Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

WAYNE COUNTY, Respondent-Appellee/CrossAppellant, v ROBERT J. SKRZYPCZAK, JR., Charging Party-Appellant/CrossAppellee.

UNPUBLISHED December 21, 2010

No. 292430 MERC LC No. 07-000092

Before: WHITBECK, P.J., and ZAHRA and FORT HOOD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Charging party Robert J. Skrzypczak, Jr., proceeding in propria persona, appeals as of right from a decision of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission ("MERC"), which upheld a hearing referee's determination that respondent Wayne County lawfully terminated Skrzypczak's employment with the county for reasons unrelated to Skrzypczak's involvement in protected activity under the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), MCL 423.201 et seq. Wayne County cross appeals the MERC's decision to the extent that it modified the hearing referee's decision by finding that Wayne County did violate the PERA by instructing Skrzypczak not to have further contact with Local 409. We affirm the MERC's determination that Skrzypczak was lawfully terminated from his employment, but reverse its decision holding that Wayne County violated the PERA. Skrzypczak was employed by Wayne County as a safety engineer. In late 2005, or early 2006, he was assigned to work at the Wayne County Juvenile Detention Facility to statistically analyze an increase in assaults by residents against staff in an effort to resolve that issue. Skrzypczak made several recommendations for changes in restraint procedures, but was told that those recommendations could not be implemented because of various limitations or restrictions that were applicable to the county's juvenile facility. Skrzypczak continued to push for policy changes at the facility, during the course of which he had conversations about safety issues with representatives of Local 409, the union that represented employees at the facility,1 and also

1

Skrzypczak was not represented by that union.

-1-

shared with those representatives information regarding the rates of assaults by residents against staff. Skrzypczak's activities created tension with staff and management personnel at the facility who believed that he was overstepping his authority. Skrzypczak was eventually removed from his assignment at the facility, and then later was terminated from his employment with the county. Skrzypczak subsequently brought charges of unfair labor practices against Wayne County, alleging that he was terminated from his employment for engaging in protected activity under the PERA. Wayne County maintained that Skrzypczak was terminated from his position because of unsatisfactory work performance, offensive behavior, insubordination, and because he was otherwise unable to perform his job as a safety engineer because he had lost his driver's license and had a felony criminal record. The MERC agreed that Skrzypczak was terminated for reasons unrelated to his involvement in protected activity, but also found that Wayne County violated the PERA when it instructed Skrzypczak not to have further contact with Local 409. This appeal followed. In Oak Park Pub Safety Officers Ass'n v City of Oak Park, 277 Mich App 317, 323-324; 745 NW2d 527 (2007), this Court set forth the applicable standards to apply when reviewing a MERC decision: MERC's decisions are reviewed on appeal pursuant to Const 1963, art 6,

Download WAYNE COUNTY V ROBERT J SKRZYPCZAK JR.pdf

Michigan Law