Oak Park Education Association, MEA/NEA v Oak Park Board of Education – 20.02

Oak Park Education Association, MEA/NEA v Oak Park Board of Education
Digest no. 20.02

Section 30 and 31

Cite as: Oak Park Ed Ass’n, MEA/NEA v Oak Park Board of Ed, 132 Mich App 680 (1984).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: N/A
Employer: Oak Park Board of Education
Docket no.: N/A
Date of decision: March 6, 1984

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The Public Employment Relations Act is the dominant law regulating public employee labor relations and where there is a conflict between it and another statute the Public Employment Relations Act prevails diminishing the conflicting statute pro tanto.

FACTS: Oak Park Education Association and Oak Park School District negotiated a labor contract containing a salary provision which provided that the salary of a teacher recalled from summer layoff would be offset by the amount of unemployment benefits received during the summer layoff. When the district sought to enforce this provision, the Association sought to have the provision excised from the contract asserting that it was in violation of Section 30 of the MES Act which makes unemployment benefits inalienable by any assignment and Section 31 of the Act which makes invalid any agreement to waive, release, or commute an individual’s right to benefits.

DECISION: The trial court’s summary judgment for the District was affirmed.

RATIONALE: The Public Employment Relations Act requires parties to those contracts within its preview to bargain collectively with respect to wages. The provision in question concerns wages and was the subject of bargaining between the parties. The teachers were allowed to collect benefits when unemployed. The provision provides for a partial waiver of salary rather than a waiver of unemployment benefits. It did not require the teachers to waive, or in any way restrict, their rights under the MES Act.

Digest Author:  Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 12/91

Hislop v Cherry Hill School District – 12.25

Hislop v Cherry Hill School District
Digest no. 12.25

Section 29(1)(b)

Cite as: Hislop v Cherry Hill School Dist, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Employment Security Board of Review, issued March 13, 1980 (No. B78 17083 66126).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Robert Hislop
Employer: Cherry Hill School District
Docket no.: B78 17083 66126
Date of decision: March 13, 1980

View/download the full decision

BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: (1) A claimant may not execute an enforceable agreement to waive the individual’s rights to benefits. (2) An ultimatum to resign or be dismissed because of alcoholism is a discharge for reasons other than misconduct.

FACTS: The claimant was an elementary school principal. The school district gave him an ultimatum to resign or be discharged for alcoholism. The Referee stated: “The claimant executed an agreement with the employer in which he resigned his position and agreed that he would make no claim against his employer, including benefits under the Michigan Employment Security Act.”

DECISION: (1) The waiver is void. (2) The claimant is not disqualified for misconduct discharge.

RATIONALE: The Board adopted the decision of the Referee, who held: “It should be noted that a claimant may not execute an enforceable agreement to give up his right to unemployment benefits under the provisions of subsection 31 of the Act.” “There is no question but what the claimant was going to be discharged for what the employer alleged to be misconduct under the Act: to wit his addiction to alcohol. It has been held on numerous occasions that alcoholism is a disease and as such cannot be the basis for a discharge for misconduct under the Act.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90