Harbored Anti-Union Animus or Hostility Towards Charging Party’s Members, or that Any Administrator Attempted to Engage in Bargaining with Individual Employees About Grievances; Respondent’s Decision to Enforce Contractual Language Governing Employee Break Times Does Not Establish that Respondent’s Actions Were Discriminatorily Motivated; Although Anti-Union Animus May be Proven by Indirect Evidence, Mere Suspicion Will Not Suffice; Even if Charging Party Had Established Anti-Union Animus, Charge Would be Subject to Dismissal on the Grounds that Charging Party’s Member Did Not Suffer any Adverse Employment Action; There Must be Proof of an Act by the Public Employer Which Resulted in an Adverse Employment Action in Order for There to be an Actionable Discrimination Claim Under 10(1)(c).

C17 F-054

(no exceptions)
 

§10(1)(a); §10(1)(c); Adverse Employment Action