By Ed Jacques, LEJ Editor

On January 24, 2007, the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) filed an unfair labor practice charge against Lake County and its Sheriff. POAM represents the non-supervisory police officers employed by the County and charged that the employer unlawfully repudiated the agreement, in violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under Section 10(1)(e) of PERA, when they refused to arbitrate a grievance. The party's collective bargaining agreement expired on December 31, 2005. They began negotiating a successor agreement in August of 2005 and reached a tentative agreement on May 23, 2006. On July 19, 2006, POAM Business Agent, Pat Spidell notified the County's attorney, John McGlinchey that the members had ratified the tentative agreement. On August 10, 2006, McGlinchey prepared a draft of the contract that included a clause stating that the agreement would be in full force and effect until December 31, 2008. The cover page stated that the agreement was effective January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2008.

Spidell asked McGlinchey to make certain changes to the draft agreement, correct clerical errors, as well as including a proposed letter of understanding dealing with a retiree health care issue. Spidell signed the second draft on behalf of his members and returned it to the County on September 19, 2006. On September 15, 2006, the Sheriff terminated a deputy. On September 20th POAM filed a grievance asserting that the deputy's termination was without just cause. The County disagreed and denied the grievance. On September 25th, McGlinchey wrote the following to Spidell,

"The County and Sheriff intend to execute the successor labor contract. However, the employer wishes to make clear that by doing so it does not agree to any retroactive application of the grievance procedure/arbitration to the Grievant".

On October 12th, local union President, Ron Brown, notified Lake County's Board of Commissioners that POAM was appealing the grievance to the third step of the grievance procedure. The notice indicated that in the event the grievance was not satisfactorily resolved, the Union would request arbitration. McGlinchey wrote Spidell another letter emphasizing that the employer would not arbitrate grievances filed after the contract had expired. On October 26, 2006, Lake County Sheriff, Robert Hilts and Board Chairman James Clark, executed the contract and simultaneously reinforced the position to President Brown that the County would not agree to arbitrate the outstanding grievance.

Shortly thereafter, POAM filed an unfair labor practice with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) pointing out that all parties executed the contract, and stated that it was effective January 1, 2006, unless otherwise provided by the parties. The contract did not provide for another effective date for the grievance arbitration or just cause provisions.

In her decision and recommended order, Administrative Law Judge Julia C. Stern acknowledged that the County had clearly stated it did not agree to "retroactive" arbitration of the grievance. However, she stated, "Lake County subsequently executed a document which, on its face, appears to provide otherwise. I find that the grievance is arguably arbitrable under the parties 2006/2008 collective bargaining agreement. I conclude, therefore, that the Board of Commissioners violated their duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to submit the grievance to an arbitrator." POAM Attorney George Mertz was happy with the outcome but reminds members that "the issue of arbitrability of a grievance arising after termination of a contract remains dependent on the history of contract negotiations and interpretation of any subsequently executed agreement".