Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME), AFL CIO, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Appellee, v

UNPUBLISHED July 5, 1996

No. 170606 LC Nos. 90-66841-AA, 90-66864-AA

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant, . and DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH. Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff Appellant, and OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYER, Cross/Plaintiff-Appellant.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME), Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Appellee,
v No. 170893

-1

` MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Defendant-Appellant, and DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, and OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYER, Cross-Plaintiff,

L.C. No. 90-66841-AA 90-66864-AA

Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Gribbs and C. O. Grathwohl,* JJ. PER CURIAM. This is a consolidated matter. In case no. 170606, defendant/cross-plaintiff Department of Mental Health, and cross-plaintiff, Office of State Employer (collectively referred to as DMH) appeal by right the circuit court order. The order vacated the decision of the Michigan Civil Service Commission (commission), refusing plaintiff/cross-defendant American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees' (AFSCME) request to classify employees of CK Homes Inc (CK Homes), into the Civil Service Commission(Commission). In case no. 170893, defendant commission appeals the same order. We reverse. The parties articulate several issues in this matter. However, the essential underlying questions are whether DMH and CK Homes are joint employers of the mental health employees at issue, and whether a finding of joint employment requires the Civil Service Commission to classify the employees in the state civil service. In this case, the Commission approved the Employment Relations Board's decision that DMH was a joint employer with CK Homes, but found that such a designation did not necessarily mean that the employees should be classified in the civil service. After a detailed analysis of the appropriate standard, the Commission held that CK Homes employees did not hold positions in the state service, and that classification in the civil service was neither required nor permitted. Both parties appealed to the circuit court and the trial court disagreed with the standard and analysis employed by the Commission. The trial court concluded, in a 2


lengthy opinion, that the Commission's refusal to classify the positions was unauthorized by law and unsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record.

3


This Court reviews decisions of the Civil Service Commission to determine whether they are authorized by law, and whether the decision is supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record. Const 1963, art 6,

Download AFSCME V CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.pdf

Michigan Law