|
No. 132916
| Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376, |
|
Gordon A. Gregory |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Oakland - McDonald, J.) |
|
|
| City of Pontiac, |
|
Jonathon A. Rabin |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
International Association of Fire Fighters and the Michigan Professional Fire Fighters Union's
Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Association of Counties' Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan State AFL-CIO's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 and the city of Pontiac are parties to a collective bargaining agreement that expired in June 2004; the agreement is “extended automatically thereafter on a daily basis until a new contract is negotiated or ordered.” The collective bargaining agreement prohibits layoffs of bargaining unit personnel during the agreement’s term, although the agreement also states that notice of layoffs will be provided 14 days ahead of time and layoffs will take place in reverse order of seniority. As part of its deficit elimination plan, the city proposed to layoff 28 firefighters. The layoffs were announced to the union 60 days before they were to take effect. The union refused to accept the layoffs, and filed a grievance and an unfair labor practice charge with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission. The union also sued the city, seeking an injunction to prevent the layoffs. The union claimed that if the layoffs were implemented, the fire department would have to close fire stations, eliminate rescue units, and make other changes that would affect firefighter safety. The city responded that the layoffs would have no impact on firefighter safety, supporting this claim with an affidavit from the city’s fire chief. The trial court granted the union's request for a preliminary injunction and prohibited the city from laying off any firefighters “[u]ntil such time as all bargaining, contract and statutory procedures are exhausted such as compulsory arbitration under MCL 423.231 (Act 312).” The court held that the union would be irreparably harmed if the layoffs took place because the workforce would be reduced, fire stations would close, firefighters would face an increased risk of harm, and fewer firefighters would be able to respond to fires. The trial court also held that the union was likely to succeed on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split, unpublished per curiam opinion. The majority concluded that the trial court’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction was “within the range of principled outcomes.” The dissenting judge disagreed, concluding that the union failed to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm, because any harm could be remedied by traditional damages. The city appeals.
Top of Page
|
