Opinion
Docket No. 14843.
Decided November 1, 1973. Leave to appeal granted, decisions vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration, 391 Mich. 814 (1974) Supplemental decision filed July 22, 1974. Leave to appeal granted, 392 Mich. 812.
Appeal from Employment Relations Commission. Submitted Division 2 October 8, 1973, at Detroit. (Docket No. 14843.) Decided November 1, 1973, 50 Mich. App. 382; 213 N.W.2d 217. Leave to appeal granted, decisions vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration, 391 Mich. 814 (1974). Supplemental decision filed July 22, 1974. Leave to appeal granted, 392 Mich. 812.
The Employment Relations Commission ordered the City of Pontiac to bargain in good faith with the Pontiac Police Officers Association with respect to certain labor issues. The city appealed by leave granted. Reversed. Upon remand for reconsideration, reversed.
Gregory, Van Lopik Higle (by J. Douglas Korney), for plaintiff Pontiac Police Officers Association.
Tolleson, Burgess Mead (by J. Douglas Dahn), for defendant City of Pontiac. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Francis W. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, for the Employment Relations Commission.
Before: LESINSKI, C.J., and R.B. BURNS and QUINN, JJ.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
An order of the Supreme Court in the above entitled cause dated April 18, 1974, and designated CR 12-98, provides:
"We grant leave to appeal and sua sponte vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 50 Mich. App. 382; 213 N.W.2d 217 (1973).
"On the authority of Detroit Police Officers Association v City of Detroit, 391 Mich. 44; 214 N.W.2d 803 (1974), we hold that a residency requirement is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.
"We remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration, in light of D.P.O.A. v City of Detroit, supra, of the question whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is a `mandatory', `permissive' or `illegal' subject of collective bargaining."
391 Mich. 814 (1974).
Pursuant thereto we have reconsidered our prior holding. Contrary to the language of the foregoing order, this case does not involve the question, "whether the continuation of a civilian trial board for policemen is a `mandatory', `permissive' or `illegal' subject of collective bargaining".
The question originally before this Court was
"Is the question of a civilian trial board for policemen a mandatory subject for collective bargaining when the city charter provides for a police trial board?" Police Officers Association v Pontiac, 50 Mich. App. 382, 383; 213 N.W.2d 217 (1973).
For the reasons expressed in our prior opinion, we affirm our negative answer to this question. We do not read Detroit Police Officers Association, supra, as a refutation of that reasoning. The question of a civilian trial board on the facts of this case is a permissive subject of collective bargaining.
All concurred.