Last month, the
Michigan Supreme Court struck the right balance between worker safety and
responsible municipal budgeting in the case of Detroit Fire Fighters vs. City of
Detroit and the related case of Pontiac Fire Fighters Local 376 vs. City of
Pontiac. These were complicated rulings on what might seem to be technical
questions, but these were important decisions for local governments that are
struggling financially. The Supreme Court applied the law properly and struck
the right balance between protecting workers and allowing local governments to
act responsibly.
The main issue in
both cases was whether Michigan cities can lay off fire personnel during binding
arbitration. The Detroit case arose in 2005, when the financially strapped city
restructured its fire department and laid off 65 firefighters. At the time the
city was engaged in binding arbitration with the Detroit Fire Fighters
Association to settle wage and employment disputes as a result of a collective
bargaining impasse dating back to December 2002. The Pontiac case arose out of a
very similar situation.
Under Public Act
312, which established the arbitration process for firefighters and police
officers, most terms of the prior contract — including safety provisions —
remain in effect until the arbitration panel makes its ruling. Citing PA 312,
the union filed for and was granted an injunction blocking the restructuring and
layoffs on the basis that the city’s changes would affect safety. The Supreme
Court reversed that injunction, allowing the layoffs to go through.
There are two ways
to look at a decision like this. The first is from a legal perspective, the
second is in terms of policy. In legal terms the cases hinged on the criteria
under which a court should issue an injunction — a court order requiring that a
party either take an action or refrain from doing so under penalty of contempt.
Among other things, before a party can get any injunction it must show that it
will suffer irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted. The "irreparable
harm" claimed by the unions consisted of increased danger due to fewer
firefighters; the unions argued that with a smaller fire department, response
times are likely to be longer and fewer firefighters may be available, making
their work more dangerous.
But while it is
plausible that these features might make firefighting more dangerous, there is a
certain amount of speculation in the union’s position: improved safety equipment
and practices could be used to minimize risk and personnel can be reassigned to
make more firefighters available for runs. A smaller department might make
firefighting more dangerous, but that isn’t automatically so, and courts should
not issue injunctions unless the risks of harm are more substantial.
As a result, the
court found that when local governments and unions are engaged in arbitration,
an injunction blocking layoffs or other changes on the grounds that they affect
worker safety should not be issued unless the changes are "inextricably
intertwined" with safety. The court rejected the union position that such
changes should be barred if they "arguably" affect worker safety.
In terms of policy
the court’s decision was a sound one. If the court had accepted the union
position, police and fire unions would have an effective veto over layoffs as
long as arbitration lasts — which can be years — no matter how dire a city’s
financial position, because any change in staffing or policy could "arguably"
affect safety.
Under this ruling,
unions will still be free to protect their members. Michigan cities will not be
able to change specific safety-related contractual provisions without union
approval, and unions will be free to object to changes as long as they can
produce sound evidence that safety will be compromised.
These are
hard issues: the safety of police officers and firefighters is important, but so
is sound management; when cities lose population taxpayers should not be forced
to pay for larger police and fire departments than they need. Layoffs should be
a last resort, but the ultimate responsibility for making that decision should
rest with the people and their elected representatives, not union officials.
#####
Paul Kersey is
director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research
and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint
in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center
are properly cited.
Post a public comment on this.
View all comments on Mackinac Center articles.
