| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Flint police union sues over contracts imposed by emergency manager, claims city violated arbitration rules
By Kristin Longley | klongley1@mlive.com
on February 07, 2013 at 7:30 AM, updated February 07, 2013 at 8:17 AM
FLINT, MI -- The Flint Police Officers Association claims the city's former emergency manager violated Michigan's binding arbitration law by imposing contract concessions on the officers, according to a lawsuit filed in Genesee County Circuit Court.
The union, which represents all of Flint's patrol officers, is seeking a temporary restraining order against the contract changes, which included a 5 percent wage cut, reduced retirement benefits and increased hours per shift, according to the complaint.
A hearing is scheduled for Friday before Genesee County Circuit Judge Joseph J. Farah.
The police union had been operating under an expired contract in 2010 when it entered binding arbitration proceedings with the city of Flint under the state's arbitration law, known as Act 312, the lawsuit says.
Act 312 governs such proceedings for disputes between Michigan municipalities and public police and fire unions.
The act states that: "During the pendency of proceedings before the arbitration panel, existing wages, hours and other conditions of employment shall not be changed by action of either party without the consent of the other."
The union's lawsuit states that then-emergency manager Michael Brown violated that so-called "status quo" clause of the arbitration act in April 2012, when he imposed new contracts on the officers.
"Once the city of Flint initiated Act 312 arbitration proceedings, it was required to maintain the status quo as it existed... with respect to the Police Officers' wages, hours, and other conditions of employment," the lawsuit says.
Flint City Attorney Peter Bade declined to comment Wednesday, Feb. 6, on the pending litigation.
Flint police Officer Kevin Smith, president of FPOA, said the concessions imposed on the officers -- about 28 percent, he said -- were greater than changes negotiated with or imposed on the city's other bargaining units.
"It was kind of like a bullying process," Smith said. "Fair and due process is all we're asking for."
Brown was operating under Public Act 4, the state's emergency manager law, which was later repealed by voters in November. The act granted emergency managers the power to make changes to expired union contracts under certain circumstances.
But the lawsuit claims that Public Act 4 did not supercede the law governing binding arbitration.
Eric Scorsone, a Michigan State University professor and expert on local government finance issues, said the powers prescribed to emergency managers under Public Act 4 did not explicitly address collective bargaining units in the process of binding arbitration.
"It could be an issue," he said. "The law is never quite that clear cut."
The contract cuts combined with police layoffs in recent years "not only affects morale, but also affects the officers' ability to perform their assigned tasks and adequately protect the public," the lawsuit says.
It also says the city's high crime rate and staff cuts have created a "wild west mentality" in Flint.
Attempts to reach the attorney representing the Flint police union were unsuccessful.
Several Michigan cities are currently under emergency managers, including the cities of Allen Park, Benton Harbor, Ecorse, Flint and Pontiac and the school districts of Detroit, Highland Park and Muskegon Heights.
The city of Detroit is also operating under a consent agreement with the state.
Kristin Longley can be reached at 810-429-5333. You can also follow her on Twitter @KristinLongley or subscribe on Facebook. |
|
|
Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:15 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Brown continues to violate state rules and laws. The deficit increases and the lawsuits are ongoing.
Too bad the union pulled a Republican Judge. May be an appeal. |
|
|
|
Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:17 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Judge denies restraining order but continues Flint police union case against forced concessions
By Kristin Longley | klongley1@mlive.com
on February 08, 2013 at 5:00 PM, updated February 08, 2013 at 5:04 PM
FLINT, MI -- Genesee County Circuit Judge Joseph Farah said he won't immediately reverse the wage and benefit concessions imposed on the Flint police officers union by the city's emergency manager.
At a hearing today, Feb. 8, Farah said he doesn't have enough evidence to show the officers would suffer "irreparable harm" if he didn't issue a temporary restraining order as requested in the officers' lawsuit against the city of Flint.
But Farah said the issue of whether Flint's emergency manager violated Michigan's binding arbitration law when he cut their wages and benefits is worth exploring, and he allowed the case to continue so he could hear further arguments from both sides.
"My heart goes out to these officers and I really appreciate the work of these officers," Farah said Friday, Feb. 8. "...(But) I'm not going to rush to judgment."
Farah said he hopes to reach a decision on the case within the next few weeks. Another hearing has not yet been scheduled.
The union's lawsuit claims that the police officers' wages and benefits should not have been changed by Flint emergency manager Michael Brown because the city and union since 2010 had been in the process of binding arbitration as governed by Public Act 312.
Act 312 has a so-called "status-quo" provision that says existing conditions of employment shall not be changed while arbitration is under way.
But in April 2012, Brown imposed about 28 percent in contract concessions in the form of a 5 percent wage cut, reduced retirement benefits, health care changes and increased hours per shift.
Attorney Norbert Leonard, who represented the police officers, said the state's emergency manager law did not supercede the binding arbitration law, which governs proceedings for disputes between Michigan municipalities and public police and fire unions.
"This unilateral imposition of a contract… has caused severe problems among the officers in terms of morale, etcetera," Leonard said. "These are some of the bravest officers I know. The only rights they have are these protections of Act 312."
Attorneys for the city, however, argued that the police union did not have rights under Act 312 because of the state's emergency manager law, known as Public Act 4.
Attorney John Clark also said the judge should not grant the union's request for a restraining order against the concessions because it would cripple a city already facing "catastrophic financial conditions," according to his legal brief.
"We don’t have the money," he said. "We only have so many dollars, that’s the bottom line."
Leonard said he expects to submit additional legal arguments in support of the police officers' position.
"These are the finest police officers, protecting citizens that live in the most dangerous city in the United States," he said. "No matter what happens in any court, I can tell you without equivocation the police officers are dedicated to first and foremost protecting the public."
Added to the mix is a new emergency manager law that is expected to go into effect in March. Under that law, emergency managers also have the power to amend collective bargaining agreements under certain conditions.
Leonard said he expects that law will also be challenged in court. |
|
|
|
Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:23 pm |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
