Michigan Education Association v. Alpena Community College
Michigan Supreme Court
577 N.W.2d 457, 457 Mich. 300 (1998)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Several different unions represented employees working at Alpena Community College (the college) (defendant). The Michigan Education Association (MEA) (plaintiff) represented a unit of nonsupervisory office personnel, and building-service employees were represented by a separate union. A third union represented the college’s faculty. There were 30 employees working for the college who were not represented by any union. This group consisted of various employees with different job titles and duties, including different technicians such as health and library technicians; bookstore manager; parking attendant; biology-lab assistant; switchboard operator; and youth-corps program coordinator. In September 1993, the MEA sought to conduct an election to determine whether this random assortment of employees wanted to join the existing unit and be represented by it. The MEA filed a petition with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC), which ruled in its favor, directing that the election be conducted. The court of appeals stayed the election, reversing the decision of MERC. In doing so, the court of appeals emphasized differences among the employees. The MEA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curium)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.