ABSTRACT

OMIZING FDR comm MEANING IN
MICHIGAN WION; 1965-1967

by (harles ‘1'. Schsidt, Jr.

2222
In July of 1965, Michigan's legislature enacted revised public

a-plcynent collective bargaining legislation which substantially altered
the employer-employee relationship in governmental Jurisdictions. (he
of the seriously affected divisions of government so changed was public
education, especially school board-teacher relationships.

his stuw attempts to identify the significant variables, actions,
svents, processes and actors which contributed to the massive, quick and
effective organisation of mchigan public school teachers (and other pub-
lic school employees) for the pun-pose of collective bargaining during the
tvo year period from July, 1965 to August, 1967.

no study is divided into three parts including (1)1he legal and
political background leading to the required environmental requisites for
revised legislation as well as the organisational dynamics which were ac-
tivated to achieve the desired changes; (2) A descriptive analysis or the
historical dcvelopants, intemal organisation, leadership profile and
evolving collective bargdning positions of the pundpal Michigan educa—
tional organizations; and (3) The results of teacher organisation drives
for exclusive representation including quantitative darts on the structure,

in." i523: or;

n“; as rant:

Erika
—&
in no 19‘ b

 

“”108 To Wdt, Jre

characteristics and nerthods of. detaining educational bargaining units
as well as comparative case studies of teacher organizing drives.

M3251
No one methodological approach could capture the variety of sources

of dsta tqped to complete the study. Methodology was therefore developed
and used Ihich in the author's opinion best suited the sub-section or
sicro sub-section under investigation. Basically, the methods include
legal, library, and archive search, personal interviews, nailed question-
naire responses, personally admlrdstered questionnaire responses, stum
of tapes, legislative hearings and reports, meetings, personal correspond-
eme, case studies and personal observations. However, the central meth-
odological approach must be considered fundamentally historical—institutional
in character not simply to recite an historical chronolog but to explain
both the evolution of present institutions and institutional arrangements
and to aid in predictions of future developments and comparative analyses.
Ihe data analysis and questiomaire surveys are considered supplementary
sources of intonation otheruise unavailable and which provide an additional
dimsipn to the historicalqinstitutional. framework.

finally, the scope of the study is of considerable depth and detail
for tic reasons 8 after only two years it is neither possible nor neces-
sarily desirable to separate the neardngtul iron the irrelevant, the in-
cidsntfrcuthe trend; and second, it is sandstorytc preserve for others
and for history as much of the original record as possible.

, h a .1
'22? inn: 5:: .
-—-———-——

air! is no i:
L". in ham,
1‘ 5%! men]. pc;
“4313, m 1;;
3° éd'lim 5.15

——__--_

“WW. In:

Kain 131': both .

3h. 6‘ ~..
IL“ ‘1' Pixie

3:: 1150: m;

'Eilc:

Emil

“L3 sippcrte

 

 

 

I" m» _
ban “5 *1

‘zad, 111.
“311.2. or

Charles T. Schmidt, Jr.

W

lhere is no doubt thct the efforts to organize for the purpose of
collective bargaining in Michigan education have been highly successful
frcu the general point of vice of the employee organizations, although,
obviously, scale uployee groups are are satisfied than others.

' To achieve tn. 1.3.1 protection required for effective organization,

a coabinttion of political, organisational, resource and leadership factors
were required. In this process the Michigan Labor lbw-mt exercised a
decisive role, both as an institutional force and in supplying the lead-
ership to the Public Wt legislative Gcmnittee. Further, sylpa-
thetic labor relations experts, principally the Mediation Board nenbers
and key staff officers were indispensible. However, both of these fcms
hadactively supportsdleflslativechangeinthepast andhadbeenunsuc-
cessful. It was not until the political composition of the legislature
was changed to give a Decoratic najority that success was possible.
Moreover, with the change in legislative control cane a change in leader-
ship as well. It is doubtful that Democratic control itself would have
beensuffldsntto effectuatethechangeifnewstrcngleaderahiphadnct
been awardsed within both the Senate and House. Badcally, this phase
of the organidng process (achieving the protective legalation) was a
labor snvenent effort. be Buoatien Association was active but ineffec-
tive.

Beaver, after the legislation was passed, an entirely different
pattern surged. be earlier Bastion Association challenge to the
Wailers of the legislation quickly dissolved, and that organisation

31-13. It as 3::

 

:11: focused its

‘11:: Bar-"less c
37315.32 “5 535.3

' .

t"W'l‘mnv "a a

“"“t d» in
84:10 win}; a:
to: radix! of '
’4‘“ main at

an 3316? Chat-J:

 

ca, 5“ ”action ‘:

”WW. an

22!: *A

'“V on;::

9,1! to h teach.

31's, 3.. .
”Em? the l

n‘,
u"

kfi‘e‘.‘

""“'*Ylly “a

s8:
dh‘fi‘aw
.hvr“ate “ 1
\‘r’
428 " tar-:1
u e 0‘
, fie“
lie
is in h
“V

it
N J. ‘
”t ‘5‘"- ‘
‘1 weQ4161-
V: 1": .'
(4‘2”,

Qiarles T. Schmidt, Jr.

quickly focused its masters attention upon the desirable features of the
new laws. It was prepared to begin intensive organizing and bargaining
efforts regardless of which proposals were ultimately supported. his
preparation was based upon the assumption that new legislation would be
forthcoming that in one m or another would require trained local lead-
ership to quickly organise for bargaining purposes. Further, the organi-
sation stmcture of the mm was an important part of the MEA's ability to
adapt to changing circunstances. Because its Board of Directors could
promote policy change in the interim period between representative assem-
blies, the reaction by the Board was quick and decisive.

Conversely, the m did not have the luxury of flexibility. Tied
to the Any-GIG organisationally, politically and philosophically, its
appealstotheteacherswerenot subjecttonodificationaswerethe
mu. W the MEA could initiate a nilitant response when required
or alternatively assume a ”reasoned” professional posture if the drum-
stances warranted, the MFT's organising appeal was rigid. Its legislative
and philosophical support was within organized labor, and it had specifi-
cally rejected professionalism in order to gain this support. Ewever,
as inappropriate as the M's response was, it did provide the m ac-
tivists a tangible opponent (a rival. in fact or imagination) which could
be portmed, where necessary, as the visible Justification for wilitancy
and change in policy and approach.

There is no reason to believe that the background and orientation
of the local teacher leadership played a significant role in determining
which organzation was to represmt the Michigan teachers. Insofar as

 

I

“a tease: c3332.]

 

min: at touts: '

.....; :L. rma‘i:

4.

a
e

“ T 3:12. have

I

I

 

1" lied ‘
dime: or 32:“
5" I
, .ra‘ “r ‘
S- l
a: Iq.’

23-; v.
“'60“ v".
86.‘3a
QC: ‘. a
a w
. 6Q*
a, v. ,
5. ma‘

Guarles T. Schmidt, Jr.

the teacher organisation activist profile represents a reasonable cross
section of teacher leaders throughout the state, there appears to be no
significant variation betwun MFT and MBA local. leaders. Most activists
probably would have supported and led either group, and it was only by
the accident of their district of mployment that caused them to lead
either organisation. 0f nuch greater significance is the 8111:11th of
their profiles which indicates that the important variables are not the
orientations and backgrounds of the local leadership, (or necessarily

how dedicated or hard-working they may be) but rather it is the organi-
sation, strateg, image and resources of the state level organisation

and its ability to mobilise these resource leaders that is important.

in obvious departure from this analysis is Detroit, whose leadership,
inage and resources are substantially stronger than the total state or-
ganisation. ‘me DFT did not and does not need the MIT-mother locals in
the state did.

he lack of flexibility and inept and non-political response is the
central characteristic of the employer organisations and certainly a major
cause of their early failures. It is clear, in all three parts of the
m, that the public employers in mchigan by their failures to respond
Ponflcflly, addnistraflvely or philosophically to changing enploynut
l‘Oil-fl'd-ortahips, have learned little fron earlier similar experiences by
their counterparts in private industry thirty years ago.
Farther, thelflchiganexperiencetendstcdisccuntmuchofthe

Wang that wlxite-collar professimals do not need ”unions", will
not organise, and will not support mamas. Further, it re-uphasiaes

a flier «Lime-I

" a“ . ' '

Charles T. Schmidt, Jr.

the earlier cvidenoe in the private sector that supervisors will support
organisational units formulated to bargain on their behalf if the required
protective legislation is effectuated. The Detroit and Hillsdale principal
and supervisory units appear certain to be only a beglming.

Finally, the MEi's dramatic, flexible and effective response to
changing circumstances should serve as a warning to the hierarchy of the
American Labor lbvement and a mdel for their own future organisational
responses in the white-collar professional field. Ebwever, it may be
such too late.

CL;

 

OWG FDR COLLECTIVE BAIBAINING IN
Elm “CHICK; 1965-1967

by

. ‘L
1

Giarles TJ‘tS-chddt, Jr.

A WIS

Subdtted to
Inchigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requireaants

for the degree of

1136103 0! PW
fillege of Social Science

June 1968

5 533,711!
///5/17?

Copyright by
Charles T. Schmidt, Jr.
1968

‘Dc Jean, George and Dan; a
sincere thank you.

 

 

 

 

PREFACE

nth the issuance of Executive Order 10988 by the late President
Kennedy in 1962, “the first [roan-a1] governmt-wide official uployer
policy on collective uployee representation" spelled out clearly ”the
right of .plcyees to organise, to have their organisations accorded of-
mm recomition, to be consulted in the establish-ant of personnel
policies and procedures, and, under specified conditions, to negotiate
agreumts with agency mags-at on working conditions. '1 Given this
policy, cther [governnmtal Jurisdictions] were forced to acknowledge
theinadequacy‘andinequitiesinthdromlegislationpertuningto
puhlic nployer-uployee relations. are of the first to effectuate
legislative change was the State of inchigan. In July of 1965, mohigan's
legislature passed node-eta substantially altering the euployer-esployee
relationship in governmtsl Jurisdictions from one of raster-servant to
one of equal partnership. Probably the nest seriously affected division

of movement service so changed was public education, especially school
board-teacher relationships.

 

 

iii

 

his 33:1? 1‘
m, tremor
kin craziest;
sizes) to: u.
932“ 310 In:
2nd 5! 5'» fact

wanting:

   

 

 

 

5343102131:

b («With

has
his study att-pts to identify the significant variables, actions,

nuts, processes and actors that resulted in the massive, quick, and ef-
fective organisation of public school teachers (and other public school
.ployees) for the purpose of collective bargaining in the state of
Mulligan.“ the massive scope and speed of the activity can best be illus-
trated by the fact that over 550 collective agrees-rte for prblic school
teachers were negotiated by January, 1968; the vast majority were achicved
imingthenrsttwoyearsafterthelegislativenendnmtswerepassed.

lire effectivuess of this organising activity can be studied either
intensofan analysis oftheprocesseswherebyteacherunits aohicved
exclusive representation or by viedng the contmt of the collective agree-
nnrts subsequentlynegotiated. This studywillbelinitedtc the former
approach, an analysis of the att-pts to organise for collective bargdn-
inginlnchigan education, within abcutthefirsttwoyears afterthe
legislative Wants (July, 1965 to August, 1967), although occasional
referencesrdllbenadeto laterdevelopleentswhmtheyappearilportant
for clarification.

nthoudr aw prinary intent is not the scientific test of hypotheses,
t basic hypothesis to both questions of effectivmess is: ”Collective
bargaining in the classical mu, and as generally conceived to be
Pruticed in private industry in the united States, is a satisfactory
P1300080 for the effective resolution of potmtial and actual conflict
bow-an boards of education and teachers in public edrrcafion; and, as a
P3390088. it can be transferred effectively from the private to the public
““0? 0f the scenery with little change in procedure and philosophy.

iv

' : f ‘v
“ tee. _‘
5:2: IS a - .
z "| .l i
V" 'A; , ,‘
1'- -«~:Cu¢e ..
fl,- .'..

NC ”30: 3.’

93.3531‘25 0? :-

a.-
a

a
I

u. .
u‘i ""F-n§'
o w :el.‘:0'l a;

 

 

.1... .’ ‘
J. l. ." {we 3”-
.V, .
.
I
i: e
.. 2:333 of .h;
t' b
1--
‘-

e _ 6' ‘
"‘5 'r .
‘J'Ee' ‘
W m. ,
‘h 'n to.

 

However, since the criteria for effectiveness are highly subjective
and there is far from unanimous opinion or criteria for judging the suc-
cess of collective bargaining, even in its 35*year history in the private
sector, the proof or dlsproof of the hypothesis lies basically with the
value judgments of the reader as he observes the evolution of this ad-
mittedly imperfect process.

Further, it is this evolution, itself, that is meaningful, not only
as an aid in understanding the developments in Michigan, but as a basis
for both prediction and comparative study of similar and contradictory
developments in other states. In this sense, then, the study is concerned
as much with the formulation of hypotheses as it is with solving them.

The Scope of the study is of considerable depth and detail for two
reasons: after only two years it neither possible nor necessarily de-
sirable to separate the meaningful from the irrelevant, the incident from
the trend; and second, it is mandatory to preserve for others and for

history as much of the original record as possible.

Methodology

No one methodological approach could capture the variety of sources
(fi’data tapped to complete the study. Methodology was therefore deveIOped
andtmed which in the author's opinion best suited the sub-section or micro
smrsection under investigation. Each approach will be explained where
necessary, in detail, within the text. Basically, they include legal,
library, and archive search, personal interviews, mailed questionnaire
"eSponses, personally administered questionnaire reSponses, study of

V

a, lagsh‘ we]

abduct;

13mg? ‘4:

 

312M: c! in;
’4?!) first 1;:

‘MV
I ,
if“: N53] Ci:
#4

“c @1363 l

tepes, legislative hearings and reports, meetings, personal correspondence,

cue studies and personal observations.

W

Mendy the scope of this study required the help and cooperation
of hnxdredsofindivhlnelsflhobeoameboth directly andindirectlyin-
volved. first and foremost were the teachers, school administrators and
school board officials Wt the state of Michigan and the spokesmen
for than: respective organisations, the MEA, MET, MSBA, NASA. and other
Public employers and uployee organizations—all of when gm urinal:
of their the and views in answering questions, completing questionnaires,
Ind pmflding intonation from their files. Ethher, this study could
not have hem undertakm without the mommagemt and endorsement or
Dr. Ira A. Polley, 9;:me or Public Instruction and the nohigan
statte Bond of Eincafion; 11‘. Jack Stieber, Director of the School of
labor and mum-1.1 Relations, nohigan out. mmw; Mr. Robert
Wt, Chaim of the mohdgan State Iahor Mediation Board and Idea-s
°1‘ the Mediation Board Staff, especial]: Mr. Ryan Parker and Mr. Robert
Plum-1a.. mummy, I an mum to the Industnal Relations Center
°~t the thiwrsity of Mmeaota, 1}. Herbert Hannah, Jr., Director, for
“king time available to oouplete the writing of the manuscript.

Also, itinenpleasnreas ateacher andnwgrafltudeas a'boss”
to hm been annotated with the following graduate research ”emu,
"hnicnts, and stndmt uployees who lurked under m direction on venous

Pea-ts of the study, many since its early inception! John firsoh, Jeff
Bum. Richard mute, Jane 81311, David England, ‘lbn butane-:7. J1-
v1

 

Earn, Ea So'x ch
«329.: and persu-

ai #3315; in t.

 

if» ..
1835:6041-
in?

Encore, mine Bobodmski, Al Poodym, and Jeff Gates.’ Without their
efforts and perseverance in the “nation of dusty files, records,

and Journals; in the adadniatration of questionnaires and the conduct

of interviews; in the coding of data and Clo-bugging of computer programs,
the study could not have been started, such loss completed. Moreover, I
think to all not consider the project an education in itself.

finally, I Iish to extend a special note of appredation to w Doo-
toral knittee for their advice and guidance throughout the manor stages
01‘ sq Doctoral program! 11'. Charles Iarrowe, Department of Eccmdos, who
served as w thesis adviser: Dr. lbnald Olmsted, Department of Sociology
who guided me through m course work and simulations; and Dr. tallies:
lbs-n, Deparhaent cf Sodology; 11'. marles Rulingsworth, Department of
Woe and School of labor and Industrial Relations; Dr. Melvin Segal,
W of Social Science; Dr. Bruce auto, Department of Political
science; and 11'; Robert Scigliano, Department of Political Scimce.
Rather than apologise to aw uife and feldly for their indulgence

dun-em the period of research and writing, I an more inclined to suggest
that we were .11 involved, all interested, and we all profited tron the
"patience.
Mush, all errors in fact, Judpmt, emissions and conclusions

‘1‘. line. ‘lhe positive features of the study belong equally to all of the
Ochtributors.

maneapolis, Mmeeota

Chle Scinidt J.
June,l968 arsT. ,r

[I
.i
.g,
t
'i

 

 

[I
7

TABLE OF CONTH 1‘8
Pm I. I“ AND POLITICAL BAGGPDUND

I. mmmONOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000... 2

{the Ian and Its Interpretation
Attanpts to dance Michigan Legislation

II. m EFFORI'S FOR INISIATIVE CHANGE: THE PUBLIC
mmmlsnmmum.............. 19

The PM
Cbntributions and Positions of the Major Labor
(hroups within the PEDC

III. THE mm IEISIATIVE POSITION OF THE KIWIGAN
WflON ASSOCIATION AND THE POLITICAL REPONSE OF
MPMCMWOOOOCOOOOOOOCOOOOOO.#1

n1. fichigan Education Association
'lhe Mchigan Municipal. league
'Ihe lichigan School Board Association

IV. m MIGIGAN W S APPmVAL OF NW PUBLIC
NWT mummmmos AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 63

lbs Public Deployee Hills in Gondttee

“me Role of Senator Levin

the Role of the Michigan Labor Mediation Board
Romney Signs the legislation

Sunny and Conclusions

rm II. HISTORICAL DEVEIOPHDI‘E, INTMAL OMIZATION,
IEADEEBEEP moms AND EVOLVING WILECTIVE DAMAINING
POSITIONS OF 1113 PRINCIPAL MICHIGAN
EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

vs mommaeeeeeeee'eeeeeeeeeee79
he lichigan Federation of Teachers
he mchigan niuoatlcn Association
StmctureandDenocracyattheIeveloftheIocal
TeacherOrganisation,Dl‘1'vs.DEA

viii

hie:

T‘-

e u" 0 er-
“abwl-u In."
”0".” A -I
shed-fl”: Jo...

E L..." “2

5mm

I"

 

Eéigr.

Mtge
he:

r-‘r 2:.

h 9"“. d
.3 JIM-“o
m:x7‘“I-L

Oink“... ‘

(i

an.

 

 

V1. Pm CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIAL BAQGIDUNJB 0F
mm OMMON WIS! WAYNE, OAKLAND,
mmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeee'eeeee 130

VII. WLBOARDANDARENISTRAIOROMANIZATIONS ....... 1146

mchigm Association of School Boards
Michigan Association of School Administrators
Sunny and mnclusions

PARI‘ III. In DRIVE FOR EXCLUSIVE WRESMATION

VIII. THE SEIECTION OF EXCIIJSIVE comm WING 66
WOCOOOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1

Legal and Procedural Requirements

Case Study No. 1; he Drive for Musive
Representation in Detroit

CaseStudyNo. 2; men-inform"
Representation in (brand Rapids

1!. THE QUBTION OF THE WHON OF PRINCIPAL AND 0mm
”mum”...OOOIOOOIO'OJO‘OOOOOOO. 196

Background

Gase Stub No. 3: Michigan Principal and
Supervisory tints

Conclusions

1. A sum 3m OFTHE STRUCTURE, CHARACTERISTICS, AND
WONOFMCHINNWWUNITS,
Ml965-mnl96700000000...,0‘0000.0. 211

Methods

Voluntary vs. contested Recognition of Bargaining thits
@npcsition of Bargaining [hits

Organisational Affiliates

“WOO'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 233
“Pm0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 21‘1

Emllm’R‘Pneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee'e-eeeeeee 331

I“

in: I“: 113‘
Y I e . I
scum.

. mitt]. 3c:
lit-13$;

9‘53“ his:
knees

man if"...

3?de: of I
1:55-35;

 

 

 

 

l': .
‘M as;

£1

LIST 01" mm

Appendix

A. Ten Iear list of fills Introduced in the Inchigan
mmmnOOOOOCOO......OOCOOOOOO2&1

3. Poliflcal tic-position of the lichigan State legislature;
19m9&0000000000......OOOOOOOO242

C. Public Employee legislative Gondttee: Attendance and
linen

c”......OOOOOOO'...O‘COOOOO.2u3

D. mchigan All—Clo convention Resolution, 196+ . . . . . . . . 2M

3. Synopsis of Woyee Relations Bills Introduced,
1955-1965eeeeeeecee.eeeeeeeeeeeeee21,5
F. MajorlegislativeActicnonl9651aborBflls.. . ... . . 250
GO Emanmemeeeeeeeeeeee‘eeeeeeee2m
He EuseBIllNoe2953......o...e.........259
I. HmerfllNo.2954....................259
Jo mm, “Cttumeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee286
II. Analysis of Home mm Nos. 2952» (Senate am 619) to
AnendthelbdiationActand2953(SenateBll1621)to
Amdthefirtcfinmhthymsoflaborlhflafion
h‘vldeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee288
Li mum. cfthemBoald Of Mr. see a e e e e e 301
H.‘ TeacherOrganisation mun-w Questionnaire . . . . . . . 301;
“0 nibhi"eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelee‘eeeeeee306
0‘ F‘vuri‘t.sprt'eeeeeeeeeeee‘eeeeeeeeee308
P. Teacher Statements Suggesting Reasons W new Became

Interested in Active leadership in Teacher
MMRMCeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 310

I

Appendix
Q WMdOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...... 31-6

R. Bamdninglhitmestiormaire......o........ 328

‘,;\

"I

z:

I

1‘. ,.

-gj'

 

 

17.

LIST OF'EABLES

‘8. eleeeeeeeeeeeeee

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

MaritalStatus..........
Nusbercffilildrm........
Plaoecfmrth-Respondmt . . . .
ParentsPlaoeofBlrth......
ascofibunWhereRaised . ...
WageEamingParentQudfication
Micationalehievmentoflbther
Encaflonallohievuentofll'ather

Nunberoanildrenin Family, Including Respondent
Number of Children in Fanily Attending College,

 

090......

Inmalmteeeeeeeeee‘eee
MM‘Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
mucatlonal Achievement-Respondent . . . . .‘ . . .

Portion of College Undergraduate) We Earned
Nunioeroflearscf Ibaching Rperience. . . . . .

Number of Years of Administrative (Above level of
Classroon'reacher)heri¢lce.. .. . .'. . .

Teaching Field and Specialisation
xii

131
132
132
132
133
134
134
135

136
137

137
138
138
139
1141

lkl
111-2

1"

[<3

 

breath I:

.1353 .
in»: of P:
1' i

...:e: of S:

:.
‘~o
$.11

.7
m PQMJ
Karin tag;
53-May,

1965-1967

 

‘Eiifizg 3
:‘uel,
it. {lg 1
Main.
51‘59: or m
an: s .- .
-1413,

55?! of 3a.»
Man
V0113”?

f». ,

“share. or
7‘4 ‘4
owl

Wasted Pa

in” at.
Jed-w:

22.

23.

25.

26.

Gan-out]: leaching (In Addition to Your Organisational

m..)000000000.00.00.00.00...

Nufloer of Professional Organisation Affiliations . . . . .
NmberofSodalOrganisation Affiliations. .'. . . . . .

Whats.
MIME muuon m. bfi by lbnth e e e e e e e e e e
mm m Of “mumn “a” . e e e e e e e e e

None-Voluntary Recognition—MIME Disposition of Cases;
1%HWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......

BargainingthitDeteninationuamary..........

Bargaining thit Type-Juli)» and Percent of Voluntary
mmmmmOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NunberofMHandledGasesAccordingto'Rypeof
MMMt,7/1965'6/1967 e e e e e e~e e e e e e

‘vae of Bargaining Unit Representation Achieved by

Specified Elplcyee OrgaMsations (Including both
VolmtuyandfintestedReoognition) e e e e e e e e e

Organisation Affiliate-Jab» and Percent of Voluntary
MmuommwOOOOOOOOOVOO:OOOOOO

Contested Representation Casey-Organization lmolveannt,
NufierandPel-cent of Casesinuhich Organisationm
MMtObOthOanmgAgfinte e e e e

143
143
144

216
217

218

220

223

225

23°

231

PART I

LEGAL AND POLITICAL BACKGROUND

D .." .
- .‘e I“
.‘-I‘J’ I»... a

e . . ‘
...-fl “ :. ..‘ " ,.
I‘e- ninflgcvw‘. .‘\:

ba“““ -
.
‘ee‘

.. ~
~' ....-._
- H
.... "fl' 3.-....1‘

 

as 'I. ‘

be "u ‘A c.- ......

...N‘ Me“ :
‘ e

..
~ -

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

In 1965, the State of Michigan became the third in the Union to
enact legislation reforming its laws affecting public employees. It
substantially amended Public Act 336 (as previously amended) to guarantee
that public employees may freely organize and join employee organizations
for the purpose of engaging in good faith, collective bargaining with
their employers in the codetermination of their wages, hours, and con-
ditions of employment. Thus, the state declared as public policy these
rights for public employees - rights and protections that thirty years
earlier had been declared as national policy for similar, but privately
emPloyed, workers in interstate commerce.

An analysis of the organizing and bargaining developments in
Michigan education during the two year period after the amended Act was
1Implemented must include an account of both the specific articles (guar-
antees, prohibitions, intent, and procedures) of the amendments themselves
as Well as the historical, legislative, and legal developments that led
t° the revised legislation. Obviously, a key element to this latter
“313313 is a review of the changing and developing positions of the
maL301' organizations, pressure groups, and individuals as they vied for
°r8€mizational, personal, and political advantage to influence the
°°ntent of the 1965 amendments. Without this detailed review, it is
fLmPOSSible to lmderstand and interpret the first two year's activities.

2

 

...
:‘ap‘
‘- ..

“9

. .

.‘Iv‘us‘

dug-finl' a ~
.4

SEW

. . .
OV‘QO‘ p‘l . ‘
a a .-
oms-g. 5... fl
.

’ .16 1713261115

"‘ “ b u; .
v.3 Q9 saga.

I
.“A..
s

Q

“0 v.
u A .
Uu.:o;."1, a _e_

 

25 r"... :C ‘l- 0‘ .
"\ .v -.g.

   

’V’ffac .' Q ...

uu-cbbvv, ‘0‘ ‘G-g-

~V‘. .L N
‘fi' ~

(I.

.u 'I.‘ ~
\
‘ ~5 A... g-v- a.
h

 

Moreover, meaningful predictions for success and failure, both in
wohigan and elsewhere, cannot be attempted without a knowledge of

all the components of the system; and, although some of these developed
after the amendments were enacted, many had their origins in the past.
Consequently, a central hypothesis both to this chapter and throughout
the study is that the practices, positions, advantages, weaknesses,
successes, and failures in collective bargaining in Ifichigan education
during the first two years had their genesis in the past, particularly

in the two-year period from 1963-65.

The Law And Its Integpretation
In 1911? the State of Michigan enacted Public Act 336, commonly

referred to as the Hutchinson Act, "An Act to prohibit strikes by cer-
tain public employees; to provide certain disciplinary action with
respect thereto; to provide for the mediation of grievances; and to
prescribe penalties for the violations of this Act. "1 Ihe law, based

on New York's Condon-Wadlin Act, defined the strike in toms of the in-
dividual employed in the government of the State or any branch thereof,
and imposed automatic penalties. Violation required termination of em-
ployment and abandonment of all benefits including pension rights, unless
the employee was later reappointed. Employees could act only through pro-
visions of Section 7 of the Act, which referred to Public Act No. 176 of
1939, commonly called the Bonine-Tripp Act or Labor Mediation Act (INA);

it enabled a majority of the public employees of a "given group" to

'7 w

lSee generally, 20 Michigan Compiled Laws, Annotated, 279 for
the provisions of the original Hutchinson Act.

   
    

o .
n. 0.. n-p‘
X:-:: we #--

.a . . .

"I. a~Oah§ u;
"‘ in: a-lw‘._-
an.

' I‘ ~e9~-... A
a
J-‘ " “Ween--.-

- . . ‘_-
“‘ lu- V"
u‘J ‘- k... ...e . -

. _ ‘
I. -.,~‘ _ .'-
e" a u

. I “‘-a-, $.-

" §
HI! c ...‘. _ -\
YN-v ie-Ik..s ’6'

"u.
.5.‘ r.

. . . .
3 "t - A.
3-“: . .

u. _ . ‘
.....‘22.:O‘ A! A“
",""-¢.vu Q.

s.
0‘

~.‘.
. ...
o
."
4.. . ..
l A‘
OVQC ‘k . ‘
44
1‘ ’"A‘-~_
... ...-us“ ‘5‘,
)l
.‘.‘.
‘22:“: : “ A -—‘
~~a .9“ '.

 

petition the Labor Mediation Board (Ll-1'8) for the mediation of grievances.
Thus, the Hutchinson Act was restrictive in its approach, and abundantly
clear in enumerating what activities were prohibited and what penalties
would be automatically imposed for violation.

Basically, however, this act was only a reflection of the common
law in which the right of public employees to strike had been emphat-
ically denied, and it represented a public reluctance toward having
public servants become involved in labor activities. But, as with any
law, its real character was shaped by authorities charged with its
interpretation and by the reaction of the public and those affected

by it.

Public Act 336 - The Hutchinson Act: Basic Provisions

The Ihltchinson Act's prohibition of strikes by certain public
employees and provisions for mediation of labor disputes involving such
uployees was further defined.1 A strike was "the failure to report
for duty, the willful absence from one's position, the stoppage of work,
or the abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithflll and proper
perfomance of the duties of employment for the purpose of inducing,
influencing or coercing a change in the conditions, or compensation, or
the rights, privileges or obligations of employment. "

No public employee could strike or approve of or consent to one or

more other employees' striking; the penalty was the termination of his

 

1Act #336, Public and Local Acts, 1947. This category included all
employees of the State of Michigan, in political subdivisions of the State,
in the public school service or any public or special district, or in the
service of any authority, commission, or board, or in any other branch of
the public service (Section 2, Act #336). This and Section 4a, Act #336
also applied to civil service employees insofar as the legislature could
control the employment policies of the Civil Service Commission.

u

a
'.'~?' 2.. 2,:
r ~0‘n' -0!- -
...-I

 

;&“ ...“ h: ‘00;
~.:. ~‘ e"
I

.-
...-. 10v-..

31.5- 359.. fi‘

...-,' ”-

 

(- .
4 ...... ‘ ‘9
I. 3..“ £0.“
.
...
n . ’~ 9 .
> ‘fln .“ .
ufid ' mun-e. " C.

...“.
.
.... 3 ~.
~:¢\ A .. ‘
‘\\I he *~e at."
..
|~.. .
. ~
& ’ an -
-' m at...
U
a." a“.
'\ i I. . ‘
N .‘§‘Cg‘ ‘
It's; ~
~ u "
-t‘.§: I.‘ .-c
we. ".'
.5.
o h...-_ I
"3‘3 2- .
a H A‘ .‘.e ‘

employment and any retirement or other rights attached to such employ-
ment. A public employee violating the Act could be reinstated (reap-
pointed) only on the following conditions:

1. His compensation could in no event exceed that received by
him immediately prior to the time of such violation;

2. The compensation of such person could not be increased until
after the expiration of one year from such appointment or reappoint-
ment, enmloyment or reemployment; and

3. Such person would be on probation for a period of two years
following such appointment or reappointment , employment or reemploy-
ment, during which period he would serve without ”tenure and at the
pleasure of the appointing officer or body.

A public employee discharged for violating this Act could appeal
to the officer or body having the power to remove him and if it was
determined that the employee had violated the Act, the employee could
then petition the Labor Mediation Board for review.

The Labor Mediation Board also was required to mediate disputes
involving government employees when a majority of a given group (as
evidenced by a sigled petition) or a public official in charge requested
mediation. Here, the Hutchinson Act and the Labor Mediation Act, Act
#176 of 1939 as amended, were interrelated, as the Board was required
to exercise the powers granted it in the mediation of other labor
disputes. Duing the course of mediation the Board could make written
findings concerning the matters in disagreement and make than public
if it felt such action would expedite a settlement. However, the Board
would direct the parties to proceed rather than make public findings if
the public employer party to the dispute had agreed, prior to mediation,

to the following procedure}

Within ten days the public employer and the petitioning employees,
would each select one delegate who would conduct hearings; the parties
were required to furnish all pertinent information within their knowl-
edge and control. If a recommended settlement was reached, copies would
be sent to both parties, even though such a settlement was not binding
on the parties. If they failed to recommend a settlement within twenty
days of their appointment, the delegates were required to designate a
mediator to aid in the negotiation. If they failed to appoint a mediator
within five additional days, the Board would do so, as the delegates were
required to make such a request to the Board upon their own failure to
act.

This appointee would act as chairman of a mediation panel, whose
other members were the two delegates. He would call a hearing within
ten days. Within twenty days after the hearing began, the panel was
required to send written findings and opinions to the two parties.

Again, a majority decision by the panel was not binding on the parties.1

Employees were not to be discharged for submitting a grievance
under this Act. Am? person not a public employee who instigated the
violation of the Act could be fined from $.00 to $1,000 or imprisoned

up to one year, or both.

Hutchinson Act inteQretations
From the beginning, public employers looked to the Act as a refuge

1Section '25, Act #176 (as amended). This procedure was spelled
out in the 1956 amendments. The delegates appointed by the parties were
allowed legal counsel during these proceedings.

x

i.. ...:p' C

no. It's--.
v:

 

:;V-“ o.‘_“'. ‘

.ngvob -... ‘.‘ .
.-

 

:““ I‘v- . _:
“t “ref-:9- as

. .
HI '
on
‘Io.e‘ ‘. .A v“.
V W C...
N ‘ .
c a ..
~ . ‘ W
~~n~| .-C,"‘l:
-... '
a
"J.
ear-"1;
a.
'Q—u 3" ‘

\4.‘ I J

-‘-. u
‘x ‘
u, 1 a
N... ‘3 :‘m‘ an».
' fl
“ I .
-, la a
'V '0 . .
“me " 0.
‘. "ao
\ '5

a G a
‘1 ht.
«.g.
1‘. Y
Q. .. .
.\ “(at i
'5‘. E Q.-
Q»... I
r.I
I I ‘
\‘ :u’ a
x . ‘
\. £ A: .
”-
‘5.
ha.
. ‘0‘“;-
., \
\x ‘,
v*'.
J‘.
I‘ ‘ n
"5 ‘Mn
‘U.ni ‘ ,
. in-
~-_ .
Q
‘2
. F-n.‘
"‘\~‘»
~ "
I
I.
"'4
\ a‘fln:
.,
3‘ ‘a’ : ‘\: i“
1‘ - .
w. a
I
0
’a
\. . ‘--.‘
. ' “\ N
"I ‘A \‘ 1'-
NF], \".
e i
|
‘1
K
o :a
".C5

from organized labor, for there was no legislative base for union activ-
ity. In June of 19% the first Attorney General's opinion under the Act
opened a small area of opportunity for the unions: "...Public officials
cannot insist upon mediating grievances directly with employees in their
charge. Public employees may, if they so desire, mediate with their
superiors through representatives of their own choosing."1 In this way,
a union appeared as representatives of employees who specifically au-
thorized it to act in the mediation of a specific grievance, but not as
the exclusive representative of all employees of a given unit. Indeed,
the law would not allow those public officials who were willing to act
through a union the right to do so. On a request for interpretation,
the Attorney General in 1952 issued an opinion that a county road com-
mission is not authorized to enter into a contract with a labor union
or to make it the sole bargaining agent of employees.2 Even the ques-
tion of whether the "employee representatives" referred to in the 1948
Opinion could be a union was not firmly settled until 1956.3
Nevertheless some few public employers did negotiate on an extra-
legal basis with unions.l+ The union would seek out the anployer, and
would ask to discuss not only grievances but also wages, hours, and
working conditions. If the employer refused, the union would have one

of its local members request an opportunity to be heard at the monthly

 

11cchigan, Attorney General Opinion No. 662, June 9, 19148, p. 538.

6:251chigan, Attorney General Opinion No. 1601, November 7, 1952,
PP. 9.

3Michigan, Attorney General Opinion No. 2588, August 11+, 1956,
pp. Mil-466.

“Statement by Robert Grosvenor (AFSCME), interview, June 23, 1967.

 

 

A. U

‘0:

 

 

public meetings of the governing body. The member and his union repre-
sentative would then argue for pay increases or other toms and condi-
tions of employment. If refused, they would return the next month and
in each succeeding month until the employer either stipulated to an
"agreement" for a certain length of time or was convincing in his re-
msal. The agreement might be a commission resolution, a council
ordinance, or perhaps simply a "gentlemen's agreement". However, none
of these agreements had any legal force. This form of negotiation,
which the union has characterized as "collective bargaining", yielded
28 agreements for the Michigan locals of the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees by 1957.

The next significant interpretation of the law concerning public
employees developed in the teaching field. In 1955, 101 classroom
teachers petitioned the Mediation Board for intervention in a dispute
involving salaries and other conditions of employment.1 The Board did
intervene, but against the protest of the School District of Garden City.
The District took the case to court where the following significant de-
cisions were rendered:

1. Teachers are considered public employees under the Hutchinson
Act.

2. The 1MB may mediate questions of salary under its authority
to mediate grievances since "The word 'grievances' must be read in the
statute in its generally accepted sense rather than as defined by usage

in some contract cases. We know of no grievance more likely to provoke

lGarden City v. Labor Mediation Board, 99 1w. 2d A85 (1959).

 

 

~.‘v
-

- H

Al

(I‘

 

the sort of dispute which the labor mediation board and P.A. 1947,
No. 336, are designed to avoid than those concerning wages or salaries. "
3. Supervisory employees-u-even though they are certified class-
room teachers--should not be included as part of the given group for
petitioning purposes.
1%. ‘Dle notion of a given group is that of a "unity of interests".1
Although this decision allowed for further involvement by a third
party in all of public employment bargaining, the mediation process was
itself rather unsatisfactory, both in its procedures and in its results.
First, it was a cumbersome process, invoked by a majority petition of the
particular group of employees or by the public official in charge of them.
Members of the group may indeed have had feelings of discontent, but
often employees with no legal protections were reluctant to put their
names on record.
The mediation process was altered twice in attempts to make it
more productive. In 1951+, a fact-finding procedure was incorporated in
Section 10 of the Labor Mediation Act, with referenced application to
the Hutchinson Act.2 Again in 1956 a more complex variation of fact
finding (which was rarely used) was amended to Section 25 of the IMPLB

3'16 problem may be summarized as follows:

Many problems arose in the implementation of the
legislations. Major parts of it were ignored. Public
employee representatives found it difficult and cumbersome
to obtain the signatures of a majority of the employees in
"any given group" for the purpose of invoking mediation.
Upon the filing of a petition, the Board was required to

1Ihid.

abich. Stat. Ann. 17.455(7)(1960).
3141MA, Section 25, as amended.

,l'!’

10

determine if a majority of the employees in the group had

signed it. To do so required a request to the public

employer for a list of the employees in the unit. The

Board adopted a policy of withholding the names of the

employees on the petition from the public employer for

the protection of the employees signing the petition.

This withholding was often resented by the public employer,

and the right to withhold this information was challenged

in court. The Board's right to do so was upheld. (Benton

Harbor School District v. Michigan Labor Board, Circuit

Court for Berrien County, Michigan, Docket No. 134241(l96o).1

Additionally, the discontent of public employees was increased by
the unrealistic action of some employers. For example, the mediation
process in many situations became an "exercise in futility because the
act provided no obligation on the part of the public employer to bargain
and no means other than fact-finding for the public employee group to
exert pressure on the public employer. "2 The employer finding refuge
in the no-strike section quite frequently refused to recognize employee
problems: "The [Mediation] Board found that many times the public
employer would send microofficials to represent it at mediation sessions,
who were without authority to make commitments and who were reluctant to
effectively recommend means of settlement of the dispute to the public
employer's governing body."3 The employer further frustrated his em-
Ployees in some instances by remsing to acknowledge grievancesh and

ignoring employee requests to participate in the decision making process.

11cc w. Walsh, "Michigan Labor-Management Relations Law: Past and
Present," Journal of Urban Law, 144 (Fall, 1966), p. 107.

Zlfllid” p. 108.
3Ibid.

“Jackson City local AFSCME, "Statement", iicldgan, Joint House-
Senate Labor Committee, Hearings, May 10, 1965.

 

 

  
 
 

...

 
 

...

ll

These deveIOpments were taking place at the same time when others in the
private sector were making substantial financial progress and were being

permitted to negotiate an expanding area of subjects.

Other Hutchinson Act Cases

One of the principal court tests under the repealed Act was a case
testing the Act's constitutionality. This question reached the Michigan
Court in l952 in a case involving Detroit Street Railway employees.1
The court declared that, as it was against public policy for a public
uployee to strike, the Act did not deprive such an employee of any
vested right and was therefore consitiutional. In that same case the
Court ruled that the City of Detroit was not bound to take back its
workers on the same terms under which they worked before the strike.

In other words, public employees who struck had no vested right to agree-
able terms of employment when they were reemployed.2 In fact, they could
be reemployed only on certain conditions.

In a l95h State Supreme Court case, it was ruled that a court of
e(Wity hadjurisdiction to restrain public officers from arbitrarily dis-
Charging a public employee who submits a. grievance to the Labor Mediation
Board. However, the mere implication of such a discharge is not enough
for court intervention. In this same case the Court ruled that the court
could not intervene to direct procedures to be used by the Board in

processing employee. grievances. The Board had exclusive

‘

t

This decision arose from a case involving the Flint Trolley
Coach Co. ‘

Detroit v. Division 26 of Amalgamated Assn. of Street, Electric

Railway 8 Motor Coach Employees of‘A'merica 332‘ Mich 2377 (1952).

 

1..

_-r:

I:

’t’

12

jurisdiction in this field.1

Earlier, in 1949, the State Attorney General advised that disputes
arising in mnicipally-owned utilities should be mediated under this Act
rather than by use of a special commission under the utility provisions

of the Labor Mediation Act.2

Attegm ts to Change Michigan legisw

1116 original Hutchinson Act, as earlier indicated, was modified in
two ninor ways prior to the 1965 amendments. In 1954 a fact—finding
procedure was adopted3 and in 1956 an abortive procedure was installed
to allow delegates to designate an impartial chairman to act'as fact
finder for the panel and recommend a settlement. hiring the last decade
there have been many attempts, primarily by Democrats, to change existing
law to the benefit of public employees: the activity has focused upon
improved mediation procedures giving employees the right to organize and
providing for compulsory arbitration; there have also been some attempts
at repealing Hutchinson and providing special procedures for teachers.
(See Appendix A for a list of the bills introduced into the legislature
dining the decade prior to enactment of the 1965 amendments.) The
efforts ‘from 1955 to 1958 were to alter the Bonine-‘I‘ripp Act by empower-
ing the ms to enter disputes on its own motion and to allow the governor
to submit the dispute to a special comnission if it were not resolved

lWithin thirty days. From 1957 to 1965, Demcrats sponsored legislation

—_~

lGaidamavice v. Newaygo Board of County ibad Commissioners 3&1 Mich
280 (1951+).

Zlfichigan Attorney General Opinion #1124, December 13, 1949.

Bifichigan Stat. Ann. 17.165 (7)(1960).

.h

’2

13

that would permit uployees covered by the Hutchinson Act to form, Join,

or assist in labor organisations and union activities. Oomptisory
ermtrsdon was first introduced in 1959 and from 1961 it was perennially
sponsored by the fire figure mioml

Qmourrently, private sector bills were being advocated by De.-
oorats-Jlittle Wagner“ bills go back to 19555 legislatively, sole of
the Moose problems with mediation were first approached in 1937.
KonseHJJI98 advocatedthe mu extension ofthepmvidons ofthe
mitopublio uploywees, andsdditionallyitwouldhaverenovedthere-
quiraamts oranofnoieleleotionpriortoestnkemdwouldhfledis-
missed the legal field» of oondnoung strike votes as required for a
represmta‘lion electiomz However, further pursuit of the procedural
problem of the m wdted until 1963.

In 19623 Republican Governor George Romney appointed two of his
Political dds, Malcolm B. Lovell, Jr., and Robert G. Hewlett, to the
Mediation Board. Mr. Iowell, who had been Romney's fen-er industrial
relations mtive at herioan Motors Corporation, was appointed Quir-
Iln.“ Iowall, seeing some of the procedural mum of hospital ae-
plnym, who required special eo-isaions appointed by the Governor
t“immuneatl.‘.l.<l:|.spnrtes, andthestriioevoterepresentetimeleotions,

mdwhobelievedintheproprietyofelloungpubliomyeestobergein

    
 
 
  

38”, mfihes ”l.‘;!.__f.'_‘! 1.5.-LL.‘.._. '- - -' _° . .
not 1m311mmthedeteototfllme, onlythedeteinwhiohthetem ems-e.

“Interview with man members, July 11, 1967.

drink, set 0::
2h: legislation.

1!“! 6.101.115

 

25m; lilo-tibiae;
r2: solve the ban,
iii!“ of the legit:
it! limit: of
if! 359153321”, I}
3‘ 391ml Direct
“2‘“ ”floor :2:
ii“ towers d...
“W nah ma;
3' 355m lining:
in Win ml
30 l’giilitioj
Wm Fame
1% "9°“- It t
”it? the m m

 

11+

collectively, set out for the tint coordinated attack to revise mchigan
labor legislation.

After clearing his views with the Govemor, Iovell organised an
informal “blue-ribbon ca-ittee” to develop legislative proposals that
wouldsolvethebaxlclaborpmblass ndimqfltiesandwcfld obtainthe
mpport of the legislature. Enlisted for the committee were: hissell
hith, university of lohigan; held bughton, Wayne State Uriversity;
Wayne Stettbacher, 1m. hployer Association of Detroit; 'nlonas anell,
m Regional Director; Alfred lbrtim, an attorney; mun Parker, (bier
lediation Officer m; and the Board W. Iovell devoted serious
merges towards developing a consensus bill. He or Ibwlett personally
contacted such vital]: interested organsaticns as the Michigan Aim-CID,
the Inchigan Municipal league, the mohigan Sdlool Board Association,
and the mains: Mucation Association to rally interest and support.

he leadation finally introduced was based in large measure on
the lusconsin Public Emloynent Relations Act and a New York State con-
W report. It cmsisted of a package of two apparate bills, one
matheMandtheothea-thefiutchinsoniot. Theanendnentsto
the nu (3371+ and 8.1111) were designed to accomplish five specific
Koala: (1) to upower the m to conduct represurtation and desertifica—
tion elections, (2) to bring hospital .ployees within this procedure,
(3)1» authorise the Board to detenine baa-gm units, (u) to provide
‘0? at Special procedure to settle disputes for pmfudcnal teachers,

"'1 (5) to eliminate the embers“, seldom used dispute settlenait pro-
Oedure.1

¥

Bo lstrtclunt of: Malcolm a. Iovell, Jr., Claim of Labor Mediation
0d. Lao w. Walsh, Board Halber, and ibbort G. Hewlett, Board Masher,
Senate Bill. No. 1111.

15

he argmaents for these five proposed changes were as follows:
Although the LEA did not provide for a representation election procedure,
the IMBhaddevieed apaocednre albsequmflyappmvodbytheIichigen
Soprano Court} whereby the representation issue was posed as a strike .
vote question. his was a ounbersoae passes and began collective bar-
gaining with a face-to-face legal contloversy. 2 Further, according to
the ensuing legslaticn, hospital .ployoes were not allowed to strike3
and the special hospital oedesions cost the state $1,000 with the nest
likelyrecc-mdndnntocalltorarepreeeutafionelecticnbythe IMB.
he elecfion procedure proposal was patterned after the Wagner Act pro-
cedureemceptthatthethirtypercentralewastobeadoptedlegsla—
tively. Also suggested was legislation cabling the Board to deter-ine
theappuopriatebargMnthinordertoinsureuployeosthemll
benefit of their right to self-organisation and collective bargaining.“
hid finally, a unique provision would have provided a special dispute
moedure for professional teachers. As enpldned in a report by the
Board:

menswlanguagewasincludedinourproposals atthe
request of teachers' organisations when it appeared that these

"' “oi.

1mm, p. 2.

“

2thid.

he legislatively provided machinery also covered public
Ifllity sputes. ‘nie Board's power was almost completely elininated in
1955 when the 11.8. District court tor Westem Michigan held that the
Jurisdiction belonged with the N.L.R.B. Grand Rapids city coach lines.
Inc- v. Elflett, 137 F. Supp. 677.

am, Po 7e

 

crawler-.5
{3:250 3.1.11 5':
Edition Act
tags: in the
the labor ltd.

be: to: repress:

2358? Me: dis“

   

“96:91 h m
”fihdeletod t:

umhmnsod

16

organizations would favor an enendnent to the Hutchinson Act

(House Bill No. 375). the Hutchinson Act and the Labor

bdiation Act dovetail into each other; hence the proposed

changes in the Hutchinson Act necessitated this amendment in

the Labor nediction Act.1
kcept for representation elections, the DB would have been authorized
to reterteacherdispctestothegcvernortmowouldappoint athree-
Ider panel to act as fact finders. Additionally, the proposals
would have deleted the dispute se'ttlunlt procedure, adopted in 1956,
whichhsdbemusedcnlyoncesinceitwasplacedinthelaw.

In the public sector the Etchinson Act proposed revisions (H.B.375)
were are substantial. first, the bill recognised the right of public
uployeestoorganiseandtobargdnuththeirpuhlicenployersthlough
representatives of their own free choice. Second, it provided for em-
clusive representatives of the umloyees, who made a majority deter-
linaflon. bird, the bargaining unit detenination and election proce-
dures established in 3.3.3?“ were also included in this bill. burth,
Ilplcyeerepresmtativesontheiromnotioncouldrequestthatthem
Iediate grievances. fifth, certain unlawful acts by m m
fillin- to unfair labor practices were enumerated. Finally, it was
Wthstapuhlic—ployershallbargdnccllectivelywiththeduly
floated uployee representatives.

bees provisions were to be enforced only through the courts.
Apparently the cod-ittee saw this stipulation as favoring passage, for
in its report it stressed this points

None of the _proposed administrative changes vest in the
[hborhediaticnj Boardmnorepcuerthanithasatthe

1% s P0 6-

1?

presmt tine emcept the timing of representation elections

and holding decertification election. ....Ehforcement of the

Act, induding prohibited practices which in several respects

are like the unfair labor practices of the Federal law, is

vested in the Circuit Courts. We believe the procedure is

correct—that enforcenent power should be vested in the

Circuit Courts andnotintheBoard. Theenphasisunder

the mchigan law is on mediation, but in Michigan (unlike

the situation in sons states) a single agency exerdses both

nediation and labor relations powers. If we had enforcement

powers, it night he her-fol to our mediation function.1

Althoughthebillshadthe supportofbothMalcolnIovellandthe
DB, theywerenotenacted. nae-flderanendnentstothemApassed
onlyinthemuse. 'nleyfailed sinplybecauisetheycculdgdnnoone's
support. labor found the bills too weak: the penalties in the Hutchinson
annadnents were not ameliorated, the unfair labor practices were not con-
plete and were mforoeable only through tine consuming court processes,
andtheteachers' unionwasnothappywiththe special procedures. no
Michigan Education Association which had been extensively courted by
Iovellcouldnotgainintemalagreenentastothe advisabilityofpladng
the profession in the context of bargaining. he Association had not yet
achieved its later filitancy and continued its intmse rejection of the
ideacf collective action» Its Board of mrectorsbya split vote re-
docted support of the proposals. 01 the other hand, the public uployers,
u representedbythelflohigan Municipal League, also rejectedthepro-
Poaalsbyasplitvote. Byandlargetheleaguewaswhollyagainstthe
notion of. exclusive representation and the duty to bargain, and consid-
Ol'cd it a challenge to their legally constituted authority to represent
1leOlmhlic. nusrejeotedbythepowergroupsonbothsides ofthe

1mm. the hdllc died.

~

1% 9 P0 90

 

p
L.

l8

Ext the efforts of the Codttee and the D43 served to focus
attenuon on the problus of the oblolots 1051318121011 and pointed
out the focus of needed change: (1) a poor system for representa-
tion elections, (2) recognition for public employees only at the
shin of the employer, (3) no legal right of contract for public en.-
ployees, (4) no workable neans of dispute settlement, and (5) harsh

“Claus

CHAPTER II

RINEN’ED mars FOR LEEISLL‘I‘IVE CHANGE; THE
PUBLIC MIDWT LEW comm

The 1961} labor amendments had been sponsored by a few Republicans
who, becmse of their governmental positions and their labor relations
backgrounds, recognised the problnas of the existing legislation. Al-
thoughtheywerenders ofthenaJority party, they failed to gain
support, notwithstanding that their proposals were very much in line
with accepted standard practices in the private sector. niece were
tpparentlyconddendfartoormludonalywhenappliedtothepublic
mono-mel- relationship.

The political situatim in Michigan radically changed by the
rail of 1961;. [' Appendix 13:] 1h. Novemer 10th general elections
"011*: the Democrats into control of both chambers of the Michigan
I'd-attire for the first tine in thirty years: their margin was 73
to371nth.Booneandzatol'zinthesenate.1 Minterrelhted
rm" ‘Ppear to account for this change. First, this was the first

Michigan election held under a reapportionnent plan directed by the

‘

fiche W

19

He.

20

0.8. and Inchigan Suprue Courts in June of 1964.2 Second was the effect
of the concurrent, landalide victory of President Iyndon Johnson. Both
are inortant, for apportioment itself probably wc‘fld not have brought
as large a Deencrat victory. A comparison of the results of the 198+
election with those of the 1966 state electionz makes evident that some-
thing lore than apportion-lam swept the Denocrats to power.

Seeing that an apportioned legislature would increase the chances
for the enactment of favorable labor legislation, labor united its fac-
tions into an offensive force. 'Ihe idea for a united union effort was
initiated by three people: Robert Ropes, a Michigan State University
professor, apparently was one of the first to broach the idea with

Idlerles S. Riyne, "State-By-State Summary of legislative Apportion-
ment (as of m, 1964),” a rti : Xe Power
HowaldD.HaId.lton,editor Newlork: Harperibw,19 p.l . 'nie
statenuit reads in full:

In 1963, mchigan held a constitutional mention and
adopted a new constibltion. fills new consdtution included
new apportionment provisions according to which the seats
formla considers factors other than population, while the
house apportioment is on strictly a population basis. Elbe
Mchigan Supreme Court had previously held that certain 1952
”Institutional amendments were invalid under the burteenth

to the 0.8. Constitution. However, Justice Stewart
01’ the U.S. Slprene Court had issued an order stating the
redistricting order of the Michigan Court. A legislative
apportiommt condttee was appointed to prepare a district-
138 plan. he condssion could not agree, and the proposed
distracting plans were subedtted to the maigan Supreme
Court for their decision. The Michigan Supreme Court in-
flected that it would make no decision pending further
Sufi-dance from the decisions pending before the U.S. Supreme
00m. The Supreme Court acted in June, 1961». on J1me 22,
the lflchigan Supreme Court accordingly ordered into effect a
mPPOrtioment in which districts for both houses were laid
“It on the sole basis of population.

2it.
HousewasevenlydividedandtheRepublioanshadazo-lB
“month‘smue

21

Bill Marshall, Michigan Ans-CID Vice President, in 1961‘; and Dave
Williams and lbbert Giosvener, both professional officers in the
lichigan mam Council 7, also quickly approached Marshall.1 heir
MmtoMtelaborforthenrsttimebehindonelegslstive
pioposal ratherthantope:dt eachunion to promte its own pet

projects,asallhadinthepast.

 

‘Do effectuate the desired coalition, Marshall, after consultation
with Gus Scholle, president of the mchigan AEL-CIC, called together
asveral key leaders of public employee unims for a June planning ses-
sion. nieseattendingagreedtoseteaidetheirdirrorencesandto
support the coalition proposal. he first official organisational
looting was held July at, at the Detroit headquarters of the AIL-CID.
Wurstwelvemion represuitatives fronthe AFSCME, the lire
fighters, Teachers, Folios, the‘ Building service Employees, and the

““0 man. be following organisational business was transacted:2
(1)1110 conittee was named the Public Ellploynent legislative Co-iittee
(PM): (2) Assessments at the rate of $200 per organisation had yielded
32.000; (3) Henry lime, president of the inchigan Federation of Teachers,
"Imam to draft a resolution asking the mchigan m..c10 convention
“1' “mart: and (a) Marshall was instructed to cominicate with and
“(mm the services of Attorney Ted Sachs to draft a "Little wagner Act"
for ”lie .9101”!-

;

lhmr, M“, 22’ fie

ZWc Eaployee Legislative Comxtee, PEDC Inmtes, July 215,
195“: Pp. 1.2.

(4'

If'

I-'

22

roe codttee moved that their objectives be: "To secure full and
equal rights for public employees in the field of organisation and col-
lective bargaining and to ranve public uployees from second-class
citisenship in uployerbenployee relations'.1 In a separate motion by
noon representatives, the following objectives were specified :2

A. 'Ihe right to organise

B. be right to petition for elections

C. lhe right to define bargaining units

D. be right to sign agreements

E. Mediation and fact-finding procedure (to be made binding)

1". Identification of unfair labor practices

G. Prohibition of conparv unions

H. Ithe use of labor nediation as a guide
In his letter to Attorney Sachs, Marshall amplified the Conedttee's
feeling toward dispute settlelnent procedures (point "E" above).3

In regards to arriving at a final adjudication of a dispute

after the collective bargaining process had been utilized, it

was felt we should incorporate arbitration procedure or to have

final and binding fact-finding procedures through the Iabgr _

Medation Board. filhe overwhelming consensus of opinion L 52.,

of the delegates partidpating seemed to be thst fact finding

through mediation mold be not acceptable to the public.
he. tree the beginning, the PELC participants favored some means of
third party, terminal settlement procedure.

he first full nesting of the PEG was held on December 15, 196i}.
‘ m“115-118 executive committee meeting was held by those who participated
1" “1° My nesting, and all other potentially interested unions were
invitedto agnreralafternocnmeeting, whichincludedthel‘eansters,

'59 “‘0 not embers of the Ail—CID. Matters of general concern to labor

laid.
2%,
3nd.

“a
or

2!

Al"

Al

23

«as opposed to just public employees—were discussed and voted upon.
Voting was opal to all rather than restricted on a union or proportional
Inbershlp basis; apparmtly, anyone attending the meeting could vote on
all. the issues. A sample revisit of the official union piblications in-
dicates that the PEG proceedings were not publicized and the rank and
file were probably unaware of the proceedings.

At the naming executive ooamittee meeting ”Attorney Sachs told
the delegates that, while the prospects of labor legislation are good,
thereisconcernwhetherthegovernorwill signthon."1 Hewentonto
count thst, in order to prevmt "cries of radicalism", he had drafted
the proposals so that they would parallel federal law. It also seemed
nore feasible to him to m the two present statutes; the Labor
Mediation Act and the Hutchinson Act, rather than to propose new laws.
“Re carticned that, if an atte-pt is node to get a 'Little Wagner Act',
we nay wind up with a 'little Taft-Hartley Act'. He felt [that] it was
unrealistic to get a Little Wagner Act in 1965. '2 Regarding compulsory
arbitration, Sachs said that there was no compulsory arbitration any-
whereinthe countrymdthat, ”Wisteverwedowillbeappraisedby

others in light of what has or has not been accomplished elssllher-e.”3
. lbur separate proposals were presented to the delegates. Each is

mariaed belowxn

 

lane, innates, Dace-hr 15, 1965, p. 3.
2nd.

% a PP- 1'20

I?

24

'Redraft with substantial tightening and improvement

of bills introduced last year with the sponsorship of the Iabor

ation Board, Reprg sentatives Waldron, Van ill, etc.

33..37..tandHB375_/. llidsis substantiallyananaidmentto
the Hutchinson Act to declare basic organzational and
recognition rights of public uployees with corresponding
duties of public uployees.” It establishes (1) the right of
public uployees to fern and join unions; (2) a violation for
m public uployer to interfere with the enerdse of collec-
tive bargaining rights; (3) provides for representation elec-
tions and procedures under the auspices of the LMB to determine
the sole bargaining representative; (4) sets forth the duty of
the public uployer to har‘gainm‘i in good ffith on wages, hours
ani conditions of uploynent,and (5) nandstos that he execute
agree-nits in writing, if requested.

ibis updates and improves 3.3.371! of 1961},
providing private intra-state uployees the coverage of Proposal
I. It allows questions of representation in hospital disputes
to go to the H18 instead of a governor's commission and deletes
the seldom used special tri-partite panel.

'AbilltoanendtheflutcbineonActinver-ymdest
form." It fines a strike as concerted activity rather than the
thaicurrmtlanguagewhichreadsthatonepersonnaybeonstrike.
'nlerighttostriheishowevernotdenanded. 3owcver,judicial
roviuispaovidedmdthelouofpendondauseisdeleted.

Makes violation of these acts unfair labor practices,
enforceable by administrative procedure. It was fashioned after
Taft-Hartley with some adaptation from the IMB. ”Ideally, these
functions should be separated and a new agency set up but there
is the problaa of the added expense. Such an agarq would need
top lovel hearings officers, attorneys, etc. It was felt best
to work within existing administrative fro-rework.”

In the discussion that followed, some favored oaritting a provision

encludingststedvilserviceelployees (whoareexcludedbythe

mchigan Constitution), expressedconcern at givinguptherightto
strike, undaslcedthattheentireButchinsonActberepealed.1 me

Detroit i'eachers' Federation representative indicated:

Ithasbeenaistonaryfor supeglntgdentstonegotiate
forallenployeesofthatunitandLsheJaskedifthis

 

1min a 3.

')I

.k'

I}

.1.’

25

language could be construed as meaning this would continue.

Attorney finch; replied that it would not; an organization

suchasLtheJ MEAwouldhavetherighttobeontheballot

but supervisory personnel {cold not have the right to par-

ticipate in that election.

Later, specific co-ittee action was taken on several questions
including granting to the hecutive mdttee the authority to deter-
dne whether civil service uployees ought to be mentioned in the bill.
finally, after a mess for delegates to caucus, the question of cost-
pulsor'y arbitration was put to vote. It was moved that the PE'LC go on
record in favor of the proposal drafted by Mr. Sachs, ”lire method of
presenting this legislation, i.e., as part of the bill or as a separate
bill, shall be left to the discretion of the officers, Attorney Sachs,
and the Execuflve Couttee. ”2 Perhaps sensing a serious split, perhaps
pushing for the notion, several key leaders expressed their hopes that,
once a majority decision was node, those in the minority would at least
not work against the legislation. With 61 people in attmdance, the
notion passed 38 to 7.3

llireedaysaftertheDecedierPEwneeting, aspecial subcoditee
net with the Labor Mediation Board to present the position of the PELC.“
Although there is no evidence that support was pledged, Hoflett is re-
portedtohevestatedthattheIMB'wouldbeveryhappytowrkwith
Attorney Sachs and would be available for any help or consultation that

night be requi.red."5 It was agreed at the conclusion of the meeting

 

1m, p. 1!.
23151,, p. 2.
33nd... p. 3.
“mi.

5nd.

26

that this had been very helpful in clarifying the positions of both
parties.I

Obviously there was considerable correspondence between Sachs and
various interested parties. By January I8, 1965, the final draft of
four bills was completed.2 As presented to the January 28th PELC ses-
Sion, the three-pronged approach suggested above had been chosen, and
an omnibus alternative was also suggested by the AFL-ClO's Committee
On Political Education (COPE).

There were 58 members present at the general meeting on January 28.3
This was the second and final general PELC meeting. Its basic purpose
was to conmunicate to the membership the content of the proposed legis-

iation.

Marshall explained that the Executive Comittee had revised the

Ibid.

 

2Correspondence, Theodore Sachs to ACLU of Michigan, January 18,

1965.

3
PELC, Minutes, January 28, l965-

 

I.

.1

fl:

27

Madonforanemhusproposal although mPEaswell asthefull
PM had earlier advised that it be introduced. Marshall also related
tint COPE had subway reviewed the proposed legalation. Appar-
ant]: the FELC Eleoutiwe Gouittee had dedded to use the discretion
“filtered on it by the Dacefler assembly, for Marshall explained that
COPE now concurred with the wishes of the PELC regarding the submission
of l separate compulsory arutration 11111.1 Apparently, the PELC leader-
chip was mad that tying arbitration into the other bills night defeat
tho entire package.

the revised omhls bill carried forward the basic provisions of
the National Labor helations Aot,2 excluding supervisors and including
whale alployees. It included all of the major points discussed at the
first amoral nesting W But
11'- mt somewhat further: (1) It provided tor a separate Michigan
bassoon Service and a labor Relations Board, (2) It repealed the
Hutchinson Act and the anti-strike provision, and it guaranteed that
”therightofh‘eespeechshallnotbedeclaredanunfairlaborpraotice
unless it [59:] contains a threat or reprisal or force or prolise or
bulletit.3 In discussing this legislative approach, Sachs was are prac-
tical than com ‘11.! he stated that, ”It the fire becomes excessive on

theoudhusbill, ajudgnentullhavotobenadebythoseonthefiring
has.”

1

m: P. 1-

2%., Pp. 2.“.

3mg” 1’0 3°

“as. p. h.

28

‘niree other bills, based substantially on the five proposals re-
viewed by the Goudttee in Dace-her, were presented. "Hill A”, which
m to be introduced as 3.3.2953, combined Proposals I, III and V in
“ding the Hutchinson Act. In addition to those points noted in the
w meeting, the January ndnutes noted two additions. 'nie procedure
for “questing Labor Board mediation was changed from one requiring that
I udority of employees in an appropriate unit sign a. petition to one
Pmtting the collective bargdning representative to initiate the
moedure.

”Bill B“, which was to be introduced as 3.8.2.9515 was referred to
in the Deoesberneet‘lng as Proposal II. the chmgesnadeinvolvedthe
l"Iloval of various penalties of the 1m deleting: (1) be $10,000 a day
the for hospital or public utility strikes and leehoute before proce-
dures are exhausted; (2) me crininal penalties for aployers or unions
”Gazing in a strike or lockout pending radiation; and (3) Misdemeanor
Phalties for general unfair qplcyer practices. It further provided for
Procedures for IHB enfome-ent of unfair labor practices and the sane
dootion procedures for the private sector as in the new public sector
lll‘bptmals.1

"Bill 0", winch was to be introduced as 3.3.2869, was not changed
from Proposal IV of December.

is it had in the Mr neeting, the disussion that enmed after
l review of the proposed legislation centered on compalsory arbitration.
Aspntinthemiitedfrcntheddeveloped. ‘lhe APSCME, urgedthatcnly

k

1M 9 P- 5-

1‘."

I"!

.33.!

l..’

A—-'

29

one bill be altered and that it contain compulsory arbitration. "It was
their concern that [erhitretionj would not succeed separately. '1
Speaflng for the sane position, representatives of the mohigan Fire
nzhters Association restated the position of his union's members who
had atrongly urged it. l'fle also pointed out that the Michigan AIL-Clo
mtien adopted a resolution to work for ceqpulsery arbitration for
PEN-1c upleyoesfl'z Marshall, mediating the altercation, pointed out
that COPEhad agreedte separate bills: ”The wPEhad agreedunanimusly
M only effort would be made to get both pines of legislation passed. '3

The final PELC looting prior to the legislative hearings was held
on February 13 and was apparently quite infemal. The handwritten
Ilnntes list attendants not included in either prior miziutes or on the
PM worship sheets. (See Appendix 0 for the notes of these people.)
he one identifiable group was from the hetel-restmrant union. It was
Wthstthebfllswere atthe legislative Servicemreaureadyte
be introduced. (However the bills were not introduced until April It.)
Dlcoussien appears to have centered on the question of desertification,
and the hotel union argued adamantly against having any desertification
Moedure. However, wept for some minor changes, the legislation was
introduced as discussed at the January nesting.

Between this nesting and the legislative hearings, the decision was
aado to drop support of the omihls bill. Senator Levin, who participated

in this decision explained:

Theemibusbillwasnot reallydrepped the verynerning
of the hearing. ‘Ihe decision had been made by some involved

Labor Candace tumors at an earlier date, although the public
statement probably had not been issued before then. lite main
reason for discarding the omibus bill was the widespread re-
action from both management and labor that it was too compre-
hmsive. Nobody seemed interested in it except a few of us
who had worked on it. The argument was that we had to take
first steps in new territory rather than embracing a total
structure. After considerable discusdon, that point of view
seemed to take great sense. It was easier to pose the basic
issue by a discussion of concrete amendments to the Hutchinson
Act and to the Labor Medistion Act rather than replacement of
both with an mtirely new super structure.1

Cow and Pom of thg finer
a)? (31‘on Within the PELC
lbs Michigan LEI—CID
As earlier stated, various labor leaders recognized that a unified
‘PPtreach would be necessary for the passage of labor legislation; some

”Sanitation would have to speak on behalf of organized labor in mchigan.

“10 nest obvious answer was the mchigan AFL-GIO. It was in this capacity

that the ins-GIG made its important contribuflen. ‘nle Public Eployee
I‘EI-sl.a‘l::l.ve Giulittee not under the auspices of the state LEI—GIG and
it! Mouths Vice President, fillies: Marshall.

Marshall made meeting md other adainistrative arrangaients,
Poutiened the two state political parties for inclusion of the prin-
ciples of public enpleyee legislation in their platforms, and promoted

sacral labor support through a convention resolution. (See Appendix D
for the text of the resolution.)

1Persensl letter, Sander M. Levin, higust 23, 1967.

31

The Michigan “SOME

Dave F. Hillians and lbbert C. Gros'venor, both professional of-
ficers of Council 7, A1306 (AFL-CIO), were prime lovers in establishing
the framework for initiating and ndntaining a united union force.
Ellie-s, in fact, took the key position of Secretary-Treasurer of the
PEG. It is not surpuising that these two nan would take the lead, for
both had devoted nary years to organlsing public employees. Council 7
itself had moh to gain, for although new of its manhors were state
civil. service esployeeswho couldnotbecoveredunderpublic enployee
losislatlen because of the restriction in the now state constitution,
Council 7 also represented non-civil service state «uployees at the uni-
mties, prisons, and hospitals.1

or course, such legislative action would be of direct help to the
1°“? non-civil service mam councils and would establish a precedent
'hich would be difficult for the Civil Service condssion to ignore.

In his vital petition, Willians handled the hall: of the tonal
internal correspondence including the writing and publishing of theGon-
littee's ninutes. through his efforts, over $5,000 was collected for
the operation of the Oeuaittee; as of April 6, 1966, Just after his
death, therewas enetdeiioitorenlynzo. Itisinterestingtonote
that, of the mnies received as of that date, lb? per cent, the largest

count contributed by any single organisation, cane fren AJSCME emails

h.

loinsveicr, interview, pp. g3, Hr. Gresvmor also stated that

the nubership of Oeundl 7 rose fren approximately 5,000 in June of
1965 to 0m 9,” by m. 0: 1967e

‘I

Iv”

32

and loads}

PM Ml» per cult of the membership, and their people composed about
hate: those attending the two tell co-dttee meetings. (See Appendix c.)

AJSCME also represented the largest block of votes on the

he domnsnce of moms people is not unexpected since they had much to
gain in potential new leaders.

It is evident by the overwhelming vote for compulsory arbitration
stthoDec-berneeting that Oomdl'lbackedtheneasure. his position
I“ take: in spite of the race-andations of their International Repre-
sentative from Detroit, who ”told the delegates that the administration
of 138613 is not in favor of cc-pulsory arbitration. his is not a
Mn fro- conmtion, but is based on past apexdence.”2 But the
Mbadershsdlongbeaninthe collectiro “begging" role otbeing
“bloated to unilateral decisions by the uployer. It the right to
Itlike sore deified, they wanted some teninal Issue for settle-ant, a
“the that would remove than from this situation. With fifty per cent
ofthe sttendees at the-noting fronthis union, the supporting notion
weed 38.7.3

Grosvanor spoke before the legislative hearings on behalf of the

26,000 mchigen nee-here or his local. as marks pointed to the problems
hint-ed by the Hutchinson Act:
mringtheccurseotultyearsct serviceIhavere-
peatedly encountered the tn situations described by Attorney
Sachs; in that, in one case, anti-onion public officdals use

thepunitiveleasurescutlinedinthemtchinscnicttoharass
and intiddate the public uployees, or, in the second case,

1pm, (hunting ateteeent, Hove-her a, 1965 - April 6, 1966.
2pm, mmtes, December 15, 1967, p. 2.

3%, Po 3-

Al

.5 '

33

ushers a rare rational relationship could exist by mtual agree-

mt, there is no machinery by which this attitude can be of-
tectuated.1

“Die Fire Fighters Association

he Fire Fighters Association represents a select group of govern-
Mt employees who perform truly essential services and who long ago
adopted in their national by-laws an official stand against the use of
the Strike} But it was their position that a substitute was necessary
in order to gein fair pley from their employer :3 compulsory arbitration
was aoceptedbythanasthe justgggmmgforrancuncing the strike.
Bombing in 1961, the mehigen chapter began introducing into the legis-
ht'lre ccmlsory arbitration bills to cover public employees generally.“

hath the foratation of the PEG, the Fire Fighters saw a real oppor-
tunity to achieve their goal. they gained direct representation on the
Paley-m executive comittee when their state president, Simon
Nobel, was appointed Vice Quinlan of the pup. ‘Jlle Fire lighters
“1‘- well represcrted on the Ocuittee itself and their seventeen member
ddegaticcn was proportionately larger for the sise of their group than
that of other public uployees in the state (see Appendix C). Together
11th the sheriff and police organisations, whose position was such the

lbbert C. Gi'osvenor, "State-mt Before House and Senate Labor
Countess," (Paper read at Hearings, typewritten), p. l.

23tete-ent by tallies Marshall, interview, July 20, 1967.
301appal, Bearings, 2;, Qt.

“aeeippendixi, "MIearIistofBills Introduoedinthe
malngan Legislature."

If.

34

use, they held ovor 20 per cent of the votes at the two full comdttee
ratings in Dec-her, 196‘} and January, 1965.
In turn, the support of the fire fighters and police was needed by
11330? to maintain a united front. Mm that the philosophy of the con-
Iittecwasthat anajoutyvoteeouldbindallthenenbersofthe PELC
to & col-on position, this interdependence led to the passing of a motion
for acupuleczy arbitration at the Iboenber meeting. ‘nle motion read:
e.e.'nle Public Enployee legislative Comittee go on
record as being in favor of seeking legslative establishlent
of ocupulsozy arbitration for public employees in accordance
with the proposal drafted by Attomey Sachs. 'Jlle method of
presenting this legislation, i.e., as part of the bill or as
a separate bill, shall be left to the discretion of the 0f-
ficers, tttorney Sachs end the Etecutive Conunittee.1
Although the notion tended to placate the fire fighters and those
0thereehohedlongreeeduniletereleohionbynenegementendwentedto
1" Insured of some means of challenging future decisions, some dissansion
Nae over the failure of the motion to require a combination bill.2
he parties feared that their backing of the general legislation would
not pay off in retuln support for a separate arbitration bill. They
mted, but did not receive, security for their aid.
Behindthescenestherewerenmyreasonstodoubrtthatlaborgave
its wholehearted support to the compulsory arbitration bill. be AIL-Clio
1' against cellulscry arbitration as a natter of national policy. Several
Of file labor leaders at the meetings reflected that point of view. Sachs
lads several courts, recorded in the PRU: ninutes, that the bill should

—‘

1pm, mmtee, December 15, 1964, p. 2.
2m; p. 3-

35

be separate. Although he did not an that he was opposed to the concept,
heddsqrthatthistarpeofbflloftm failed court scrutinyandinferred
that, because its chances of passing were dimer than those of the other
bills, it should main separate} Sachs also had to consider certain
strategic points. imng these was the view that urged that a compulsory
athration bill be sponsored by labor with the hope that it would be
Passed by the legislature and become a face-saving device for Romney since
it wold permit the Governor to use his vote on the compulsory arbitration
bill to danonstrate his adorate position and at the same time to show his
Mandliness to labor by signing the other bills.2
Finally, this bill was the main target of employer organisations.
11!- mohigan Municipal League and Michigan School Board Association saw
thebculesadirectchellengetotheirentborityandtotheirbelierin
“10 aboolute sovereignty of government. Whatever power these groups
could meter was directed prinarily at compulsory arbitration.
In the legislative hearing of May 15, Si mappel spoke for the
’1" Fighters on compulsory arbitration. He complained that the Hutchin-
‘m Act had effectively precluded meaningml bargaining end, since its
p“‘E‘age, their average salaries had fallen $1,300 below the national
““Nge. In addition, he complained that local govemments hed refused
‘° lo«esolve their grievances and, in sons instances, had even refused to
‘tt‘md fact iinding hearings.3 But for all his effort, support for
o""unelsory arbitration ell but collapsed during the hearings. labor
\
1m, p. 3.
20orrespondence, Robert Repas to red Sachs, Doom 23. 1961;. p. 2.

3amppel, Bearings, 22. git,

36

appeared divided as Bill Marshall made an offhanded cement disparaging
to this bill, the Hotel-Restaurant official, who was not part of the
PEG, spoke out directly against the bill, and other labor spokesmen
lads only fleeting state-cite of their support.1

he Influalce of Miscellaneous Parties

1. Ho ant atio mien: This union did not
participate as an official member of the FELC, although its mariners at-
tmded the February neeting. heir position at that meeting and at the
legislative hearings opposed that of labor as a whole and was based on
what they considered to be their special problems. At the hearings,
Hort Freeze, their spokesman, said that his union was in the lowest paid
industry in the State.2 His ushers worked for mployers ranging from
“lens and papa” restaurants to the largest hotels, and, since most of
thawerenot coveredbythe federal laws, his people required similar
coverage under mchigen law. He urged that all employees have the right
to strike, that the Hutchinson Act be repealed, and that a ”Little Wagner
Act" he adopted without decertificaticn provisions. Finally, be exposed
the major union split what he spoke against compulsory arbitration.
Such bills, he add, are usually upset by the courts and they are detri-
mental to the bargaining process.

2. We Although the crafts had a representative
frontheBuilding Trades Council atthe PELC, theywerebyandlargea

separate, strong, outside force. first they would not support a bill with

 

1m.
2herb Freere, '8tataamt", hearings, 22. $3.

[1

or.

1“

37

unfair labor practices against employee organizations is suggested as
one reason for Salator Levin's staunch position against such provisions.1
Over the opposition of the m, the crafts were also successful in win-

ning a three-year contract bar.2

'nle iichigan Federation of Teachers

Hairy B. Linne, Michigan Federation president, attended the PELC
organisational neeting in August. This in itself is of major importance,
for the m, by its association with labor, ”represented” teachers on the
policy formlating body which was to write and implement legislation. By
this affiliationteachersbecanewritteninto thelawaspartofthebody
of public employees generally, in spite of the opposition of the MEA,
which was the spokesman for a significantly larger mmber of teachers.

InprecedingyearstheMPThadstoodopposedtotheMEAonnost
major issues: the m approved the strike as a proper weapon; it rapped
the MEA for including administrators in its ranks as philosophically
wrong and totally unworkable at the bargaining table; it was first to
strive for excludve representation; and it saw no reason for teachers
to propose negotiations under the jurisdiction of the state board of
education.

his position was reported by Henry Iinne:

lbeMI‘TandiFTlook attheteeohers' problems, especially
in collective bargaining rights, as part of the total situation
facing all Imblic uployees. Consequently, the MFT's efforts
to secure bargaining and organisational rights for teachers will
be part and parcel of a larger effort to secure these rights

 

lstatenent by Robert Ropes, interview, July 12, 1967.
ZStatenent by Henry linne, telephone interview, August 1t, 1967.

‘5

:‘P

38

for all public employees. It will be interesting to see if the

MEL's efforts for ”professional negotiations" will be part of a

broad movaaent or whether it will be a narrow, separatist effort

to secure rights for teachers (educators) only without regard to

the plight of other mblic employees in a similar situation.

‘lhe MEL insists that teachers and administrators are

certified as teachers and does not recognize the difference in

the functions of the two or the differing points of view that

derive from the inhermt interests of teachers and administrators

in their diverse functions.)-

lhe MIT's involvuent with the PELC is something of an enigma. On
the one hand, its representatives were given positions of importance 3
Henry Iinne, MIT President, served on the hecutive Oothtee and Mary
Ellen Riordan, DPT President, was assigned to the special subcomttee
which met with the Lahor Mediation Booniz oh the other hand, two of
their strongest views, use of the strike and opposition to compulsory
arbitration, were not supported by the Godttee. Both internal and
external politics precluded either of these views from being offidal
PM positions. he teachers' union also favored a one-year contract
bar in order to regain quick access to bargaining units that might be
woninearlyelestinnsbythelargerm lhiatootheyfailedto
obtain.3

‘me extent of their overt participation on the PM decreased

after the beginning of 1965. Neither Iinne nor Riordan are listed having
attmded the January or March neetings, although the Jmuary minutes
verifythat Iinnehadbeentherebutleft. hisdeparturenayhavebeen

theresultcfdeclininginterestinasmchasitwasalreadyapparmtthat

 

1W 22.5 (February-me 1965).
2pm, moot... infra.
31am, interview, 9;. gt.

-‘,

we.

r.‘

(31"

39

some for: of their legislation would pass,1 the result of their own time
connning probl-s with lilitant locals demnstrating in Detroit, Lincoln
Park, Utica, Dearborn Heights, and Butt-“3 or a oonbahetaon of the
two. be m also clained that it purposely played down its role on the
PEG at this tine boomse they were in the limelight and they did not
want to appear to monopolise the Goa-ittee and break its unity.3
lburteen days prior to the legislative hearings the first mchigan
strike in education was conducted by a Federation local. A four-day
”alt-in" at Bantu-ck beginning on April 26 caused a stir across the
statewhentheHaltra-ckSchoolBoardtriedmsuccessfullytoobtain
an injuncuonunierthe Hutchinson Act'fron Judge John B. W,
toner Mchigan governor. It brought quickly to focus both the unjust
treatnmt of the Haiti-muck teachers and the inability of the State to
enforce the Hutchinson Act. Q: May 3, 1965, in an editorial condaming
all. parties to the dispute, the W called for changes in
the Hutchinson Act.

Hhatever the reason may have been for a somewhat diminished role
of the Federation, Mrs. Riordan addressed the legislative hearings on
Haleandexpressedfull support forthethreeneasures supportedby
labor. tedirectedherr-arkspnnarilytotheareaofedncatienand
argued that there were more sirilarities than differences between
teachers and other public uployees, that under the, proposed bills there

 

lbw, interview, on. at.

 

14-0

was sufficient flexibility for teachers to adjust their special. problems;
and that it was improper for supervisory persomel who supposedly repre-
sdttheBoardofRinoationtobeinthesmnebargainingunituth
teachers. In short, she spoke against the MFA sponsored 3.3.2160,

and, in her concluding r-arks, said that she would rather live with

the Hutchinson Act than with zusoal

 

1&7 Ellen memes, "Statement”, Bearings, 22, gt,

If

CHLPTEIII

m ALWE LEISLATIVE POSITION OF
m EECHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIA’EEON

AND THE POLITICAL REPONSE OF
m PUBLIC mums

 

'nae Inchigan mucation Association (MBA) as part of the National
Erlucation Association (REA) was a broad-based professional society com-
posed of teachers and administrators dedicated to the advance-ant of
education as a profession. It was controlled largely by adninistrators
who had the time and freedom to engage in such activities. Within a
sewn-year period, however, the organisation has undergone a drastic
metamorphosis and has changed under external pressures from a con-
servative society dedicated to the advancement of education to an
association pursuing an advantage for teachers.

In 1958, the MBA asked its legislative consittee to draft legis-
lation decreasing that teaching was a profession and to set criteria for
addttance of mothers} The first national response developed at the
196]. Dsnver (bumtiomz Here for the first time the National. Education

 

1am article, W 112,15 (March 15, 1965), p. a.
211m: Garbarini, What Happened at Denver?” W no.3 (1962).
p. 20.
In

1.35

I!

1&2

Association (NEL) authorised limited professional negotiations and a
conservative system of sanctions, and it called for a strengthening of
the state and national organisations. In late 1962 the MEA established
a professional negotiation couttes to study the question of teacher
negotiations and to forlulate a legislative positiongl and, in 1963,
it recommended stopgap measures, including a proposal urging school
administrations to adopt written persomel policies. It was also in
1963 that Republican labor specialists offered the MEA almost m
Mto develop acceptable amendmentsto the Hutchinson Act. But
the organization was unable to reach a consensus on the advisability of
this type of legslation. largely as a result of the MBA refusal to
support the new legislation, the Republican bills failed. In 1961} the
m was faced with the political reality that apportionment had changed
the oonpodtion of the legislahtre and that some form of legislation
affecting public uploynentwouldbe enacted. lheMEiproceededto
develop what later became 11.3.2160. However, because its Republican
political base had dissolved, its version of an acceptable bill was
never reported from the House Labor Oosmittee and it was eventually
famed, with some reluctance, to support the FEM proposal. In spite
of these protests, the MEA nevertheless was later to report a victory!
lbs early orientation of the REA was reflected in their legals-
tive goals for l958-the passage of a Professional Practices Act (PPA)
creating professional control over teaching in such the same manner
olployed by lawyers and doctors. PPA, as the general idea is called,

 

I'Wt Resolutions", m. 23;!” “0,18 (m 1, 1963); De 661e

1N1

nhwarl‘

#3

was sent to an appropriate MEA oomttee for study. Although the
agendas of the Leglslative Co-issien indicste that the subject was
discussed, no action was taken, and in 1961 the MEA board of directors
again referred PPA to eo-ittee for study}

he initial response to the pressure from the advances made by the
New York teadaers union in 1960 and 1961 occurred at the NEA national
oonmtien in Denver in 1961. 'lhere, the NFA adopted its first resolu-
tion approving a fen of collective bargaining, which it preferred to
call professional negotiations. This procedure called for professional
associations to participate with boards of education in detemining
”salary and other conditions of service, " but the teachers were admonn
ished to reoccrise the legal authority of the board of education, and
”under no circumstances should the resolution of differences between
professional associations and boards of education he sought through
channels set up for handling industrial disputes. ”2 ‘lhe prevailing ne-
tionwlth regardtonegetiatienswasthe sane asthstunderpinningthe
PPL—vis. , that teachers were professional. is such they would not
utilise labor techniques, for the industrial assumption of a conflict
of interests and diversity of purpose was not considered appropriate in
public education.3

it the sane convention professional sanctions were approved for
the first time. ‘nrese rsther limited methods initially required that

 

lmchigan Education Association, Legislation Oomssion, Minutes,
Septuber, 1961. PPA proposals rennin a major legislative goal of the
m in 1968.

2mm article, mom, no.3 (1962), p. 20.

3"W “lanai... 22. my, Fe 616.

1.“.

“E

x‘“

q.
‘a

’.

i

an

state and national approval of sanctions be given prior to their imple-
mentation at the local level, and also required that a certain sequence
of steps be followed: i.e., Widely publicize the facts of each case;
Advise meters of the problem through the State and National Journal;
“vise state neubers against accepting Jobs in the conmmnity until the
problus were resolved.1 Chce permission was granted, "Contracts may
be withheld during negotiations of salaries and other conditions of en-
ploy-mt. ”Intent to return" notices should be used, particularly where
a tamre status is involved. Teachers nay fulfill their contracts for
instructional servicesbutwrefrainfronallextrs-currioularae-
tivities.2
In mchigan, the MEA established a Professional Negotiation Gon-
littee in the stunner of 1962. Working with the Iodslative Goudasion,
the Ocudttee drafted legislative goals. The Gondssion listed for con-
sideration: (1) standards for entry into the profesdon, (2) standards
of pracuos. (3) discipline of and sanctions against munbers, (a) pm-
fessional negotiations on matters of salary and conditions of upley-
nent, and (5) statewide rmoval of educational negotiations from the

Jurisdiction of the 1143.3

line, as of 1962, the MEA viewed its legis-
lative goals as the establishmt of education as a profession and the
use of negotiations only within the Jurisdiction and guidelines of the

profession and not connected in any with private employment labor

 

16arbarini, 22, $5., 1). 24.

ZNatlon-l woman Annotation. WW

3Legislation Oonlission, 2p, 33., 9/19/62, p. 1183.

72-1

IL

‘45

relations practices or agencies.
An explanation of this philosophy toward negotiations is found in

the am, 1962. W:

We believe that consultations to reach cannon agreement
betwem represmtatives of the teaching profession and their
boards of ethaoatien regarding setters of conrnon concern in-
cluding salary and other conditions of «splay-ant are neces-
sary and compatible with the dignity and ethical standards of
the profession. When eomon agre-ents cannot be reached, we
recomendtheuse ofaboard ofreview consisting ofmembers
of professional and lo groups affiliated with education as
the means of resolving extreme differences. We believe ap-
peals to the nohigan Labor Mediation bard are not appropriate
to professional negotiations in public education.

We believe that where professional negotiations fail to

rectify situations involving unethical or arbitrary policies

or practices detrimental to the welfare of the schools, pro-

fessional sanctions should be invoked. ‘Ihese sanctions would

provide for an appropriate disciplinary action by the or-

ganised profession]-

lhe Professional Negotiation Committee attempted to face the actual
problaas being moonntered by local associations. The Goudttee urged
school boards to maintain written personnel policies developed on the
understanding that negotiations include concerns for all conditions of
work. Itfurtherrecc-udddthateachlooal associatiensetupanego-
tiatien ooelrittee.2 Iinited success was achieved when the first HEA
agreusnts were signed in the Fall of 1963 at Utica, Howell, and
limlcegen.3 miletheseagreemmtswereevidenceofthechanmgstti-

tudesefthemenbership,thelocalagreenentswerequitenoderateand

 

l'Qn'rcn‘t bsoluticns', 22o g3.” p. 616.

2m, p. 661.

3'Tenure - Professional Negotiations", W 1.1.6 (Nevesber 1,
1963), Fe 5e

1!

Ir'

3':

[if '

#6

did not include a grievance procedure. me guide for negotiators was
sttted in this way:

it its heart, professional negotiation involves matters of
joint concern to a local organisation and the school board. in
adopted instrnaent may include, but not limited to, setting
standards in npleying professional personnel, committing sup-
port for schools, in-service training, class size, teacher
turnover, personnel policies, salaries, working conditions,

and counnicatiens within the school system]-

Nevertheless the MBA office still maintained a professional, non-
union sttitude. the October W acknefledged the right of
educators to involve the LED in settling disputes, but "the professional
teacher wishes to settle problus in a professional manner, not as labor
unicnsdo. However, ifneans arenot spelledeutwhich establishapro-
fessienal process, perhaps schoolswillhavethrustonthenthekindef
nachinery used to solve probl-s in private industry."2 this comment
wasprintedatthesnetinethatualcolnlovell, Glairnneftheleber
Medintion Board, was attelpting to cultivate HEA support for bills to
and the Refine-Tripp and Hutchinson Acts. lire attitude reflected by
the quotation above readily explains why his proposed legislation was
rejected.

nebills suggestedbylevellwouldhaveanendedthelegislatien
affecting public qleynmt, and, therefore, teachers as public e-ployees
andboardsofeducationaspublice-ployersweuldhavebeenaffected.
'nrebillswouldgrarrt teacherstherighttoutilisethemBeleomn
procedure for the deter-inatien of an exclusive bargaining representa-

tive,boardsefeducstionwuldberequiredtobargdnuthteacher

1m

2Harcia aBosnango, "me W of Professional Negotiation," E
We his“ (mm 19 1963): Po 35o

“I

It

1&7

representatives, andtheDflcouldbe askedte enterdisputesto
nediate.1 In addition, a special procedure for fact finding in teacher
disputeswasintrodnoedz theLaborMediation Boardwasempoweredto
certifytothchvemordisputeswhich requiredfactfindingandthe
Governorwouldappoint apanel ofthreequalified, disinterestedpersons
for that purpose.2

Iovell had conferred with MEL officials at various tiles to gain
theirsupport. Infact, thehEiwasgivennddelatituieinshaping
these bills, as is indicated by this quotation from the minutes of the
m legislation Oculssionx "Conferences uth Malcolm Iovell, (bureau
of the labor Mediation Board and E. Dale Kennedy, Dick Ada-s, Dpn Wollett
(M). an! Gerald ail-ens indicates L-flil a willingness to make addi-
tionaldaanges.”3 ThequestienofMEAsupportwesplrttothe Oc-ission
on Novelber 27, 1963. the notion lost, however, and the mendnents were
snttotheBoardofDirec‘tors ”dthoutreccs-mdation'.“ he bluis-
sionwented (1)tochangethetitleeftheLMBto heStateMaflon
Board; (2) to refer inasse situations to the Superintmdent of Public
Instruction, thewuldappcictan'educational servicepanelefthree
with dnonstrated ooupeturoe in dealing with problems of public educa-
tion“; (3) to define a unit as the school district; and (a) meet-e1 use

of such terms as 'paofessional' and 'negotiate' where advisable."5

 

liegislation Oondssicn, g3. 33., 11/27/63, p. 1803:.
Zach. 11.13.37» (1964+). p. 7.

Blegislation condemn, 2g. gt” 11/27/63, p. 1802.
“M... p. 1801.

5333,, p. 1802.

118

fibesechanges, howwer,werenotaeceptab1etolevellandothers-

especially the impasse resolution procedure.

‘Jhe Board of Mrectors, by a split vote in February of 1964,
refused to support the unrevised legislative amendments.1 But the
split vote was in itself an auspicious moment, for it was a signal
that ideological changes were occuring within the organzaflon. ‘nrere
werethoseuthintheranksoftheMEAwhomthat changeswouldcone
to pass and who wanted the MEL prepared. However, in 1964, the majority
wasnotwillingtcbreakfromthe traditional viewofkeepingteachers
out of the “labor “a.”

Drring 196# the MEA legislation Oomldssion went back to the task
of developing acceptable legislation. it its Mn 27 meeting, several
important issues were discussed. First, it was decided that a provision
dewingtherighttostrihe shouldbeincludedinarwlegislativepro-
posal. Second, the Oc-ission recognised the problem of reconciling
thefactthatbothadndnistratorsandteacherswerepsrteftheMEA.
they wanted a clause allowing supervisors to be part of an organisation
that negotiates with boards of education md to be able to vote in any
bargaining election. Similarly, it suggested a provision that would
perflttheboardofeducationtonquireacerufiedupleyeewhoper-
fens supervisory functions ”to refrain from participating in the manage-
ment of the organisation where a conflict of responsibilities exist [fag-732

By'themgustflmeetingtheno strikeprovisionhadbeeneliminated;

Jstetement by Ibbert Hewlett, interview, July 11, 1967.

2Legislation Oomdssien, 92, fig, 5/ 27/ 61+, p. 4551..

{I

‘

afifi

L.‘

eat

1.9

the key itans that would be found in their proposal, 21.3.2160, had been
detemned.1 the bill was reported to the Board of Directors and was
approved. Briefly, the bill was a composite of 3.3.1111 of 1963, the
loco-endations of the legislation Gomdssion on S.B.l]ll, and the
solutions to particular m problems nentioned above. 2 The bill pro-
vided for:

1. A professional commission within the Department of Muoation;

2. Mediation by "interveners" who had experience and demonstrated
competarce in dealing with problems in education;

3.‘ Professional teachers to m form, Join or assist profes-
sional educator's organisations and ”to engage in the activities, in-
dividually or in concert for the purpose of the improvement of education,
the advancment or the interests of education and of educators, and the
pronotion of the professional growth of labors of such organisations. "

4. Voluntary whats uith Boards for the purpose of profes-
sional negotiation;

5. The granting of exclusive recognition by“ boards of echrcation
if they are satisfied that the organisation is represartative of certi-
fied public employees:

6. hr election procedure to detemine the exclusive representa-
tive.

7. An escape clause for supervisors whereby, "the Board of Euca-

ticnortheGoverningBoardoftheorganizatimnayrequireacertifled

 

1m. 8mm.
Zach. 3.13.2150.

50

employee who performs supervisory functions for the Board of Education
to refrain from participating in negotiating procedures in any area of
conflict or dispute where participation in such area will create an
i-ediate conflict."

8. me requir-ut that both parties negotiate in good faith;

9. hr appeal procedure that inpasses be submitted to the State
Professional Negotiation Ooandssion.1

flth the legislature reappcrtioned and the existence of a labor
based ms, those in education realised that some type of legislation
affecting than would be enacted. The question for the EA was whether
or not they could gain the necessary support to isolate education fron
labor legislation.

is the 1965 school year progressed, the m was rapidly transform-
ing its local associations into bargaining units. Under the provisions
of Attorney General Kelly's lurch, 196i}, opinion, school boards could
voluntarily per-it elections to deter-ins an exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative. By Dem, 196‘}, the MEA represented 14 districts2 and the
list swelledto 23byipril, 1965.3 Duringthese elections theMI‘Tcon-
planed bitterly of special and favorite treatment by school boards.“

the m Legislation musission ta-porarily dropped its PPA prograa
in February to devote all its efforts to 3.3.2160. At the same time, a

caapaignwasundertakento gainthesupport ofitsaunbers forthepro-
posal. he February W outlined the substance of

 

1“: PP- 3'5-
2W “298 (Dunbar. 196“): P0 6-

3m, “2912’ pe 33s

“Ion article, W 22.5 (Mm-March, 1965). p. 1.

 

A;

51

H.B.2l+50 and criticised both the Hutchinson Act and the D48.
Esperiarge under these snorting legal provisions L the
Hutchinson ActJ has not been good. here is no provision
node for bargaining or negotiating in good faith at the local
level. Too often attempts to reach local agreement have been
i-ediatelybypassed, and appeals havebemnade forthe inter-
mtion of the State labor bdiation Board. Personnel skilled

in labor nediation are not necessarily knowledgeable in the
problus of education.

long delays in settlusnt through the use of the Labor

Mediation Board have often been the case. Often the issues

in dispute have been adjusted and forgitten long before labor

mediation procedures are accomplished.

A decisive blow, however, came when 3.3.2160 was introduccd in the
legisla‘lzrre on m 19, 1965, and was referred to the Gorraittee on Labor
rather than to the Gnuittee on Education. Had the MBA hem able to have
the bill referred to the education committee, the bill might have been
reported. A for-er President of the MEA, explained that the MEA's
troubles with the Duocratic-controlled legislature went back to the
elections for the State Board of Education under the new mchigan Gm-
stimtion.2 The mu directors for the first time endorsed candidates
for those offices, and all of the endorsements went to Republicans.

None were elected. lhe Democratic Speaker of the House,is reported to
have and that MEI legislation would never leave connnittoe. 3 Henry
Liane, m President, relates that he was in Lansing the week that

3.3.2160 was introduced.“ He received a copy of the text, read it, and

 

lmchigan moation Association, W 5 (February 2,
1965), p. 1}.

)zInterview, July 13, 1967. (Requested to renain unidentified by
m.

3m»
“1.1m, interview, 23. it.

In!

1...

lull

"as

(I

ll‘

52

tookittotheHouse Speaker, askinghimtosendittothe Labor Gon-
nttee where the bill ”died”.

it the legislative hearings, 3.3.2160 was strongly criticised by
labor spokesmen. Sachs and Riordan spoke of the simlarity between
teacher and public elplcyee problems. Conversely, Ray Moloughlin,
Enecutive Secretary of the Flint Education Association, testified that
teachers had ”divergent interests'.1 Moloughlin also voiced opposition
against compulsory arbitration unless local school boards were given the
unilateral right to levy taxes. the only other support for 3.3.2160
care from the Michigan School Board Association. They endorsed the bill
generally, eventhoughtheybelievedthatthe rights of school boards
should be set forth in detail.

hiring the Spring of 1965, consultations were held between the MEL
and proponents of the legislation. 2 Confronted with the knowledge that
thdrbill.wouldnotbereportedcutofconuittee3andnowconvinced
that, except for the provision that disputes would be handled by the MB
rather than the State Board of Ehrcation, the PELC hills, which outlined
unfair labor practices, were stronger and better for the MBA, the MEA
decided to strike a bargain. In exchange for its support of the labor
bills, the MEL wished to sand Section 10(d) of 33.21350, (the amend-
ments to Bombs-Tripp) to allow the 1113 to hire specialised mediators
for educational. disputes.“ he HEA was still convinced that people

 

1m McLaughlin, "Statanent', Bearings, 23. at.

zStatenent by Senator Smder Levin, interview, August 2, 1967.
BStatanmt by Richard Adana, interview, July It, 1967.

“3.. enrolled 3.3.2953. p. 2.

I,"

"I

53

familiar with education should handle their problems.

It is interesting to note that in the end the MEA's legislation
(lo-ission listdd the Mt of 21.3.2953 and H.3.295’+ as legislative
accomplishments and stated that, ”11.3.2953 and 11.3.2954 [were] amended
to include nest provisions of 31.3. [3.3.] 2150 except a separate com-
mission."1

e ma.

Ihe mchigan Hmicipal league (m) has had a written policy re-
garding public employees since 1961.2 This policy was issued after the
New York teachers' strike but before the developments in mchigan. 'lhe
policy was developed in response to H.B.3?2, the second in a succession
of bills proposing compulsory arbitration in the public sector. (See
Appendix A.) This bill had been introduced with the sponsorship of the
Fire Fighters Association.

are league policy represented the prevailing attitude of county
road cormissions and county and city goverments: that collective bar-
gaining is alien to the sovereignty of government. In sumry the policy

states:
1. ”Present provisions at the local level in the State of Ifichigan

for the handling of employee relations matters between mnicipal and other
local government «players and employees are sound and adequate. Labor
relations activities between local govern-art employers and employees

 

llegislaticn com-rich, 2p, 33.. 9/7/65, p. 850.

zmchisan 14:111de league: WWW
(statement of Policy) (adopted October , 19 .

5“

are handled adequately and fairly through our represmtative system of
govemnent and subject to the appeal processes which are provided by
that representative governant."

2.‘ Presmt provisions are in line with Mchigan's tradition of
stronghoneruleferlecalgovernnut. lheintervmtioncfastate
board er iniependent arbitrator wold renove the responsibility froa
elected cffldals who have been delegated by the electorate; thus,
therewouldbenoneansbywhichto holdpublic officials accountable.
Compulsory arbitration is incospatible with representative government.
Partieularlyifan aardof additienslpaywerenadein acitywhese

hudgetwas stthelisits ofits diarter restrictions.

3. he following distinct differences between public and private
.ploylent lake collective bargaining unworkable in the public sector:

1.: here is no profit motive.

B. Brandaldeddonsaronottestedinthenarhetplace.
C.‘ Govern-ant responsibilities extend to the public. Pay
decisions must be made with a consideration of the

public interest in all govermmital services.

Ibis underlying philosophy was the basic position when Halcoln
levellnetwlththemm1963. 'niethreeuctingsflchlevellhad
withthestaffandboardsaaereoftheleaguewerelargalyaneducatienal
process anddidnotprodnce wt. inadorityoftheMsawthe
legislaticndnplyas alittlewagnerict; theydidnot recognisethe
ohms sttitudes of public uplcyees end the public in general}

 

lstat-ent by anger. Berrodin, interview, July 28, 1967.

55

Even as it uttered into the legislative hearings in 1965, and
faced with obvious labor strength in the legislature, the m continued
dththesaneinnerihlepolicy. beleaguewasthefirstorganisaticn
to speak in opposition to the labor legislation. Its main speaker,
Iagene Ber-rodin, facedahestile coflttee, fortheMwas viewed as
the prine antagonist; it was considered an effective lobbying organisa—
fienmdwastheonlyuplbyergroupdthaviable stetcmentofpolicy.1

Berrodin spoke broadly of the philosophical objectives of the
League and of its objections to acne general aspects of the proposals.
Elm he admitted from the outset that he spoke only for a najority
oftheleaguenesbars (therewerethoseintherronsoneofthe
larger cities who did not agree with the league's position), he said
thattheleaguewas concemedabouttheproblucfdedgning alawthat
could be applied to the great diversity of local governnmrts. Reading
axtnszhelyfronthepolicystat-ut, heplaoedprdnaryemphadsonthe
negative aspects of eelpulsory arbitration and foraal bargdning proce-
dures. HequotedirthurGoldber-g, who, inhis reporttoPreaident
remedy on public .ployees, stated, wfthe'j inpasses in negotiations
between government officials and employee organisations should be solved
by other leans than compulsory arbitration."2 ilso referring to the
Goldberg report, he called to the attention of the God‘ttee that
Executive Order 10988 pen-itted only advisory arbitration. lbgarding
bargainingproeedures, theleaguededredadedaretorystetanenton

 

11hrshall, interview, op. cit.‘
2hgene Benodin, ”Statuent', Hearings, gp,‘ Qt,

56

theridrtofpublic uproyeeetemutevithemicnrctherthente
Inuit to what he called "undatory bargaining". first is, the Mwss
opposed to the requir-ant of signed legal contracts: it favored what

it called ”agreements".

In addition to these anor concerns, Berrodin related that the
league was opposed to exclusive recognition, to persitting supervisors
inthebargdningunit, andto allowingpolicetoberepresentedbyan
international union.

the (in-littee questioned Hr. Berrodin in an att-pt to isolate
pr-iury criticius from the broad objections expressed. Although
Berrodinasastaffe-ployeeoftheMwouldnotbepimeddormto
precise stetmts of policy, the cross examination did indicate thet
the prime problem centered on eoawulaory arbitration."

it the conclusion of this testim, Sumter levin asked that
the league send a M strtanant of its position to the Committee.
InalettertomdmenlevinandnradlaybynobertE. Dryer, mrector
ofthelu, theleaguerevisedits oppositionand, howforthenrst
time, made six specific Motions, none of iaich pertained to
arbitrationxl

1. Section 9 of 3.8.2953. which sets forth the right of public
uployeestoorganise andbargain, shouldbe undedto restrictthe
worship of police, supervisors, and other law enforce-ant personnel
toinsurethatconflictsofinterestareavoided.

2. It alsodedreduniennembershipstandardssnsuringthat

 

1Personaloerrespondmce, beertn. lryertofion.Sanderl(.levin
and Son. Janos Bradley, m 13, 1965.

57

entrance to the uployee organisation be free of restrictions because
of "race, reliaon, color, creed, or racial origin", that the union be
m». orfgfl corrupt influaace andnustnot assert tn. righttc
strike or advocate the overthrow of govemt by force, violence or
other loans”.

3. he refusal to bargain olmse, Section 10(f), should be
eliminated.“

1%. he phrase “collective negotiation" should be substituted for
”collective bargdning" in order to connote the afferent concept of
negotiations bottom public and private sectors:

5." n. ten ”excludve' (in reference to exclusive representative)
should be omitted fro. all bills.

6.‘ Public uployer rights based on Moral Enecutive Order 10988
should be stated to specify the right to direct, hire, transfer, dis-
charge, and discipline employees, to naintain geumental efficiency,
and to dctersdne the neans, nothods, and personnel for operations.

InadditiontousingthekemtiveOrdorastherationde ferits
position, the League quoted atlmgth fronthellnutes ofthe inchigan
civil Service Oo-ission with respect to onclusive recognition 3

he linutes of the mchigan Gail Service Gadsden, July 24,

1963 respond to a request of a State employees' union, for emolu-

sive recognition. "Tue request raises extremely serious questions

ofla'sandpuhlic policy, touhichthe Oondssionhas given care-
on consideration. lbr new years the Commission has remained
all employee groups as the non-axolusive representativos of their
respective nubers. Therefore, the first part of the request
loans that the union wishes to be recognised as the erolusivo
representative of its members, in other undo, that the Gods-
donshouldnotdealuithanyeuployeesuho arenubersofthe
anon, enceptthroughtheuuion. Otherlisetherequost asks

for something already granted....

"fiueseoondporticnofthe requestisthatappointingau-
thorities be authorised to utter into collective bargaining

58

We. hisrellhown, ithasbenthepolicycf Congress
to encourage collective bargaining in private industry. In our
cuethequestiontobccondderediswhctheritislauful and
if so whether it is desirable, for the terms and conditions of

public splay-at to be similarly settled over the bargaining
table between appointing authorities and local unions. here
are significant differences between public and private employ-
nent. no private employer is limited in his bargaining by
whathecsnafford. Ihepeopleofthestetemuldhavenomch
safeguard in negotiations between appointing authorities of

public uployees...'."1

Prior to the June ll legislative Committee reporting deadline, the
HHLissued anothernenorsndunto Levin endurged only four changes: (1)
the use of the words "collective negotiation", (2) the establishment of
restrictions on union coverage of law enters-ant personnel and super-
visors, (3) a maguent rights section, and (h) the allowance of
grievance adjustnents outside of the contract.2

mus, within a one-month period, the position of the League was
adjuttcd.‘ Inthehearings, WMspeakersobJectsdtomostofthe
nondnents.‘ hey didn't seen to understand the goals of labor or how
to successful: influmce the legislation. No concrete recs-endotions
were .phasiaed and only their opposition to compulsory arbitration was
stated. ivenonthispointtheirtesflnonyvasbasedprinarnyonanél
policymohrenectedtheirfearofbinding arbitration. Ibuver, their
testimmalso showedthattheyworenotmreofthedividonanong
labor people on this issue. Notably howsver, their wrench:- three
days after the hearing did not discuu this subject. Perhaps the state-
mtsofvariouslabor groups atthebuse labor theehearings gave
than an indication of the labor split. In their statusnt six proposals

 

1“} PP- 3"“-
Zumm, bbertl. mt. non. Winn, June?, 1965.

59

were introduced. n... were reduced to four on June 7, but even then,
one was totally new and deferat than these previously presented.

In eu-ary the league did not influence the legislation in an
specificwq. nebasicressonwastheirfailuretorecognisethat
their policy etatmt of 1961, which held as a precise the ”present
provisicne.'..on the local level in the State of mottlgan of the handling

of qloyee relations...are sound and adequate”,1 was entirely wrong and

in fact the reason for new leg:l.sl.ation.2

thus their perspective would
not allowthuthelmrycf cuprcuise. he league's spokesnanhae
since related that the four goals of the m were: (1) some type of»
sanction if strikes occurred, (2) a nanagenent rights section, (3) no
oolpulscry arbitration, and (1}) no supervisors in bargaining united3
(note that unfair 1.1:»:- practices against uployee organisations were
not included). If these were in fact their goals, the League did not
artimlete then well. he me. did not coordinate its opposition uth
otherenployergzoupsandwasineffeotiveinbringingpreesere cnkey
lefielctures; in addition, being the only orgamsation with a policy,
it ”caved the brunt of union attacks.

he League has rationalised its defeat quite amply: the Dmcrate
hadthevetes andwere notinthenoodfor conproadsebecanse theydidn't
have to.“ Certdnly, the D-ocratic nedcrity didn't help the bague's

case. Eleanor, political alimts do not offer a ooeplete explanation

 

1mohigan lhnidpal League, an» g5... p. 1.
zlevin, interview, n. gt,
3Berrodin, interview, one Q},

hm:

 

I."

’5'. -

6O

foritiscbviousthattheleaguereallyneverwtupagood”fight".

 

1h. mcMgan School Bean! heedaticn (MSBA) 1. a loosely-knit
organisation represnting the interests of school board numbers across
the state.“ is such it has a vital interest in all legislation affecting
education and maintains a staff of experimcsd lobbyists at the Gapitd.
m. organisation by its very nature, however, has difficulty in exerting
pressure on sons controversial bills, because its embers are elected
free a widely diverth constituency across the state. m. problen was
sunplifiedinthem'e approaohto thepublic uploynentbills.

In earlyl964, Ibbert Hewlett spoke to shooting of the School
Board Association about the hills which the 1243 was supporting. A notion
for support was defeated, however, by a split vote of the kecutive
Boardzltherewerethoeewhoagreedthatteaohersshouldhsvethestatu-
tczy right to collective bargdning, but the aajority held a negative
view on the issue.

Itwasn'tuntil afterthelahorbillswere sigusdinto lawthat a
direotpublicpolicy statmtwasissuedbytheIBBA. Earlier, the
Association's publication, the a -
onlyanobliqueconm‘tahottcospulsoryarbitratiominthebecder,
196” issue:

 

m legidation which delegates determination of actien to
other than the legally constituted authority, that is, Boards
of Riucation, night lead to fiscal irresponsibility and un-
balance of budgetary allocations. Boards of Buoation lust be

 

lflowlett, interview, an» my

or II“

a If .‘

61

recognised, as an other govermmtal agency, for their
legal authority as well as reel'ronsilbility.l

he position ofthelBBAis probablybestunderstoodin abe-
havioral context. hubers of boards of education are elected to their
posts and view thuselvee as trustees of the people, guarding the youth
of the enmity. hey resent having their paternalistic authority and
Judpmt dalluged. "he President's Message", carried in the m
after the leuslation passed articulates this concern.

is I view the probl- [of the issues between teacher's
groups andboardsJ it appears thatwemst clarifywhether
teachers are seeking Joint responsibility with boards of edu-
cation, or are seeking to share Joint concerns. It met be
pointed out that boards of education are subdivisions of the
State goverment and the responsibilities and authority of
boards of education, being established by law, cannot be dele-
gated or shared with an other body.... If, on the other hand
groups seek to share Joint concerns, i.e., those concerns of
oomn canes, then boards not recognise that it is their
responsibility to listen, to take into account the views and
recommdaticns of its professional staff and to allow for
alple discussion between board and staff. his is the method
of resolving differences. Strikes, sanctions, third party
nedictionenitheliloeoandononorethanaddfurther
shnnblingblocksinthepathofouryouthinthoirquest for
leaning something. hese coercive methods are destructive
forces that could destroy the very institution that has kept
this country free“

hr the legislative hearings, however, the MBBA sent two high-
lovel representatives: Dr. Ieeter Danbert, President of the MSBL and
e-ployedbythe Drwthdnal m, and George W. Good», Jr., a
Director of the 1483i and the drainer of its Gouldttcc on Negotiations,
President of the Bladnghan Board of mucation, end an attorney on the

 

13am and. mes-199+ man human Mark. W
W 11.10 (W. 1964). p. 7.

211'. Julius Barbour, ”hen the Mtive Director's Desk”, 5%
W 12.6 (men-t. 1965). r- 8

62

staff of General Motors Corporation. Both In spoke favorably in support
of the MBA sponsored 3.3.2450 and against including teachers in a public
uploylent act. hnkert spoke of the duties and responsibilities of the
boardsofedncationasprovidedhyla. Ifabillwastobepaseed, he
recommded that these rights be spelled out in the new legislation, that
the legislation maintain local urthority for negotiation, and that con--
pulsory arbitration was “repugnant to good governnent" because the duty
of the board of education is the naintuance of the public interest.1
Ooonbe, speaking "for the vast naJority of the people of this state”,
also urged that professional teachers stay out of the labor management
relations arms. Although he spoke for 3.3.2160, he had some objections
to it, including the provision that placed inpasse procedures under the
Jurisdiction of the State Board of Eiucation. Re preferred to utilise
s sedation appointed by the governor-apparently he favored 8.3.1111
of 19st.2

thenthebillswere passedbythelegislatureandsenttothe
governor, the )BBA discussed the reassures with Governor Honey and
pointedcut thattherewuldbenorenillageneededandthstdlitanoy
would develop if the bills were pasted.3 h their regret, the Governor

Md hm hills.

 

111-. Iester Daubrt, "State-mt", Bearings, 22, m,
storge U. Ooonbe, Jr., “State-ant", Bearings, 93. fit,
3Stat-ent by Julius Barbour, interview, July 26, 1967.

CHAPTERIV

THE MICHIGAN mum 8 APPROVAL OF
I“ PUBLIC WIDWT W8

..Dnmncs AND WNCIDSIONS...

 

he Joint Elise-Sarah labor Committee heard testimny pertaining
to elem separate legislative proposals (fifteen bills including those
entered in both aha-hers ). Of these only the three Pan-sponsored bills
were reported out of ccunittee: 3.3.2869, compulsory arbitration;
3.3.2953. anendnente to the Hutchinson lot; and 3.3.2994, a-endnents to
the IHL‘ he strategywas forthe Houseto report thelegislationbe-
curse the bills would have less difficulty there.1

he compulsory arbitration our, 3.3.2869, was the first reported
out. (Seeippendixl'forthesequmceofactiononthebillJ heoon-
litteehadnade conninor nerd-ate. (Seeippmdifooracopyof
thebill.) ItpassedthefiouseonhayZBbyavoteofjé-SB, whichin-
dicatcd that the Monte, who had 73 embers, were somewhat disenchanted
withit.‘ Butthelastchanbertoectonabillhasthereelpreseureof
deteu'dnation, andtheSurstewasnotasfsvorahlyinolinedaswasthe

knee. mJunell,thebillwasreportedorrtofcomitteem

 

1Marshall, interview, 93, 3;,

63

64

W Because of the traditional power of the collittee chair-
man, this action indicates that Senator Ievin (Senate Labor Ooudttee
hairnan) was not especially in favor of passage. On June 22 the motion
tohearandvoteonthebillfailedbyonevote, andSenatorIevinvoted
for the Uta-0061

he mend-eats to the Hutchinson int, 3.8.2953, were favorably
reported on May 26. (See Appendix 1' for sequence.) he muse co-ittee
hadenerriedthebillintwobasic reepectsbytrsnsferringthelanguage
of 3.3.2954 Sections 23(B)-(K), which provided procedures for unfair
labor practices, to Section 16, and by establishing a contract bar.

Additionally, adxthunfairlaborpracticewas addedrequiringe-ployers
to bargain with uployee representatives. he inclusion of this clause
hadbenrurgedas aneans ofnaking specific the sonevdrat amiguous
language of the sieilsr intent in the federal law. he delayed addition
ofathree-year contractbarrefleotsminterndmdon splitbetmen
them, whowantedaone-yearbar, andthecraftunionswhowishedlong
terainsulation.2 (See Appoodn n for a copy of the our.)

Wharthebill oanebeforethe buss forits thirdreading, Repre-
smtative Grin, a-nberoftheHEA, challengedtheunionpoeitionby
offering continents: ”To create a professional negotiation collusion;
to prescribe its function; to provide for procedures for the presenta-
tion, discussion and solution of letters of salary, conditions of uploy-

nent and other matters of nutual concern."3 In usence, hepreemtstive

 

1mm W 3. p. 1885.
zlime, interview, an 53,

3mm. W 2. p. 1353.

65

Grin was trying to introduce 3.8.2160, the MEL-sponsored legislation,
into tho House by homo of tho mood-cot process (3.3.2450 had felled
in ao-attoo, byaé-tvote, on partylines). he anenchuentswerede-
feated fill-53, with net of the affiliative votes from predominantly MEA
districts} he original bill then passed tho House by a 68-32 vote.2

In the Senate, the Labor Goslittee made two other ilportant amend-
mte. first, it provided that the State Court of Appeals instead of
the (hr-suit hurts be the court for mforoaurt of unfair labor prac-
tices. Senator Levin explained:

he reason for this was essentielly one of tine. he

Federal experience has nanifested many samples of very

protracted consideration of a single labor-daanagenent rela-

tions problan. Sonotines three or four years have elapsed

before a final dedsion. fince the purpose of our mend-

nents was to help resolve disputes in an expeditious earner,

it was decided to skip one tier in tho court structure.3

Second, Sectienleae anendedtopemtnostflresupervisorsto
beunhnsders. haditionallyurecaptainsandchiefshavebemnen-
bers of the Fire fighters Association. Accordingly, the labor organiza-
tion wanted to insure that as a result of "fsvorable legislation" they
werenot suddenlyredncodinnenbershipbyanunfavorabledetersination
of a unit by the labor Mediation Board.“ he amend-arts were adopted
31-lbytheSenateandreturnedtothe House, wheretheypassed90-6.

hebillwastoheveinediateeffect.5

 

llama, interview, g3, flip

and», W 2. p. 1851.
3Ievin, correspondence, 2p, 43,
M41, interview, 22. m,

Such-o W 2: P- 19‘8-

 

66

he naJor alterations to the labor Mediation Act anardnents,
3.3.2990», were those concerning changes in the unfair labor practice
section, changes in the court of enforcement and inclusion of a con-
tractber." (See Appendix Pforthe sequence of actiononthe bills,
andippmdixlferacopyofthehill.) Itpassedthefiouse 69-28and
tho Sarto 35-2}

hue, thetwobills succeededinbothchanbors.‘ hecrucialvote
counting revealed that, although the bills had gained bipartisan support,
theymuldnot have receivedthe 7t30ueevotes requiredto override a
vote if the Governor had rejected then.

WW9.
um. Ellie. Marshall served as the rallying point and coordinator

for union efforts, Senator Sander Ievin not be characterised as the grand
strategist and aolmowledged pilot of the legislature. Prior to his first
election to the legislature in 1964, Levin had been an attorney. Che of
his specialties was labor la and he represented various labor orgadsa-
tions in that capacity. Although in his first year in the legislature,
Levin was able to rise to the powerful position of (hair-uh of the Senate
Labor Genuittee because half of the Demcratio senators were new.

While in favor of revisions in labor legislation, Levin did not
overtly play a role in the developeent of PM proposals. hat is, he
was not in attudance at ary of the official meetings as were Senator
Colman Ioung and Representative Robert Dingwoll. However, it would be
naive to suggest that in his role of Senate Labor Goa-ittee Grairnan he
had not hem consulted.

 

1%. 3. p. 17M: W 3. p. 1867-

67

Oorrespmdence with Stator Levin indicates that he worked on the
bill earlier than its artranoe into the legislature on April ll}, 1965,
when he wrote, ”Nobody coo-cu interested in it [tho omribus emf]
except a few of us who had worked on it."1

Be corresponded tith most of the naJor political fomes. Fbr
steeple, an outline of the legislation and proposed changes was sent to
Robert Howlett for his consent. Senator Levin queried nest of the powers
in this way.2 Phrthermre, the manner in which he handled hinself and
thebillsmnhinthsrespectofbcthddes andundoubrteflyhelpedthe
bills gain what has been called bipartisan support.

nthough in large neasure the substance and fate of the bills ap-
peartohavebemsetpriortothehearings, Iovinchairedthenorning
sessions and established an open atmosphere and attupted to divide the
svdlable time between opponents and proponents. He further suggested
that the parties forward written copies of their statauents or in other
ways correspond with the couittce. He assured those in attmdance that
their docueents muld receive the utmost attention of the cos-ittee.
Perhaps thiswasacharade, perhapsnot. hefactisthatthelegisla-
tion changed very little in co-littee.

Chechangeacoonplishedafterthehearingsinvolvedthem Gor-
responience by Hoflett to Levin indicates that the Senator proposed the
key amendment which achieved the conprcnise to gain MEL support. (See

rppcadu J.)

 

1Personal letter, Sander 3. Ievin, August 23, 1967.
zlevin, interview, 22, 33.

0-1

68

After his work in the legislature had been completed and the bills
were on the Governor's desk, Levin recognised the quandry of the Governor
over New Iork Governor Rockefeller's veto of somewhat similar legislation.
h bolster the bill and the Governor, Levin dispatched form letters to
interested parties encouraging correspondence urging the Governor to
sign the legislation.

 

Since the election of Governor Romney in 1962, the neebers and
particularly the chairean of the Labor Mediation Board have been very
active in the behind the scenes developmt of legislation affecting
labor. hey thuselves sought to develop legislstion and others sought
their advice.1 heir involve-rent cones in part from the activist philos-
cplw of the two chair-en, Malcolm Iovell and Ibbert Howlett, from the
factthattheyareregardedaserperteinthe fieldandwuldeventually
be responsible for inplenentation of the legislation, and from their
close association with the governor.

Iovell, who had been an herican lbtors industrial relations execu-
tive, believed that, if collective bargaining worked in the private sec-
tor, itoughttoworkinthepnblicaruaaswell. Hesswtheneedfor
public uployees tohavethe righttoorganise andbargain andfortheir
representatives to be able to request mediation without subdtting a
petition from 50 per out of a unit's e-ployees. he Michigan private
sector larhadprocechrral problensr the IMBwas requiredto take a

 

11mm mo, interview, July 11, 1967.

69

strike vote as a neans of determining representation questions, and
hospitalandpublicutiJitJ-plcyeedisprteshadtobeinitiallyre-
terred to a panel appointed by the governor for represmtation questions.
To r-sdy these problems, lovell attupted to mlist bipartisan support
for almdnuts to the existing laws during 1963 and early 196+.

me legislation introduced with Board support failed to gain aw
suhctsntial backing tron either party. Marshall relates that the bill
vastocweakto gainlabor support: it tailedto ridtheactctits
harsh penalties and was general]: Isak. Lovell was fined Iith suspicion
asa'do-gooder'shocouldhavegcttmthebfllpsssedithereallyvanted
to.:1 m the other hand, the mchigan undoipal League was completely un-
villing to support any idea of collective bargdning for public e-plnyses.
However, these earlybillsdidservetheusemlpurposeoftoeusing public
and legislative attention on the inadequacies of the 1m.

In the follodng year, Robert Mett, the nsw MIME char-an, again
sentto mwdisouss laborlegislation. Bskncwthelaborleaders
andhelcnswthattheyuofldhepursuingtheirlegislative goals. his
tine, hclever, labor cans to the Board. (in Dace-her 18, 199-}, a coflttee
of. the PM net with bflett, Walsh, and Parker. Mett states that
philosophically, the tub groups tears in sylpathw, although the union
wantedto gonichflu'therthantheBoarclnuhers.2 Itvasatthis stage
that Mott went on record to support the proposition of unfair labor

practices against elplnyee organisations.

 

1mm, mum", 93, 9,3.
zflowlett, interview, 23. $3,

70

be hard published a full analysis of 3.8.29541 (for chernor
flimsy, inlineflthastandingorderthatfll agencyheadsprepare an
malysis of bills affecting their agencies ). (See Appendix I for con-
plots text.) lhe analysis is undated but its reference to the probe—-
bilitythattheonibusbilluouldnotbereportedtrmcontnteeuuuld
indicatethatituspreparedinApr-ilornay. nthcughitis calledan
analysis of both 3.3.2953 and $3.295“, it deals only with the m slend-
nents and the procedural overlap applications of the Hutchinson Act. the
Board noted that the bill would empower the 1143 to issue cease and desist
orders for unfair labor practices and stated that this provision goes
beyond 8.B.llll of 196'}. The Board did resonand that the bill be anended
to require a bipartisan 1MB. As it did with the 1964 proposal, the Board
heartily Qdorsed the changes pertaining to election procedures, but it
went mrther by also adorsing the elimination of criminal penalties for
injunction violations in hospital disputes.

fires of the MIME suggestions specifically departed from those lads
by the FEM. he Board suggested that consideration be given to prohibi-
tion of the closed shop Iith an authorization of the union shop, and thsy
went on record as favoring the designation of unpleyee unfair labor prac-
tices.

IttheBoardistohaveceasemddedstpoversasprovided
in Section 23, as belisve it preferable that the unflir labor

practices spedfied in Section 8(b) of NBA be included and that
the 1m. be chanced to conform uith the m2

 

w

1m. or House m1. Nos. 2951; (Senate am 619) to Amend the
Mediationiotand2953(8snatefl11621)tohmdthe&rtchinsonict,by
new." of Labor mum Board (typewritten, undated).

2m. p. 8.

71

Finally, the Board raised the question of ”whether appeal should be to
the Circuit GourtasprovidedintheBill, ortothe Oourtoprpeals,
condstat with the federal practice. ”1 Since the Mg did not
discuss the substantive provisions of the Hutchinson Act, we can only
speculate that its 1965 position on compulsory arbitration was the sans
as that stated in their Men the Advisory Giulittee on Public
hployes Relations Report.

We are opposed to the concept of compulsory arbitration
in the public service. Compulsory arbitration is contrary to
our dnocratic system of governnent in which the legislative
body of a governmental unit is the final Judge of policy.
Cities, oomnities, boards of education, etc., are the direct
represmtative of the voters and are charged by statute with
the responsibility of determining fiscal and other policies.
The use of compulsory arbitration brings in a third party who
has no respondbi'lity to the voters or in the final outcome.
While the committee suggests Judicial review, this concept
vests in the Judidary a legislative function which may, under
3... 0 s- 'MNO ~- 51.; ca gunman“;

:.:: 322 Mich. 3321’"- , be unconstitutional as a breach of
the doctrine of separation of powers.2

he aunt of direct involvement by madman Boulett and the “301'!
ottheIMBIdJlprobablyneverbeknounbecausemchotitvasbyprivate
correspondence. Senator Levin for one was in close touch with Mr. Bottlett.
He had solicited co-ats tron Bowlett by giving him a detailed brebbdovn
of the proposals.3 he Senator also consulted him about the MEL's desire

for special teacher mediators.“ ms interest use not clandestine, however.

1%. p. 9.

2Qanentsbyli-hersoftheInborliediationBoardcntheRepor'tto
GoverncheorgelbneybytheidvisoryOo-IitteeonPublichployeeBela-

tions (typed, prepared shortly after February 15, 19673 verified by
he B‘llott): pe6

3mm, interview, 29,. a“,

 

1965. “Correspondence, Ebert 0. mm: to non. Sander Levin, June 9,

72

Mention is made in the transcript of the legislative hearings that
Mr. Howlett was in the audience. )breover, that he was backing the
legislation bees-e public in June when the m Ragds gross and the
W reported a flare-up betwear the Graimsn of the MIME
and Grand Rapids Mayor Chris Someveldt. Hewlett was quoted as stating
that the "Glty Oomdssion was making a great nistalne in opposing legis-
lation that would allow public uployees to have exclusive bargaining
agents.” He was also reported as stating that ”the entire Boardutwo
Republicans and a Democrats-supports the bill...”, and that he was sure
“theSenatewiJlanendtheBousebiJltonakendnorchangeshebelicves
to be necessary.” lire naJor change he stated, was the equalization of
unfair labor practices.1

hat the bills passed the legislature and went to the governor with-
out the such sought-after euployee organisation unfair labor practice
provision.” Becmse of the potential negative political implications of
the mckefellerveto ofa sonewhat sinilarbillinNconrk, Governor
honey asked Mr; Bowlett for an analysis of the bill and a comparison
of it filth the New York verdon.’ Although not completely satisfied with
the bills, Bowlett noon-ended that the governor approve the amendments,
for to do otherwise would negate many desirable fectures of the legis-

lotion."2

MW
Governor Fbmey's interest in revisions in mchigan labor laws was

 

lumen, interview, 22: g3.
2m

73

passive from the beginning. In 1963 he had agreed to Malcolm Iovell's
proposal to consider anendnants to both the private and public sector
labor laws. is we have seen, lovell's approach was to improve the 1m
conservatively. he Governor's approach to Iovell was, ”who besides
yourself is in favor of it?"1 here weren't many.

he PEI!) petitioned both parties to go on record in their 196“
platfenus as supporting changes in the law. he Republican party did
not adopt such a platferu, and Ibmey did not include any such recon-
nendattions in his legislative progran for the following year.2 hare,
ova: though Republican representatives in the 1MB showed signs of in-
terest, Ibmey's failure to speak out on the issue left doubt as to what
his position would be. his was a naJor hurdle to the Duocrats, for
they had votes sufficiart to pass the bills through the legislature but
probably not enough to override a veto without some Republican help.

his question Iark severely restrained the position of the PEDC
and forced it to question its proposals in this light. it the Mr 15
nesting, ”Attorney Sachs told the delegates that, while the prospects for
labor legislation are good, there is concern whether the Governor will
sign them.~3 Sons within or. labor non-mt favored tn. specific repeal
of the strike prohibition and the substiimtion of an ornibus bill. But
these ideas were reJectedx "is a matter of political expediency they
L-the PEG-j arefearmlofaGoverncr's vetoifthefirtchinsonictwere

 

18tatenent, moor- Iovell, telephone interview, August 8, 1967.
Reference being made to his report to fbmey after his efforts.

Zmnott, murder, a. gig,
3mm, mm, Decenber 15, 196k, 1). 3.

74

repealed in its entirety. ”1

Part of the PEG strategy appears to have been based on the
Governor's probable reaction. ‘Ihree bills were sponsored after the
legslative hearings. However, if the strategy were to give Honey
the opportunity to exercise his vote on the compulsory arbitration
bill, theplandidnet succeed. lheSenatepre-enptedhh.

The bills were put on the desk of the Governor on July 15.

Just three weeks before, fellow bpublican Governor Rockefeller had
vetoed somewhat sinilar legslation in New York. As a result, Romney
asked Erwlet‘t to get in touch with the appropriate parties in New York
to deter-due the reasons for lbckefeller's veto and to prepare a report
comparing the two laws.

Realising the Governor's quandry, Senator Levin forwarded letters
to his kids explaining that the Governor's office had been receiving
sons nil in oppodtion to the legislation. Levin suggested that these
people and cemniques urging his sipature.

Ibmeyreceivedpressurefronthem who ”stronglyappealedto
the Governor to veto the legislation. '2 he Michigan School Board Asso-
ciation also approached him and pointed out the negative effects of the
legalstion.

Hewlett's report to busy pointed out that the New Iork legisla-
tion was a product of political partisanship and was considered by

Uszor-kupertsasbeingapoorlyconstructedbill.

 

1%
2Berrodin, interview, 2;. g},

75

lbough the bills could have becone law without his signature,
the Governor signed th- on July 23. fire Governor gave..."this bill
the most careful consideration of any of the hundreds of bills adopted
at this sitting in the Michigan Legislature. ”1 As suggested by one
labor leader, undoubtedly one reason was his presidential aspirations.
Perhaps pointing nore subtly in the sane dinction is Senator Levin's

replytethequestion.

"In L-didj the Governor sign the bill rather then
allow it to become law without his signature? I would
answer this by referring to his message upon approval of
the bill. The Governor's office was involved in mm dis-
mssicns of this bill. fire contents of the bill cane as no
surprise. While I do not believe that am legislation re-
ferring archaic notions about public employment would have
originated and passed in a Republican controlled legislature,
at least in the foreseeable future, an overwhelming number
of Republicans voted in the affirnative. he Governor lauded
the bill whn he signed it.

he bill, in w opinion, was in the mainstream of progress
in this country, while not pretending to solve mtonatieslly
every single issue that might arise. As the Governor showed

in1965andl966, heverynuohwantedtc appeartobeinthe
ndnstrean of reform initiated by the first Delocratic Legis-

lature in thirty years.2

W
In mcbigan, there were three preconditions necessary for the

maetnent of this refereed labor legislation; the developaent of a

receptive environment, a source of power, and coordinated leadership.
In reality the developent of a receptive environnnrt is spread

over thirty years, for the Meral Wagner Act established a visible

 

1Press 3.1.1.... Office of the Governor, lensing, mchigan, July 23,
1965 (We )e

2Levin correspondence, 93. g;

 

 

76

goal for public employees. Public employees (like their private sector
counterparts prior to Wagner) for years had been without the right to
choose exclusive representatives, without the right to demand that their
upleyer bargain collectively, and without effective procedures for set-
tling disputes. the early efforts to remedy this situation were begun
in Inchigan by unions such as the mom which attenuated to organize
and bargain almost without tools. he political climate began to change
visibly in the mid-fifties. A 1955 American Bar Association report on
government-employee relations depicts sons of the changing sentiment.
Also, beginning in 1957 in mchigan, bills to grant public employees
basic collective bargaining rights were introduced in every session of
the State Legislature. lbs real catalyst, however, may have been the
flaw Iork teachers' strike, which served two purposes: first, it drama-
tised the problems of the public e-ployee; and second, it deconstrated
that strihsintheprblic sectorwerenolongerfutileandthat gains
could be accomplished through their use.

Although bills were introduced annually in Michigan to change the
laws, these were always sponsored by the minority Democratic Party, until
1964. In that year a few Republicans attempted to develop a consensus
bill. mess Republicans being professional labor relations practitioners,
understood the need for procedural changes and saw the changing duands
being made by these elployees. But because these leaders were unable to
gain political support for their re-edial measures, the la remained un-
changed. Itwasnotuntiltheelectionafterthelegislaturewas reap-
portioned that a willing source of political power developed and the
Denocrats controlled both chanbers of the legislature.

77

Rollover, becausetheirnarginwasnotlarge «rough foraggggg;
m ever a Republican Governor's veto, skilled labor and party lead-
ership were necessary. he linutes of labor's PELC uply demonstrate
that kt‘terney Ted Sachs carefully sized up the internal union forces and
drafted legislation to satisfy his constituency while at the same time
considered the attitudes of potential opposition. Senator Sander Levin
provided the necessary leadership to steer the bills through the legis-
lature. 'nnough his political activity, the proposals were referred to
naJor power sources for consideration and cement. Bipartisan support
wasachievedbecausetherewasalmownsourceofpowerandaleaderwhe
knew whm to use this power and when to compromise-ma classic d-enstra-
tion in the successful and effective use of power.

PARIII

HISTORICAL 1391mm, mun. ORGANIZATION,
momma moms mo EVOLVING comm
mom posrnous or m pamczmx.

moment marrow. ems

CHAPTER V

mom: ORGANIZAHONS

WW
he earliest attupts to organise teacher locals in mehigan were

undertaker by the heriean Federation of Teachers during the 1920's.
hese early efforts did not succeed, however, and it was not until 1932
thatthefirstlooalunien, Detroit local 231,waschartered.

In January, 1933. Grand Rapids local 256, and in February, 193‘},
Ann Arbor Ioeal 28'; were organised. In HQ, 1931}, a local was organised
in Ialanaseo. mghland Park became the fifth local in January, 1935.
be reasons for organisation and early activities were essentially
political.

Detreithadoverenehnndrednedaersinitslocdinl932 and
affilieted almost inediately after organising with the herican hiera-
tien of Labor. Its early activities were hidrly political; e.s., when
the Legislstive Mttee of the Michigan linoation Association failed
telineupthevotersinDetroit againstproposedanmd-entetctheState
bustitution which seriously Jeopardised education, it appealed to the
local chapter of the heriean Meraticnef Teadrers, which thu worked
forthedefeetoftheanandlntsin Detroit. neutroitlecalhada
legislative Mttee which wrhed for acne ties with both the Michigan
Erection Association and the local laber organisations.

79

 

.____.,___ fl—fi

80

lbs Islanasoe teachers' unionwas organisedinuayof 193‘}, and
mafflliateddththeleedfradescouncfls hiringitsfirstyear,
it elected school board were, worked for the defeat of the Consti-
tutional “nuts and fought the proposals for fifteen-mill property
taxlieltations.

GrandRapldshadeninitialmedrershipofforty. liredrasticcuts
insaleryhadawakenedtheseteaoherstethedosirebllityefunienaf.
miaticn.‘ In 1933 salaries were reduced 15$, in 193“. 38%. in 1935,
40$. lire local fought but lost tr. fifteen-fill linitation proposals
largelybecauseefapoweriulrealestateboardrepresenungrealestate
heldingintereststhstwereserioualydelinquentintaqumts.

lbs Ann Arbor chapter was organised in hbruary, 1935 and affiliated
with the local bades Council. A legislative Oo-ittee was foned and was
dividedintothreeunitstes'hrdythelooal, thestate,andthenetienal
situaflon.‘1ihedrandnapids,anearlylajerissuewasthefifteen-Illl
lilitaticnproposal. AmnsdebythemeMgmhmidpalIeaguein
AnArborshowedthattheuallhouenerpddMstaxeswhilethein-
dividndswithlargerealestateholdingsweroinclinedtebeddinquent.

Inl93#,threehundredclassroonteachersinmghlandl’arkveted
to organise a local union and to affiliate with the nohigan Federation
ofl'eaohers.‘ firesalaryreduotiens sufferedbythefiighland Parkteaohers
waseneeftheprinereasonsferthisaotion. firesalariesefthemgh-
landFarkteachers($l800)wes-ebelewthesecfthenrelsnrinthecon-
.nity. hrther,whiletheteachersreceiveda33$eut,thecityugineer
reodvedarduofW,andthemperintendenteftheweterdeputeent
andthenrechiefreceivedsubstantialincreasesinsalary. heBoari

81

of Eiucation contended that cut backs in salary were unavoidable because
the general home owner was delinquest in paying his taxes. However, a
teacher survey of the delinquent tax situation showed that the small
home owner paid his taxes, while apartment house owners and businessmen
were delinquent.

Evidence indicates that representatives of these locals hold joint
meetings before January, 1935. Prior to that time these locals were called
the American Federation of Teachers Iocals of the State of Michigan}

A joint luncheon meeting was held by the American Federation of
Teachers Iocals of the State of mchigan in Ann Arbor, Ifichigan,2 on
January 19, 1935. This meeting was of great importance, for it was at
this meeting that the Michigan Federation of Teachers was officially
created.

It was moved and supported that the conference proceed

at once to set up a state organization composed of a President,

Secretary and a cabinet or executive board made up of Presidents

of the several locals. This was amended to the effect that each

local elect its cabinet or executive board member to spread the
responsibility.

lire amended motion was put to a vote and carried.3
1ND weeks later at the first official meeting of the newly formed
MFI‘, the members present:
1. Outlined the preliminary steps for a definite, objective
state program of action including a program of legislation embodying

(a) taxation, (b) tenure, and (c) academic freedom;

 

1mmtes of Joint luncheon Meeting, m, January 19, 1935.

2w.- 9 P- 1-
31nd.

82

2. Set into motion the eventual creation of a legislative body
whose power to act would be delegated by the various locals;

3. Race-add that all proposals regarding tenure legalation
be investigated;

ll». Discussed educational financing including the undesirability
ef a sales tax, concern for debt reduction, the need for revised wage
laws, andarece-mdedwage sealeeellingferardninnnof $1,000 for
all teachers;

5.“ nested its officers for one-year tens;

a. 1):. V. G. Bergman of Detroit, president
b.” ides Sarah F. Keen of Ann Arbor, state secretaryl

6. healed thet one coditee (legislation) was already in
existence aniwasworkingenrules cftemre.

During these formative years the major concerns of the MIT can be
broken down into six major areas. A brief resume of each area follows.

Wacomiution betwom teacher groups was
infrequent, sndnderseftheseleealsdidnotbeunneeMumtillfllt.
These meetings were the result of injustices to teachers ecmrrlng
throughoutthestatednringthetineofthe Great Depression. Hence,
atthis tine, securitywastbeprinary concern ofmeryteaehers, who
sought reliefthroughprovisicns forturure.2 Someteachersfronvarieus
parts of the state, discouraged at their lack of progress in promoting

 

lam-... of First listing of the Michigan Federation of Teachers,
An Arbor, mohigan, February 2, 1935.

2 .p.9. Tenureseenstehavebenrthegreatrallyingforce
of the through its initial organisation.

83

tenure through non-union teacher associations, urged the unions to assume
the initiative}

Other teachers, however, feared a union with labor because they
were uninformed about the policies and practices of labor unions. th-
fertunately, courses in the history of education have failed to show the
positive support given by labor to measures advocated by educators. lb
getteaehersto afflliatedthlabereventheughmarwdeslredanewor-
ganisation, was a slow and patience-trying task.2 lire Michigan Federa-
tion of Teachers found a lack of knowledge by teachers of the probl-s
eftheirpuofessionaswellasthavarietyofavdlnblenethedste solve
those problus. hrs than amthing else the mchigan Federation of
Teachers found a serious lack of organisational experience by teachers
ofthesnalllocalsinoct-steteldchiganmskingthosegreupsweakand
ineffective.

Tammi—t tenure m1 was introduced in the Michigan Legislature
by the m with the help of the Inchigan Mention of labor in 1935.
his bill failed to pass when a mohigan flucation Association (m)
tenurebillwasalsosthtedshortlythereaftereausingoonfusienand
a split among the legislators who supported the tenure concept. In 1937.
uthadegreecfcooperationfronthem,apensissivetypeoftemre
billpassedtheleflalature; i.e., atenure systencouldbelegally

 

1m. p. 3.
am no», 'Dpcrt of out of State Iocals,” (W
m Wayne State thiversity library), Box 5, p. it.

3Arthur Elder, ”Report on State Legislation by the mchigan Fed—

eration of Teachers,” (W Reyna State thiversity
11“”), M 6, Pa 9e

8h

institutedbymsehwlflstrietwhichvotedtodoso. lirisbillwas
anudodinl941 ande permissiveuntill963when statewidotenure
became mandatory. Dtil 1963, anajer ”Tprogramwas to pressure for
the adoption oftmrcineachinflwldusl district.

 

Teachers in the early years were obligated to attend state-sponsored, m
insti'hrtos for two duo in October. Institutes were authorised by the
StsteSuperintendentofPublic Instructicnandheldenregularschool
days fermchtosohersworepaid. momma protested. Some
misundersrefusedtojointhenon-unionassodstionandspentthe
twodsysinthelr-ptyclassroonsdoingroutineasdgnents.

Further, teachers were obliged to pry an institute fee of $1.00
formen and50¢ferwonenteachorswhenreodvingthdrannual contracts.
(turnover each district reported 100$ worship in the MEA it received
a gold star placed behind its name, for other districts to see.) a...
gardless of my original Justification, the m felt thst application
of the fee was discriminatory. The deposit of these funds into the EA
troasurywas also challengedbytholflTthrogheutthelW's. Itwas
also felt that spring institutes often were used for narrow ergamss-
tienal and personal political purposes.

In response to these practices, the LIFT sponsored legislative
hills which elidnsted institute fees in various mohigan cities. later
the MIT challenged the legality of alloung a private organisation (the
BA) to oondxwt meetings at tanayers' exparse.‘ Dr. Elliott, State

 

1mm, m can» and legislative mutt“, Ann Arbor,
nohigan, March 8, 1935; and lflnutos, m, Ann Arbor, mehigan, May It,
1935.’

85

Superintendent of Public Instruction, admitted the Justice of the
nehigan Federation of Teachers's ecntmtion by mthorising it to
hold its own fall mount...
Wl—mring tn. early thirties, mohrgm teachers
were required to take an arsenal, notarized, loyalty oath, which was
a part of their contract. Bomtnmt against taking the oath increased,
both because teachers felt that it was an unsuited refutation of their
loyalty, andbeeansotholawhadbeenusedbyammberofschoolbcards
as apsetaxtfervielating contrasts. Severaltoachers were denied
thousands of dollars neutron: 4.. than for services performed because
thecsthwosnctincludedaspartofthe contraotasrequiredbythelaw.
mommmn. abolishingtheoath requirementintroduced at
several sessions of the legislature. Individual letters were mailed to
austere and representatives. Eventually the law was repealed.
WZ-Wu in school elections had
itspreponnrtsinthe earlystagesofthemorgamsatienandwas an
especially important issue for both the Grand Rapids and Flint locals.
In these oosnnities the fronchise in school elections was restricted
tecwnorsefpropertyandparents ofchildrenin school. henchigan
Morstion of Teachers in cooperation with the mchigan deeratien of
leborsponscredabilltoextendtherighttovotetoalloitisens at
I several. sessions efthelegislature. nobill emtuallybecamolsw.

 

1936 Imus, m can-mu More, (location m), April 25,

met... 22- gg, larch 8, 1935.

1"

86

Whl—Mor to 1937 the pasia mt...

was supportedacllybytoachers. ‘nrsyfoll furtherandfurtherbehind
the alletnats grated to other retirees, ad their allowances were
scnetinubelewtheos gratedthroughtheHPAadother-wolfars plas.
firewalrnsdthatrapldactisnwculdfollewtdththoelectienef
Governor lhrphy, a Democrat.

llrslongpericdofdelaybythe btirsnent Boardinintroduoing a
bill seaedinexplicable, until acheckrevealedthstthenon-union,
stats educational association officers and members of the Retire-at
hardworoumdllingto approaohthe Governorwhobolcngedtc adifferent
political party.” trough the mohigan Federatia of labor, teacher union
roprosatatlves secured the Governor's expression of support and facil-
itated a conference of interested groups. 11:. bill was introduced and
passed, adestablishedadni-nponsionof $700adansrisnnpsnsion
of $1,200 ywoarly.2

fins the an established its goals by 1938, attained some goals
early, adccntinuedtcreachforothers. broughoutthel940'sad
1950's the prion-y concerns of all m locals were salaries, tenure,
adretirenat. later, withthepassagsofths ToachorTmreActad
the creaticnofaTenure Gadsden, tthFThdpsdestablishavehicle
by which equitable dismissal procedures were established.

mJunoof1967. therewsre 681ccaluuiensaffilistedwiththe
manger Federation of Teachers. However, the majority of these did

 

1m», m, Lansing, inchiga, October 13, 1935.
metaa, m, Pontiac, Inchigan, April 25, 1936.

87

not possess exclusive bargaining rights for the teachers in their
districts. (3.. Part III.) may, continued growth and mm
will largely depend upon achieving this recognition.

fire power struggle betwea the mchigan Federation of Teachers
and mchigan Eiucation Association developed in the 1930's and continues
today. {the Federation' s public attack centers upon the charge that the
Association fails to consider problas of teachers' welfare to be its
parsauntconoern.

Anaapleofthisstrngglewasthetaxdiversionaendnentadopted
in homer, 19106. no Association maintained that it led the campaign
for adoptionofthe Wt, adthat the Michigan Federation of Teach-
ersopposedthesalsstaxdiversionamadnat. It alsopointedectthat
statesidhadincroasedfron62.5nilliento159rdlliondollarsyearly.
nolbderauoncontendadthatitwastruothatsalaryincroasssinall
partsofthostatohavebesnsadefronfundsdorivedthroughadeptienof
thotadiveraionanendnent. Bowever,thoMFTargued,ther-eisnopuoof
thatsuchsalaryinoreassswouldnothavebeanddeinthegreatnajority
of districts without the adoption of the amend-at. Moreover, there are
thousadsofteachersinmcmganwhohadnotsecuredtheincreasoin
salaryJustifiedbytheriseinstateaid. Harwwealthisrdistrictshad
ccttheirlocaltanosorfailodtoincreassthaandworeusingaconsid-
arableportionofstateaidfundsforschoolbuildingpurpcses. 'nrose
situationswsreparticularlyacutsindistrictswherenoteachersunien
hadbeachartsred. mscampdgnferthosalutaxdiverdonanadnat
was initiated and sponsored by real estate interests and civic leaders

principdlyinthsflftosn-lilldtiuxtheywerebecclingincreasingly

 

 

llv'“ our. \ I

88

fearful that they would he forced to support municipal and school serv-
ices ncre adequately Iith local tax Ioniesol

Another example of this struggle m the debate over leadership
of teachers' retirunt programs. nu Federation replied to the Associ-
ation's slain of leadership in the following way:

Non-mien as well as union teachers urged the organi-

sation or the Michigan Federation of Teachers in 1933 and

193k becase, they declared, they were receiving no cooperap

tion in their etforts to promote sound retirement and tenure

1.31am» through Michigan Education Associaticmz

(h the Natiual scene, teachers, represented by the American
Federation of Teachers (AH), had a dgnincant role in bringing about
ohangesinnawstatelm: bothnaucnallyandinmehiganitsasthis
organisation Ihich brought to public 710' by strikes and duonstratiens
theplightcfthepublic uployee. 111196]. the NesIcrkteaehersdeucn-
strated that the strike could yield results, on when it was outlawed;
the m affiliate non aclnsive bargaining rights for the city's 1115,00!)
prilary and secondary school teachers.3 lot that the public or a majority
of teachers necessarily approved the loans used, but their ability to
mite and to benefit tron their violation of the law tmded to “legiti-
nine" the use or such action elsewhere.

alert]: alter the December, 1961, successes, the AFT Joined the
Industrial mien Department (IUD) of the AIL-CID. fines that tine, the

 

mum-9.

zloterview Iith Thomas m1 at Michigan Federaucn of Teachers'
office on July 17, 1967.

meow mum name». W
:9 :42: -'_. .J .. #114,; ' y 4" :11 ' ‘ $800302! Report, 19 5 -

      

89

IUD has hem deeply involved in organising public school teachers. hit
by 1964 they had achieved only ttelve written ogre-alts between school
boards and teachers Mona; only four of these agreements included terns
and conditions of uploynent, and the others were merely recognition
agree-ants}

me mchigan Mention of Teachers (EFT) attempted to capitalize
on the New Iork situation through its Journal, the W
those issues of the early 1960's fea‘lmred articles covering New Iork
teacher successes.

his role of the inchigan Mention of Teachers thus was that of
an advisor or a resource agency to infora and. give «perigee to local
organisations. the nchigan Mention of Teachers accomplished little
foreachlocal, butdidhelplecalstchelpthunselves. hatteuptras
nadetcencouragethelocalstoadopt aprograntcfitlocalneeds.

lhe Michigan Federation of Teachers' most effective contribution
to its nubership has hem through its relationship with organsed labor.
It has becono a force which has worked for legislation to inrove educa-
tional opportunities and teacher welfare throughout mchigan.

lhe mchigan Federation of Teachers speaks of its progress in the
following ways

Itnstnotheassuned, however, thatthehderaticn

progress has been node without opposition. Its officers

and Jae-bars have been threatened; they have had promotions

offered to than with the suggestion they slacken their ac-

tivities on behalf of teachers. In vol-Icing for legislation

the Inchigan Federation of Teachers representatives had
been told repeatedly by senators and representatives that

 

11am n. realm, vacuum. Bargaining for Public School
Teachers", W 15 (Dacder, 1964), p.‘ 787.

5’

9O

inflnential superintendents and county conaisaioners were
van-king with vigor against the very legislation the Federa-
tion was supporting and the Association claimed to be sup-

porting. Superintendents claiming to speak for the mobi-
gan Education Association, for example, went to legislators

urgngth-to opposetenurewhile teachers wereurgingits

«imprinted;l

lhl967, theth'sappealis sinplythstthebest protection for
teachers against division and promotion of narrow group interests is
nelbership in a classrocn teachers' organisation affiliated within the
state with the mchigan Mention of Teachers and nationally with the
herican Federation of Teachers and the nit-cm.2

Ithasbeenentrunelydiffieulttocollectdatathatwouldccn—
pletely document the development and history of the Mchigan Federation
of Teachers; lhe files in the lichigan Federation of Teachers' office
extendedbackto aboutl96h. Watwm State Uni.
versity has emcellent early descriptive naterials, but they are lirited
largely to early legislative proposals and adninistrative data. he
Federstionstaffisanallandallareoonparstivelynew; sotheirknowl-
edge about the past is incomplete and rather minfcrmed.

Breathedataavailablemdrsinforcedbythe contuporarydevelop-
nuts detailed in Part I, I conclude that the Inchigan Federation of
Teachershasneverbemthepowergrouporfcrcethttinitselfinflnenced
educational change. Its prime contribution to the locals has been its
ability to speak for the locals collectively, and, Iith its relationsMp
to the AIL-CID, it has been able to influence state legislation.

 

1am interview, 2p, g5,
Zm’

91

However, an summation of the deeraticn at the state level is
an inoo-plete analysis of Federation activities and influmce, for a
large part of the Federation's visability and associated strmgth lies
within the Detroit local, especially contemporary collective bargaining
activities. Ihlike the MEA, where the power, strategy, and influence
are directed to the locals fruit the state-level organisation, the Federa-
tion's power base rests with the Detroit local.“

fire Detroit l'bderation

 

materical parallels exist 11>.th the Detroit Federation of
Teachers andotherlaborunits. Byandlarge, stthe mdofWorldHarI
what labor unions were rebelling against industry's demands, teachers in
Detroit were lagging behind other labor units in economic benefits.1

no year preceding the first attempt to organise teachers

in Mroit had been one of unparalleled prosperity. Prices ...

reached a level unprecedented since the Civil War. Wages rose

correspondingly, laborhadbeenfullyenplnyedandthechief

complaint had boa: that uployees could not get enough labor.2

A. shortage of labor and the high cost of living had placed teachers
in an umsual position. heir services, like those of labor, were very
Inch needed, yet they were denied, by custom, the privilege of noml
conpetiticn fortheirskills. Teachers atthattineeeredependentupon

the Detroit mayor, the mean Council, and the Detroit Board of Education

 

thpublished

2W m. a speech by e. w. HoGarragh, mum of
theliechanics tals Bank, NesIork.

 

92

for salary schedules and adjust-ants. his minions salary for the 1919-
1920 school year was $1,100 annually} Daring the previous school year
(1913-1919), the minim salaries for teachers had boon $900 or $1,000
(ahigheranountwasgiventohighschoclteachers)andasnallgraduated
bonus hadbem given "mumsedbdances invarious city funds."2 By
comparison, the average amual rages of hcdcarriers, plumbers, black-
dths, md machinists were $1,200, $1,280, $1,700, and $1,980, respec-
timely?

hone-1c conditions were not the only conditions contributing to
the early attt-pts at union organisation in Detroit. lack of concern
by city officials with the teachers' economic plight combined with wide-
spread labor unrest led directly to the organisation of locals 155 and
157, the forerunners of local #231, Detroit Federation of Teachers.

Mayor Janos Oousens' attitude was particularly controversial.“ A
bone, proposed in January, 1920, would have increased a teacher's salary
by$300andwouldhavebeupayableinJuly. However, whcnthebudget
cane up for infernal consideration in the council, the layer out the sup-
plantaly school bidget estinete fro- fl,017,555 to $920,000. men then
the $920,000 supplement was voted upon, the mayor (upon the advice of the
corporationcounoil)vetoedthebonuscntheg1oundsthstitccul.dnotbe

dimm I'm e 5

 

luaffoletto, op, 113., p. 2.

W M 6. 1920. p. 3.

m 20, 1920’ Po 30

 

“anoint-o, an; g9, p.5.
Wm Mm 27. 1920. p. 1.

93

Atthe sanetinethathevetoedtheproposedbonus, Maor Oousens
advocated that teachers supple-ent their incomes by becoming solicitors
forthe mchiganBell Telephone Oonpawintheirsparetine. Heputthe
proposition this way: ”Teachers should not let a mistaken professionalism
stand in the way of their eanzing an honest dollar whenever possible.'1
Initgnant teachers' viewpoints were aired in Public letter Boxes:

Ihearduayor Oousenswantedteacherstcworkovertine

and on Saturdws. He wouldn't advise plumbers or other actors

of any organised labor federation to do such a thing but he

muldadviseteacherstodo so. Teachersmstbeinapod-
tinntodenmdwhattheyneedandbeassuredofgettingit.2

...It is not so mob a question of ethics as of strength,
of health, and of endurance.3

DIring this fervor of activity, the Detroit Teachers Association
scheduled a nesting for lhursday, February 26, 1920, for the purpose of
sanctioning the abrogation of contracts in In. The plan was to take
advantageefthethirty-dayclenseinthe contractuhichallcwedternina-
tion by either party after giving thirty dqs' notice. The abrogation
weld allow teachers to use the longer vacation for employment in busi-
ness and industry, were salaries, higher than thq would hove received
while teaching were possible. Also, abrogation would provide a legal
way to pay the bonus if new contracts were drain up.“

Disenchantnent with the Mucation Associetion by none teachers
also enhanced the desire for a new organization.

 

1m; p. 1.
an I as
W March 3. 1920.

9i}

Itwasfeltbysonecftheteachersthat aneworganiza-
tion was needed, one in which the teacher would have a more
direct influence than she had had in the past...There was a
decided antagonism toward the Eiucaticn Association. Ad-
ministration of the schools was equated with the adminis-
tration of the Eiucation Associaticml
However, the organisation of a teacher union was inhibited by the

teacherlss self-image, lack of teacher support and public pressure.
Teachers then as now were hampered by a public-service comdttnut
which unfcrmnately was defined to include indispensible service with
gratuitous oonpauation.‘
mas mohel McKinney, president of the Detroit Teachers' Associa-
tion viewed an early attupt to form a teacher union in this manner:
he Teachers' Association, I an safe in asserting, will
takeaflrnstandagainstarytbingofthis sort.‘ Itis probably
Just as well that these thirty-nine men have come out and shown
theircaliberby affiliatingwithaunion. 'nrenenwho have
donetheloudesttalhnganongthcarenenwhohavenotbeen
long in Detroit. lhey have cone fron smell toms for the mat
part, inthehopeofnaking abetterlivelihccdthanwaspos-
dble thonez
won. officers of the muoaticn Association were clinging to the
concept of professionalism and public service, militants within the or-
ganisation were calling a series of matings to discuu salary adjust-
Iuts, abrogetion of contracts, and strengthming the union.
the administrator organiser, David Melanie, principal of Cmtral
High School, called a nesting to consider the abrogation of contracts.
0. L. maney, acharternenbercftheDetroit Federation ofTeachers,

proposedaccnstitutionalanmdnenttoallowthefcrnaticnofanew

 

W r-bmm 28. 1920. p. 1-
Zhuffclettc, an' 51.“. p. 5.

95

organisation, but the proposal. was defeated} Mr. Ianpscn, organiser
for the Anerican Federation of Teachers, advised:
Teacherswillneverenjoythe salariesthatarepaid

to men in other professions and industrial crafts until they

place thuselves in a position to demand a fair schedule of

wages. Purely professional organisations such as teachers'

associations and schoolnen's clubs are ineffective becmse

they lack the support of the majority of voters. Affiliation

with the American deeration of Labor gives teachers the help

of four million voters and organised wage earners in their

agitation for higher salaries.2

Ltterthe speechagroupofnandghedapetiticn foraoharter
from the herican Federsticn of Teachers. 01 March 1, 1920, the charter
wasgrantedanditbecanelmcwnasthe Detroit High SchoclMen, Ioca1155.3

We, on Saturday, beruary 29, 1920, the mgh School Wonen's
hecutivo Council. not under the chairmanship of mas Grace mllard. About
twenty-five wonen attended, and sentinents were about evenly divided for
and against the fonation of a union.“ Ina of the women present at the
neeungwerewillingtosiga apetiticnrequesting acharterforawonm's
local, but the group decided instead to hold a general nesting on the fol-
lowing Wednesdq.‘ Hr. lalpson, the organiser for the American deeraticn
ofTeachers, wasagaininvitedto speak. The scheduledmeetingtookplaoe
andrdneteenmnendgnedapetiticnrequestingacharterfrontheheri-
can deeraticn of Teachers. It was decided at this nesting that grade

schoolteachersbelowtherankof assistantprincipal cculdbeinoluded

 

1W February 28. 1920. p: 1.
W rem-y 28. 1920. p. 1.-

MoIm-o, an» 93,, p. 20.

W4 Mrs-r: 28. 1920. p. 20.

96

intheunion. unbursday, Marchs, 1920, acharterforthewonenwas
grantedandthus Iocallj7wasforlod.1

Motions to the fornation of the two locals were varied. Calvin
Coolidge had aruculated the standard response when he stated: “No
public employee has the right to strike at anytime, at any place, for
m reason." 11'. John H. Hall, president of the Board of Education, felt
that the teachers' action was not a "square deal'.2 In a newspaper in-
terview, Sanrcl C. lit-ford indicated that he felt that the new organise;-
tionandthemallnufierofpetiticners'werenotworthtalldngabout'
and 'itprobablywasdccnedtc failure. .. As anenbercfthe Boardof
fihrcation, I have no pcrticular feeling either for or against the nove-
nent: Ifitwllldothumgccdlet thuufomaunicn. Itmbe a
relaxation to than to attend labor neetings now and than. '3

flares board were, Dr. Hall, Samel Word, and Mrs. Laura
Osborne, agreed that no policy of aggression should be used against
union activity.‘ Another nexuber, niward D. Davina, thought that the
board should take an immediate stand to discourage teachers fron con-
tinuing the reverent.“ Superintendent Ooctv said:

Detroit does notneed suohamcvenmt andanunberof

representative teachers I have talked with at various times

feel that such action on the part of teachers would not

randy the situation, but instead would seriously hurt their

curse. Instead of uldng then a number of a profession,
unionism would nake than a mulber of a procession$5

 

lmffolettc, an. at» p. 33.

2m, p.‘ 20.

3%: p. 1?.

“WM; (News Section No. I) February 29, 1920, p. 1.

W final one... Fez-my 29. 1920. p. 1.

97

While some labors of the Board of Riuoation were taking a sdld
stand favoring union organisation, Cody made the following newspaper
snnouncenmt 3

he heard of Dincation has received an abundance of
applications for teaching positions from almost every city

in the country... Detroit is free fron any danger of a
teacher shortage. Besides #50 new teachers needed for the

casing year, there were enough applications left over to

fill W uergacy vacancies during the next school year.1
Apparently the veiled newspaper threat by Superintaadent Cody achieved
its purpose, for a Joint nesting of both locals was held Monday, March 9,
1920. he stem five-hour nesting revolved around the question of
whethercne couldbe aunionnenberandrelain aprofessional person.
he group decided to withdraw from the Anerican Federation of Teachers

and fen a new group called the Detroit Council of Teachers.2 has,

teacherunicnisnoollapsedinDatroit, andnorethantenyearspassed
before any att-prts to reorganise occurred.

 

It is apparent that the Detroit Board of Hucaticn and the admin-
istrators mined very much against unions. heir coercive power over
teachers was so great that teachers attempted no further union ergaxdsing
until 1931. Bone teachers thn becue so dissatisfied with salaries,
status and augments that despite anti-union continent by addnistrators
and school board Idea-s, they risked loss of jobs to affiliate with the
herican Federation of Teachers.

 

1m, March 5, 1920.
zmolotto, 93, ‘3. , p. 21.
Mom, 2;. 33.; espedally for emu of early history.

98

he nan probably nest responsible for the organisation of the
Detroit Federation of Teachers was 11'. Otto Marchwudt, a professor
of hglish at qus Stats thivsrsity, thm knew: as the College of
the City of Detroit. 11'. Fhrokwudt urged his students to attend
infernal gatherings at his hens and at the homes of friends at which
political and educational topics were discussed. thionian was also
disoussedandthessdisoussionsledto apstition requestingachartsr
from the American hderation of Teachers. Fourteen people, including
11-. Harckwardt, signed the petition for the charter which bees-s effec-
tive February 21}, 1931. he group was officially recognized as the
htrcit Federation of haohsrs, local 231, American Mention of
Teachers, affiliated with the herican Federation of Labor. Olive ‘15qu
was the first president of the Detroit Federation of Teachers, local 231,
and was assisted by Jean Seidsl, secretary. Because Miss 'fillsy was no
longer a teacher, she was elected preddent. Acceptance of the presi-
denoybyan activetsaohsrcouldhavslsdtcherdmssalbscanss of
the adlinistraticn's anti-union position.

he sustencs of the htreit Federation of Teachers began as a
secret organisation but soon becane known to everyone. In 1932, the
Detroit Federation of Teachers held its first whlic meeting at Northern
mgh School. Frances Gnu-fort, Northwestern mgh School teacher, presided
and later bees-s needn‘t.

he union, which had a leadership of approximately fifty ale-hers,
continuedteheldregularneetingsdunngthis earlyperied. hoarding
to Mrs. Florence Sweeney, one of the first presidents of the union, guards
hadtebepestedstdoorstomakesursthatnen—nenbersdidnot enter.
he adlinistratien often sent spies to learn what the union was up to.

99

he DPT kept growing slowly despite opposition from the Detroit
Board of Diucaticn and the school administration. An sample of the
hostile attitude faced by the union was reported in 1937. I}. flirt R.
amrly, president of the Detroit Board of Eincation stated:

I an absolntely opposed to labor union grganization
along school teachers. IanoppessdtengJ AFLanong
school teachers.
hsyarstryingtoservetwonastsrs—laborandthe

Boardeffilucation. IfthsytrytodobothIpersonalJy

do not favor tum- uploynent as teachers.1
he paper also carried a state-ant by use Fi-ancss Comfort, DFI‘ president,
that the men had 1,000 answers.

0n M37. 1937, Wrapsrtsdthatnedasrs ofthe
Detroit Board of Diucafion, following 11'. hurly's ststenent, appeared
to expect the first under controversy over the sustenco of the Detroit
Mention of Teachers. However, at a Board nesting on July 28, 1937,
during which Dr. flaurly was absent, other members of the Bond stated
that the DFT was a fine srganisaticn. hue, the DFT received the ac-
ceptance, if not the approval, of the Detroit Board of Riucstion.

hsDFTalsohadte contendwiththsstronglymtrsnched Detroit
Teachers' ”sedation, new the DEA, which was affiliated with both the
mam hsDTiwascenddsrsdat thattinsa'cenpanyunien'bs-
oanseofthsgreatnlflasrofadninistratorswhobslongsdtothsgroupand
fiestronglyrecoalendedthattsachersjoin. heirdneswsrs75¢oonpared

withthe$6t00.2rangspaidbythsDll'l'n-bsrs.2 Dmingthsl930's,

 

1% M: 6. 1937. p. 1.
W M. May. we.

100

l9h0's, and even early 1950's, it was not unusual for all the teachers
in a school to belong to the UTA.

he Detroit Teachers' Association certainly was gven preferential
treatnent; e.‘g., the on office was provided by the Detroit Board of
mutton. math-W momma. moan-d
by Mr.“ Otis Crosby, a DTA nenbsr, as part of his school duties.

Cneofthsnilestonesinthe historyofthe DFTwasthepublication
ofitscmppsr, W whichfirst appearedin Septenbsr,
191:1. he newspapers of the Detroit Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the
mm but Teachers' Association (an) gave the teachers“ Detroit an
excellent opportunity to conpare statenents, positions, and progress of
the two groups.

little canbs saidfor themilitancyefthe DTAduringthis early
period. An objective evaluation of the rival organisations' papers will
quicklyconfinthattheDFTwasthemrsnilitmt group. heDTAss-ed
to be apologising for the Detroit Board of mucstion and took rather weak
positions on their denands.

hr exanple, in the Noveaber, 191:1, issue of W
the salary proposals of both groups were printed; he Detroit Federation
of Teachers proposed a salary schedule of $1,700 to $3,500 in nine steps,
while the Detroit Teachers' Association proposed $1, 5110 to $2,6ll-0 in
eleven steps.

isurveyofbothnewspapsrsduringthepsriodof June, 1961, to
June, 1963, gives no indication that the DEA presented to the Board of
mucatien a single grievance or recon-ended an inpreve‘ts in working
conditions, although it did “t a new salary schedule in March, 1962.

Wm filled with articles extolling the teaching

101

profession, giving advice on how to be a good professional, and listing
the advantages of an, MEL, and DEA ad the accesqalishmats of teachers
who belong to professional organisations. he DPT, on the other hand,
detailed its confrontations with the Board and adndnistration with
articles cldning: "mien Pans ... deeration Proposes ... Detroit
Teachers Desad". he DFT, therefore, concerned itself with settling
personal grievaess and offering services to teachers while the DEA
pronoted professionalism.

W

he following is a record of what the Detroit Federation of Teachers

1

considers sons of its under achiev-ats. Most of these reforms, now

taken for grated, were opposed by the school administration, the Detroit
Board of Eiucation, or both.

l938—l9h0 he Federation gained wt to restore depression pay
cuts, 10 days sick leave and anth school year, and a
reductioninclass sisefron50tolessthalIO.

191:2 heMonwuinstrunentalingdningthefirstsalu-y
increase in 20 years, plus a single salary schedule.
fincsthathe Federationhaswon aonepayincrease

"‘1'! FOO-1‘-
Prior to this time, high school teachers received higher salaries than
teachers in the elsnentary schools. he thsratien argued that the re-
quirements of the eleaentary teachers were the same as those for high
school teachers ad they worked as hard.
19M: he theraticn won a seniority policy and was successful in

stopping visitations to absent teachers by the school nurse,
whom the teachers believed was sent to ”spy" on then.

 

1am on mm sheet. (No title and undated.)

102
191:5 he Ihion gained reforns in the retirement plan ad also
won significant vsteras' benefits.
Teachers who were members of the Armed Fbrees between Septanber, 1941
and December, 1946 were given seniority credit and salary increnents.
1906 he Federation was victorious in a back pay suit when
$2 million in depression pay-cuts were restored to teach-
ers afteradscade ofwaiting andalnest fouryears of
litigation by the Federation' s attorney.
In the December 16, 191:6, issue of W Mrs. Helen Moore,
hecutive Secretary of the DFT stated, "It is extraely unlikely that
the cltyortheBeardof Rincationwill evsrrequire their enployeesto
work for nothing wha the coffers are low, and then refuse to w their
Just debts wha the neney cones in.”
191:? he mien sponsored ad won sabbatical leave benefits.

191:8 he mien proposed and gained a sick-leave policy allowing
anmlative sick-leave bank up to 200 days.

1919 he Federation sscund a legally-binding, continuing con-
tract fer m teachers.

1953 Eden efforts helped establish the guidelines for an objec-
tive pronction policy.

he DFT recomended that the selection process include the posting of
position openings, the listing of duties and qualifications, and a rating
by peers. he last recommendation was not seared.‘

1951: Afteralongeffort, the thion gainedagreaentto astudsnt
discipline policy protecting teachers in unavoidable use of
corporal punishment.

Mpline was a grave problem in some schools. Teachers were threatened
andabused.‘ hsywsregiva authorityto actigmwadto
administer punish-ant Judiclously.

1958 lunch-duty relief funds were approved after repeated requests

by the Ihicn. It took four more years to inplaent this
benefit.

103

1959 he policy that teachers remain in their classrooms a
."half-hour-after-school" was abandoned after determined

Union efforts.
his rule first appeared in Teachers’ Bulletin Number 1, disparagingly
called "he Book of Sam", after former Superintendent Samuel M. Brownell.
he rule was enforced to require all teachers to remain the extra half-
hour, regardless of other activities or student needs.

1960 he Union successfully promoted a subsidy for hospital
insurance despite DEA opposition.

1961 he Union secured release time to compensate for "after
hours", parent-teacher conferences and 7%- guaranteed paid

holidays axmually. .

1962 he Federation blocked a school administration attempt
to discard the seniority policy.

1963 he Union successfully prevented the implementation of a
teaching load of six classes daily for secondary teachers
which was proposed as an austerity measure after a millage
defeat.
he Federation presented petitions bearing the signatures
of 6,846 classroom teachers to the Board of Education,
requesting a collective bargaining election.

May, 1960 A collective bargaining election was granted after a long
battle. he Federation was voted as sole bargaining agent
by a large majority of the classroom teachers.
It was not surprising that the DFT won the elecfion.‘ hmugh the years
the DEA kept losing members to the more militant DFI‘. he loss of members
reached such critical proportions that the DEA hired Pat Basile, an out-
side organizer, as mill-time Executive Secretary. He wrote in the Septem-
ber, 1963, Detroit Eiucation News, "his year more than ever the DEA is
making a vigorous effort to communicate with teachers." Ibwever, his
efforts came too late. he DFI‘ was more closely associated with the needs

of the teachers and won the election.

104

a on

he lichigan Binoation Association (NBA), an affiliate of the
REA, is the major ”professional" organisation for the teachers of the
state. lath a current membership of over 73,000, the organisation is
today involved in and oonauitted to an extensive program of professional
negotiatias for its teachers. Just how the MEA arrived at this position
and activity will be described in this section.

Prior to about 1940, a teacher hired by a school district was of-
fered a salary based on what the school board thought it could pay for
his services. he actual handling of employment was and continues to be
part of the superintendent's Job, but ay raises granted were solely at
the discretion of the board. One of the teachers' association's first
efforts concerning teacher economic welfare was the introduction of salary
schedules, a planned series of increments, which a teacher could expect,
based on his years of employment in the district. he next step was a
promotion of a single salary schedule for each district, a scheme recon-
nendedbytheEEAasearlyasl944. Atthistime, theMEAalsobeganits
collective activity to promote the welfare of teachers. It was reported
that the MEA, during the 1943-44 school year, assisted many teacher groups
in planning salary schedules cooperatively with their superintendents and
bonds of educafioml

heyear1947 seenstohavebesnaninportantone for anticipating
the problans and issues of the 1960's. he first importat event was a

number of strikes by teachers around the country, in Norwalk, Connecticut,

 

. 11. J. Phillips, «Annual Report of the mum Secretary, n
W 111’ Avril, 19"“. P- 391-w

10 5

Portsmuth, @110, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and St. Paul, l'finnesota,
among others. Although they did not condone the strikes, both the
m and the NEA cemented on their cause, which, they believed, was
a neglect of the teachers' welfare. the REA called for procedures
that wuld adequately protect the teachers' economic and professional
welfare; and the MEA said, ”ibis does not mean that we condone inade-
.quste salaries or unsatisfactory working conditions.... We believe
there are better methods of solving these problems.”1 Also interesting
was the response to a question put to the REA kecutive Secretary when
the m declared that it did not oppose the Norwsllc, Connecticut, strike
because no contract had been signed when the teachers walked out. "When
asked if this was 'not much different m- the John L.‘ Lewis system',
Mr. Givens L" the Brooutive Secretary: adndtted that the two methods were
not altogether dissinilar. '2

“he NEA's ruedy for poor teaching conditions was the creation of
a salary connittee. In Jamary of 1947, the NEA issued a statement to
the effect that the days of individual bargaining were over and group
action was essmtial. he salary conndttee would have full authority to
act for the local assodation in a process defined as ”duocratio per-
suasion" rather than collective bargaining. lhe method would be totally
professional.‘

me most outstanding declara‘tion of the year was made by the keen--
tive Committee of the NBA Medan for the Defense of Denncracy flarcugh

 

1”Resolutions - Adopted by the rm Representafivo W, March 28-
29: 1947." WM mv, April, 1947. p- #50.

W Janna-y 2. 1947. p. 1.

106

Eincation on March 2:
Teachers mat not be coerced into mrldng for substandard
wages with no way of making effective protest. They must not

be prevented from collective or group negotiation. Teachers

mst not be coerced into accepting unsatisfactory contracts.

may rust be protected in their right to negotiate about

salaries and worldng conditions without prejudice to tenure or

retirement rights or threat of loss of license. mring periods

of negotiation by teachers, employing officials must not fill

their positions with other teachers. It is unethical for

teachers to apply for such positions.1

Even though ”negotiaflcns' as used here probably would bear little
resemblance to negotiation as practiced by teachers today, and, although
this was not a resolution passed by the mentors of the organization,
there appears here an assertion of teachers' rights much in advance of
the accepted date for the promotion of such actions.

In Michigan, teachers tried a different approach but were not
successful. A group of Flint teachers asked the mchigan Labor Mediation
Board to enter a wage dispute between the teachers and their board. The
1MB replied that the labor Mediation Act of 1939 did not apply to teachers
because they are not laborers. iherefore, the 1MB would not enter the
dispute unless requested to do so by both parties.2

Homl9lt7untill958, boththe MEAandtheNEApursuedtheirpro-
grams in their traditional manner. Ihey recommended that teachers'
salaries be raised. ‘lhey urged boards of education to take action to
nake teaching an attractive profession. And they carried on infomtional

and legslative progress for fringe benefits and tenure. he suggested

 

1"1'eaoher Strikes," School and gang, m, April 19, 191:7, p. 277.

2"kttorneys Say Mediation Act has Not Apply to Teachers,” Mag
W HIV. Jammy. 1917. p- 360.

10?

salary committees were formed and the Journals printed an occasional
article on the success of one of these cooperative efforts. These
co-itteos, however, gmerally gathered data, presented proposals to
the board, discussed the proposals with the board, and went away to
await the board's decision. The Mchigan Association took a short look
at teacher bargaining in 1955; a legal opinion held found that there
was no legal authority that would force a school board to bargain, but
that it probably could if it wanted to}

By 1958, however, the NEL had begun to look into the subject of
collective bargaining. 'me NEA Research Division published a bulletin,
”Teachers and Collective Bargaining“, which revealed that the Butte
(Montana) Teachers Ihion had won a master agreement in 1956, that New
Hampshire towns were specifically authorized to recognise bargaining
agents and enter collective bargaining agreements with a union of public
unployees, and that mmesota and Pemsylvania had made provisions for
the adjustment of grievances. The report also noted that the United
States Oonsfltuticn gives teachers the right to organise, but that public
employers cannot bargain or delegate their authority. "Increasing inter-
est is noted in the question of a place for collective bargdning in pub-
lic school employment. ‘2

It was not until 1960 that the pace of events began to accelerate.
‘mey seen to have mud at a faster rate in Michigan than nationwide,

 

1Wealey E. noun, "he nut and Mn on Bargaining Agents for
Teachers,” WWW mu, October 1, 1955: Po 3+.

2National Education Association, "Teachers and Collective Bargain-
ing." W XXXVI. April. 1958. p. #6.

108

and they went in a slightly different direction. A mchigan Eincation
Association resolution in April called for written personnel policies,
cooperatively developed by teachers, boards, and superintendmts. Also,
overruling the 191$? legal opinion on mediation facilities, the inchigan
Supreme Court held that, on a majority opinion of the teachers involved
in a salary dispute, the Labor Mediation Board could be asked to enter.
Here the MEA outlined one of its major concerns. ‘Ihe Board of Directors
reconnnended that no MEA unit request 1MB entry, as this represented un-
professional behavior.1

the NEA was rem for neither of these ideas. it its convention
in Ice mgeles, a "Representative Negotiation" resolution was proposed.
he Michigan delegation, in light of their interest in and feelings about
impasse procedures, introduced an eminent to this resolution, adding,
Where negotiation is not accepted by both parties, the NEA encourages
the use of a professionally appointed, legally recognized mediation
board." The amendment was not added, however, nor was the resolution
itself approved.2

the MEABoard kept close watch on what the NEAwould propose as a
revised resolution for 1961. In January, 1961, the Board received the
proposal and in beruary approved it in principle. lhe Mchigan Associ-
ation's Resolution Oomnittee was at this time also preparing a similar
statement for the state. m: statement was introduced in March under
the heading, I'1’ro.f.ess:l.onal Consultation and Agreemmt". It read:

 

hm at to- Angola." W mvm.
September 1, 1960, p. 21.

2m

109

We believe that consultation to reach common agreement

betwem representatives of the teaching profession and their

boards of education concerning salaries and conditions of

anployment are necessary and compatible with the dignity and.

ethical standards of the profession. than commn agreement

cannot be reached, we recommend the use of a board of review

consisting of members of professional and lay groups affiliated

with education as the means of resolving extreme differences.1
be nation was approved as written at the Representative Assembly in
April, under a differmt title-"Prcfessicnal Negotiation".

Illhe revised NEA resolution, approved in June and entitled "Teacher-
Board of mica’dnn Relationships”, stressed the community of interests
of school boards and teachers, recognized the legal authority of boards
of education, and said that "professional education associations should
be accorded the right, through democratically selected representatives
using appropriate professional channels, to participate in the determina-
tion of policies of coma concern including salary and other working
oonditions.‘..." The resolution spoke against "lhe arbitrary exerdse of
unilateral authority by boards of education and the use of the strike by
teachers,” and included the re-proposed Michigan amendment calling for a
board of review in impasse situations.2

lilo resolutions passed, and the delegates went home. In the absence
of am legal mandate, the MEA could only encourage its local associations
to seek voluntary agreements from their school boards to Jointly develop
employmt teams and school policy. In a great many districts, the mem-

bers were not willing to attempt even this procedure and the old practices

 

1"1961 MEA Resolutions." WM xxxvm,
HIV 19 19619 P0 5890

2m Action in mum-1o city." W run.
We: 1, 1961, p. 28.

 

[-

110

rusined. In others, the teacher groups did press for negotiating
rights, but success around the state was limited and progress was very
slow. In districts where some type of agreement to consult or bargain
was reached, a real problem emerged: What should be done when the two
parties could not agree? he Association had already said that the
Labor Mediation Board was unacceptable, so some specific, alternate
procedure was necessary. Accordingly because of the impasse problem
and the slow progress made in getting boards to negotiate the officials
of the organization began considering proposals for new legislation.

At its Febmary, 1962, meeting, the MEA Board of Directors received
a proposed resolution from MEA Region 12 which read: "The Mchigan Edu-
cation Association will provide more effective support to local districts
when an impasse has been reached in salary negotiations or when ethical
practices have been violated.1 ‘Ihe Boald discussed what procedures could
be used-u-the team approach, the Mcbigan Cooperative Council for mucos-
tion, and publishing grievances through mass media, among cthers-and the
need for establishing some procedure which would not use the 1MB. At
this point the Boald authorized the President to set up a special colit-
tee to study and lake recomendations about procedures and machinery to
help local districts resolve negotiating problems and also to work with
the legislative commission to see what kind of legislation might be in-
troduced in this area.

It was during 1962 that a mamas L-MASB-Iflchigan Association of
School Boards] joint committee was established. In August, when the mu

 

1mm of Board of Directors Meeting, February 23—21;, 1962,
Michigan “Cain-0n hwd‘m’ pe 12o

111

Professional Negotiation Condttee reported to the Board the procedures
it had developed, the recommended actions were referred to this Joint
comattoo for W study and reconmendatioml

An important change on the national level was the introduction, by
resolution, of another concept, that of "professional sanctions". Sanc-
tions were the NEA's answer to strikes. Considered a "means for prevent-
ing unethical or arbitrary policies or practices .' . . professional sanc-
tions would provide for appropriate disciplinary action by the organised
profession"? M guidelines were available at this time concerning the
specific form of sanctions, but they included such actions as boycotts of
school districts, the withholding of services short of a strike, and pub-
lidty. he Michigan Association, however, did not present a sanctions
resolution, and none was voted from the floor of the Representative Assem—
bly. Working under what guidelines it had at this time, the MEA was con-
centrating its efforts on solving disputes through local panels, consist-
ing of representatives of the board, the teachers, and the superintendent.
Its approach was to make a cooperative investigation of the difficulty and
reconmd solutions.

Continuing its efforts to secure voluntary agreements, the MEA' s
progress in 1963 was slow, ind sometimes its programs not defeat; e.g.,
the legislative Oomdssion's suggested bill was unsuccessful in the
legislature. he Joint MBA—MASH connittee presented a set of procedures
which the MEA Board adopted, but which the Directors of the School Board

 

Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting, August 211-25, 1962, p. 7.

2"mghlights of NEA's Denver convention," W LI,
September, 1962, p. 2.

112

Association never found completely satisfactory and never ratified.
he Association also found that its system of having local panels
reoomend solutions to school board-teacher problems was not always
successful in securing lasting improvements. In many cases investiga-
tionslade ayearor so afterthe partyorparties had agreed to, a
resolution of the problem showed that in fact the original conditions
still existed} In light of these kinds of difficulties, the MEA Repre-
sentative Assembly in April followed the NEA' s lead and approved a resolu-
tion calling for professional sanctions in situations where negotiation
failed to change arbitrary or unethical policies or practices.2

he organisation did move ahead in other areas. he Board in May,
1963 decided to look into the possibility of establishing a system of
professional negotiators, and in August received a staff report that
reocmended the training of local unit leaders for negotiations rather
than hiring other personnel. 3 In December the Board gave authorisation
to retain a Michigan State University professor as a Professional Nego-
tiations (PN) consultant. In addition, by the fall of 1963, three MEA
districts, Utioa, Howell, and Muskegon, had reached PN agreerents with
their school boards which provided orderly procedures for settling dis-
putes.

he basic policy at this time was concentrated on two points, the
cannon aims and interests of the various parties in the education

 

lcomrsstuon, Mr. m Mckm, MEL, June, 1967.

6162mm“ Resolutions." W IL. New 1, 1963.
p. e

3mmtes of Board of Directors Meeting, August 22-23, 1963, mehlgsn
Hucation Association, Appcrdix A.

113

profession, and the idea that this common bond made the relationship

along these educators very different from any in the industrial world.
therefore, any procechres based on employee-employer relations in industry
were not appropriate. films, such importance was placed on the development
of new tendnolng and separate facilities for reaching agreement, and all
was encompassed by the concept of professionalism.

Professional negotiations were defined as a set of procedures to
provide an orderly method for teachers associations and school boards to
negotiate on matters of cannon concern through professional channels to
reach mtually satisfactory agreement on these matters, and to establish
educational channels for mediation and appeal in the event of inpasse.1
It provided adds latitude in which the local. groups could work out their
own specific practices. It recognized that the profession included mem-
bers assimed to all. grade levels and stressed that teachers and adminis-
trators must work together.2 Ibo responsibilities of the school board
were recognized, and the process would provide for continuous commica-
tion among all the parties. Subjects of negotiation extended beyond
saluies.‘ 'lhe right to negotiate brought with it many responsibilities:
to know what the masters really desired, to base proposals on facts, and
to accept blame for programs that failed.3

It is widely held that on the national level the increased pressure

from the Aneiican Federation of Teachers, and their victory as bargaining

 

1Martha 1.. Ware, 'lhe Basics of Professional Negotiation,“ mohng
W, 11.1, November 1, 1963, p. 6.

2This point illustrates an incredible lack of lmowledge and appre-
ciation for private industry supervisor-employee relationships.

3“are. 22. as. p. 8.

11h

agent for the New York City teachers in 1961, pushed the NEA to begin
its Urban Project and to take a stand in favor of negotiation. Toe
Michigan hderaticn of Teachers was gaining strength, particularly in
Detzoit, andeertainlywas anajor challenge that theMEAhadtobegin
to consider. The effort was directed to stressing the independent
paofessicnalisn of teaching, and Inch tine was spent distinguishing
the education association PN processes from the collective bargaining
proposals of the union.

In January of 19610, the Association could report that only two
more districts bed reached agreements, Saginas and Warren; and the
Board of Erectors, again thinking in terns of a law, stated: "We
believe legal action is needed to improve the p1ocess of Professional
Negotiations."1 In beruary, the Board redirected the legislative can.
Iissien, the staff, and legal counsel to prepare a suggested outline
for a bill providing procedures for piofessicnal negotiation and also
adopted the principles for onfessional Negotiations as race-mended by
tho legislative Oomisden. (See Appendix I.)

heMEAbelievodthatithadbeenactinginlineflthits eon.
viction that there were connon goals amng teachers, boards, and super-
intmdents, and that the kind of negotiation activities they were sug-
gestingworeinaccordwiththecmcept ofaprofessionalunityand
would strengthen such a unity. more was a concern, therefore, over
the fact that in practice these activities and piocedures were leading
more toward disunity. 3. Me Kennedy, Executivo Secretary of the MBA,

 

1mm» of Board of Directors Meeting, January, 1964, Michigan
Riucation Association.

115

recollended at the 1964 Representative Assembly that during the next
year the MEA ”develop new and stzonger relationships with MASB at the
state level and encourage improved relationships at the local level
also."1 had yet, another of his recon-andations is clearly for an
action that could be viewed by the school boards only as undesirable.
Kennedy proposed to "secure a mitten procedure for pmfessional nego-
tiation and bargaining representation in every school district in

2

mchigan.” Even in the resolution passed by the assembly, a broader

scope and a stronger tone are evident. In part it said:

We pledge ourselves and our resources to the develop-
ment and implementation of procedures which will guarantee
all members of the teaching pmfession the right to negotiete
with their boards of education . . . regarding matters of
comon concern including salaries and conditions of employ-
ment. would a board of education authorise the election
of a single negotiating agency then this association will
endeavor to secure that right.5

The proposed resolution had said that members of the minority organiza-
tion would have the right to participate in negotiations if the education
association were chosen in an election. he Detioit delegation could not
accept this paovision, and the final draft was modified to read: ". . .
All members of the teaching profession /_" wi.11_:/ be assured of their
delocratic right to participate in the fomflaflon of educational objec-

timandgoals... on“

 

115‘. Dale Remedy, "Annual Report of the Executive Secretary,"
‘ .', '_9 A-,__ -__ mg April 20’ 19$, P0 2“.

 

3'th Mamas. W m. Arm 20.
1964, p.6

“mo 196+ nope-enters Assembly ~ W m.
w 20, 1964, Pe 1e

116

The legislative proposal was accepted in principle by the Board of
Directors in August, and the Legislative Commission was instructed to
draft it for introduction. From this time untilrthe final passage of
the law, legislation was the MEA's main emphasis. Basically, the MEA
sought a law that would give teachers the legal right to organize and
would require both teachers and boards of education to bargain in good
faith. he most important aspect of the bill was the provision for out-
side assistance in impasse situations. he MEA proposed the creation of
a separate body, a Professional Negotiations Commission, which would con-
duct elections for exclusive bargaining agents and would hear appeals of
impasse cases. he Commission would be empowered to appoint an intervenor
whose Job it would be to encourage the parties to use all possible local.
means of settlement in an effort to solve the dispute before fact finding
becmne necessary. he Association was still opposed to the use of the
Labor Mediation Board--it was said that the labor mediation people were
not necessarily knowledgeable about educational problems, and working
with the 1MB often meant long delays.1 At the Representative Assembly
in April, 1965, the delegates expressed their approval of the legislative
program: ". . . he Assembly strongly supports the MEA Professional Nego-
tiations bill and pledges all available resources of the MEA to achieve
its passage. "2

The MBA—sponsored bill. was not enacted. Instead, the two bills

 

1R1chard Adams, "A Must: PN Legislation for Mchigan,” Michigan
Einca‘l’ion Jmei, XIII, February 1, 1965, p. 19.

ZI'finutes of Board of Directors Meeting, April 8-10, 1965, Michigan
Education Association, p. 6.

11?

amending the older acts for all public employees became law. he
governor signed the bills on July 23, 1965. At the Board of Directors

meeting, August 2627, Dr. Remecv spoke to the members. He stated:

lath the passage of Acts 282 and 379, the Board was
faced with a decision regarding the role of the Association;
to avail. itself of the machinery established by statute or
to abdicate the Association's position on Professional Nego-
tiation as reflected in the Platform and Resolutions adopted

by the 1965 Representative Assembly.1
It was moved, and carried, "that the Board approve an exclusive negotia-

tion designation campaign to be carried on in every school district in
the State of Michigan."2

When MBA officials are asked when the pressure for collective bar-
gaining began, they typically answer, "with the law". Undoubtedly, the
change in tempo, and nature, of the MEA's activities uth this Board
mtion would easily overshadow an action that had taken place before.
he MEA had been pursuing a program of education for negotiations, both
philosophical and practical, for some time. hey had also earlier pre-
pared and distributed a sample PN agreemmt.‘ he local associations
were well coached and ready to move. he 12MB, responsible under the law
for conducting certification elections for exclusive bargaining recogni-
tion, was swamped with requests for elections. By November, 1965, over
100 MEA units had been recognized by their boards of education.

PodtionstakmbytheMEABoardofmrectorsinDecembergivean
indication of the breadth to which their outlook had grown. It directed

 

llfinutes of Board of Directors Meeting, August 26-27, 1965, Michigan
Education Association, p. 15.

2mg.

118

all MEL units to request representational and bargaining rights for all
certified personnel in their district; it encouraged educational secre-
taries and non-instructional mployees to form their own MEA units for
bargaining; and it moouraged the staffs of commity and junior colleges,
and other higher education institutions, to form MEA units and seek bar-
gaining rights.1

(bntirming its campaign in 1966, the Association created the Profes-
dcnal Negotiation Office, to assist the locals in their efforts. Numerous
wrkshops were held around the state. By the riddle of April, more than
65,000 mchigan teachers were covered by agroanents with their boards,
51,8ll5 of them in MFA units.2

Inevitably, therewereproblns. heMEAchargedinanumberof
cases that the Michigan Federation of hachers was using delaying tactics,
usually the filing of unfair labor charges against a school board, to
stall certification elections until it could gain support in the districts.
In addition, the Association faced the difficilty of providing enough
skilled negotiators for the local districts. Problems in the actual
dealings with the school boards were frequent: they refused to meet for
sufficient periods of time, the board negotiators did not have authority
to make decisions, and, in man instances, the boards would issue individe-
ual contracts to the teachers before the negotiated master agreement had
been completed and would request their rebarn in a specified time. his
last action was vigorously opposed by the MEA as an unfair labor practice.

v

1"Bo-rel Tabs Positions." MW 11-111.
Malabar 1, 1965, pe #e

2"Negotiations Arrive his Year for 65,000 Michigan Teachers,“
figflgam mum Journal, XIIII, May 1, 1966, p. 6.

 

ml

119

he Association did file unfair labor charges against some districts,
invoked sanctions on others, and some disputes went to fact finding.
boards. he MBA also resolved that it would support any local which,
in the absence of a master agreement, chose to withhold its services.
(See Appendix L for the entire resolution. )

he spring of 1966 was a period of tension in Michigan education,
and there were several teacher walkouts. A strike of the Flint teachers
in April closed the schools for two days. It was a significant action.
After the teachers had exhibited their strength and will in this con-
flict, MEA units in about 65 districts reached agreement with their
boards within the next 30 days.1 Further, in combination with the other
walkouts, the strike incited the Michigan Association of School Boards to
take the hard line it had advocated in June; it called for the blacklist-
ing of teachers who participated in or encouraged strikes or sanctions.
his pronouncement served greatly to solidify the Michigan teachers in
their determination to achieve and use their rights under the law.

he bargaining in 1967 showed more experience, but difficulties
r-ainede he Job of educating the profession to its new role is not
yet complete. he MEA hired about 15 part-time professional negotiators
to help with the negotiations through the summer of 1967. School boards
are still issuing individual contracts before master agreements are
signed. he cost of negotiation is high, and the MEA Board has endorsed

agency shop agreements in the master contracts2 as a method of maintaining

 

lhterview with m Mokeon, Director, mm Professional Negotiations,
W 309 1967e

Zuzana! Slop Hammad-d." MW HIV.

February 24, 1967, p. 1.

 

ll"

120

revmue. he scope of the bargaining agreement remains an issue. And
although experience under the law is not sufficient to say whether the
procedures and principles have been successful, some changes are and
will continue to be considered.

he NEA, which throughout this period of action in Michigan has
spokm mainly in generalities, produced an unusual statment of its
position at its July, 1967, convention. m unanimous vote, the Assembly
approved a recommendation that pledged NEA support to local affiliates

that strike to protest salaries and working conditions.1

cture and Dean ra a the c
the cal Teacher 0r ation

he gait Fedgragon of nghers

vs.
uca n Asso ati n

John N. amber. in WW~
points to a social dilma facing Amsrica,2 tho paradox between two of
the basic tenets that serve as pillars of American society. We have
always voiced a belief in the equality of all. mm and have constantly
and historically worked to guarantee this equalitarian framework for
our society. Ch the other hand, America has also professed a faith in
fair competition among people and businesses. How does a society main-
tdn a healthy balance between guarantees for equality and the mre
uninistic vie-point of competition? his is the paradoxical dile-a
of which Gardner writes.

 

1m Jul: 8.1967. p. cm.

zJohn w. Gardner, :~ .-
Harpers: 1961.

 

121

Gardner expands his thesis to point out that basically the unions
and professional organizations were established and function to preserve
the equalitarian attitude towards employment. he employee with the
weakest skills and attitudes is as carefully protected by a union as the
most highly skilled and effective worker". In internal affairs the or-
ganizations are faced with the same dilemma as is the society as a whole.
In its selection of members and indeed the officers of the membership,
the organisations are by definition bound to the equalitarian attitude.
In practice, however, these organisations are often less than totally
effective because of a recalcitrant or ineffective member. lbw then do
these organizations formally safeguard democratic policies, retain freedom
of action to deal. with recalcitrant umbers, and achieve maxim organi-
zational effectiveness?

flthcugh by-laws and constitutions vary somewhat from local to

local, the following comparison between the Detroit Elucation Association
(DEA) and the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DH) is quite typical of
the locals throughout the state. I will show how two teacher organiza-
tions (DEA and DH) proport to safeguard their democratic procedures in
membership, selection of officers, and possible suspension and expulsion
actions. I till also try to demonstrate how these same groups react to a
single member who does not perform satisfactorily the duties required of
mesbership or of an elected official within the membership. Generally,
I are making a comparison of the internal democratic procedures and prac-
tices of the Detroit mucation Association and the Detroit Federation of
Teachers as outlined in their written constitutions. I hilly acknowledge
that the constitutional. guarantees and procedures my be essentially con-
tradicted by actual practices. However, this contradiction would serve

122

as a basis for additional research—an important major starch in itself.

I assume the position that the goal or ideal situation is that
mardmm individual democratic action (free participation with full
equality) shall be practiced within an organization. Am movement
toward this position is an improvement and, conversely, steps away
from dancer-atio procedures may be viewed as retrogression.

he five constitutional areas to be examined are:

1. Administrative or bureaucratic organization of the teacher
813°14’8-

2. Oralificaticn for membership in the two groups.

3. Obligations put on membership.

4. Opportunity for referendum or initiative by membership.

5. Methods of impeachment of members and officers.

Organisation
he Detroit Education Association divides its powers into three
distinct units: legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative
duties of the DEA are performed by the Congress, which consists of mariners
elected from the whole membership. Schools are represented in the Congress
according to a reapportionment formla based on its total number of mem-
bers in the DEA. he duties given to the Congress are to:
9.. Establish departments and committees as are created by
this Constitution had By-Lewa and such other agencies
as are necessary to provide for the peace, health,
safety, and gmeral welfare of the members of the Asso—
ciaticn;

b.“ Adopt, amend or repeal in whole or in part an existing
law or resolution;

c. Determine membership dues and special assessment;

123

d. Conduct business affdrs;
e. Approve appointments;
f.‘ Approve the budget;
g. Have all powers and duties delegated to it by this
Constitution and By-Laws and any other powers ne ces-
sary to the achievement of the objectives of the
Association not specifically delegated to other
agents or agencies by this Constitution and By-Iaws;
h. Provide funds for district operation.1
Included in the legislative branch is the District Assembly, which
conducts membership drives, makes reconnendations to the Congress, and
provides oommications with the schools. he Assembly is composed of
the Congress and the elected building representatives from each school.
he executive duties of the DEA are performed by the Ekecutive
Division, which consists of an elected presidmt and. vice-president and
an appointed executive secretary/.2 he executive secretary assists the
president and also serves as general business manager and secretary-
treasurer but does not have voting power. In addition the Ececutive
Divisim has within it a board of directors, which more or less serves
as a presidential adviser.
he Judicial branch of the DEA consists of nine people appointed
by the president and approved by the Congress; it is known as the Profes-
sional Rights and Responsibilities Board.3 his Board has Jurisdiction

over all cases arising under the Constitution including all controversies

 

1% Article III, Section 11.

ZDEA Conflmn, Article V.
3W Article v1.

124

between ethrcators, and between educators and the board of education or
citizens. he Board also has judging or censuring power over the mem-
bers.

he Detroit Ethrcaticn Association has based its organizational
pattern after those of our federal and state governments. Although its
where have the right of referendum, most authority has been placed in
the hands of elected officials. he democratic procechu‘es of the DEA in
this area are indirect.

he Detroit Federation of Teachers has a much less complicated or-
ganisational pattern. he DFI‘ has an executive branch roughly comparable

1 here is also an elected Ekecutive Board, which has some

to the DEA's.
of the legislative duties prescribed to the DEA's Congress and most of
the judicial powers of its Professional Rights and Responsibilities Board.
he principal difference in the hierarchy of the two organisations
is that the DFT claims to follow a more direct democratic procedure than
does the DEA. he Federation is proud of the fact that most major de-
cisions are made at general union meetings at which all the members may
vote. Any major rule or amendment to its by-laws, for exaraple, met be
approved by a majority of members present at a regular meeting. By con-
trast, the DEA operates through a representative legislative procedure.
In comparing the democratic practices of the two groups as seen
from their organizational structures one is drawn to several conclusions.

1. All but one of the officials of each organization are elected
by the medership.

2. Both organisations claim that, in all meetings of the elected
representatives, democratic methods are followed.

 

1W Article m.

125

3. While both groups claim that they have a completely democratic

election of offidals there is reason to doubt this claim. As
, in government defeating an incumbent is extremely difficult.

he executives who have control of the union publications can
and do use them to further their own elections and the elec-
tions of their supporters. Che significant point here is that
the DEA president can be reelected only once. It must be
noted, however, that much of the executive power of the DEA
is in the hands of an appointed official, the eocecutive secre-
tary. he president of the DFT is not limited my number of
years in office.

4. A procedure followed by the DFI‘ but not the DEA is that the
Federation members mst approve by referendum any increase
11) £111.68.

5. While the Federation claims to practice more pure democracy
because of its general membership meetings, tms practice,
in fact, assures nothing. It is true that these meetings
occur and business is transacted. he union knows that the
same, relatively small group of union members attend every
meeting. One of the most significant decisions made by the
union in its history (the Jan Skelnar decision), was made
not by the entire menbership but by 200 people out of a mem-
bership of approximately 5, 000.

6. In general, then, there is little in the constitutions and
by-laws of the two organisations to distinguish the structure
of one group as inherently more democratic than the cther's.

Membership Qrelifications
he qualifications for manbership in the two teacher organizations
are generally the same. he DEA Constitution says, "All certificated
contract employees of the Detroit Board of Eiucation shall. be eligible
l
for active membership in the Association. . ." Affiliate manbership
can also be granted to amr professionally employed educational employee
whether or not he is certified. hese menbers cannot vote or hold office
in the Association.
he DFT extends merbership opportunities to ”AU. teachers, super-

visors, administrators, and accompanists employed by the Detroit Board

 

1% Arte-ole 1.?

126

of Eiucation and others approved by the Executive Board.1 Although the
DFT invites all teachers to join, this invitation is not quite this
universal. Article I of the By-Iaws lists the steps, ending with a vote
by the general membership, an applicant for membership may take if he is
turned down by the executive boards2 It should be noted, however, that
no member with a classification above that of teacher can vote or hold
office. he DFT also has a clause3 prohibiting discrinination becanse
of race, religious faith, or non-subversive religious beliefs. All
meetings of both organisations are open to all members, and the DFT

specifically guarantees the right of speech to its members.“

Obligations of Membership
While a democratic process involves privileges it also involves
obligations. This is as true in a union as in our society as a whole.
Each of the two teacher organisations places the same two obligations
on its members! paying membership dues and giving active support to the

purposes and programs of the organisation.5

Impe'achment of Membership
What steps are available and necessary to remove an organizational
official from office and a member from the menbersbip ranks? here are
five possible levels of impeachment or denial of membership within the DEA:

 

1Wuuclem.ml.

2W Article I. Section 3-
3W Article In. Section 5-
41m Constitution, Art-m3 Iv, Section 2a.

5% Aruel- v1. section 3.

127

l. ImpeachmaIt of members of Congress.

2. fimval from office of the mmbers of the District Assembly.

3. Impeachment of the president, vice-president, and executive
secretary.

h. Impeachment of members of the PR and R Board.

5. Suspension or expulsion of members of the Association.

Using the rationale that they are the elected representatives of
the membership, the members of Congress are given the power of impeach-
ment over the Congress itself, the Executive Branch, and the PR and R
Board. In each case the procedure is the same. Qrarges are brought
before the Congress and an investigating sommittee is assigned. Fbllow-
ing its report a two-thirds vote of the entire Congress is required to
rueove the official. hree absences from meetings of the Congress or
the District Assedrly is mtomatic cause for an impeachment vote.

”he Professional fights and Responsibilities Board shall have the
power to judge or censure, and to recomend suspension or expulsion of
am masher of the Association for cause, after due notice and with all
rights herein guaranteed . . . .1 he PR and RBoard, then, has the
expulsion power over the general membership. he Constitution of the
DEA does protect the mmeber by insisting on due process for any accused
More The PR and R Board also has reinstating powers.

he Association defends its "Democratic procedures" in this area
by saying that it follows democratic policies through the elected of-
ficials. his would sea satisfactory in all but the case of suspension

 

1W Arucle vr, Section 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I:

 

 

128

(fl membership. It would seem that to truly insure democratic practices
general expulsion should only be approved by the general membership
through a vote following an investigation and public hearing. This
would further protect the rights of members who are at odds with the
power structure.

The DFT By-Laws affecting suspension and expulsion are being re-
written and expanded and are unavailable until the membership is given
the right to vote on them. The changes seek to clarify Article XIV.

The new By-Laws will hepefully clarify this potentially dangerous situ-
ation.

The DFT's present written procedures for expulsion of members and
impeachment of officers are similar to those of the DEA. The Executive
Board may suspend or expel any member of the Union or any Board member
by a vote of two-thirds of its members ”for violation of the Constitution,
the By-Laws, the rules, or for Conduct prejudicial to the welfare of the

Union".I

No member may be suspended without being_given two weeks written
notice of the charges_against him and an opportunity to appear before the
Board. Any expelled or suspended member may appeal to the general member-
ship at a regular or special meeting.

The earlier criticism made of the DEA equally applies to the DFT.
initial power is placed in the hands of the power structure which too
easily can ignore the voice of the opposition. While the expelled member

is givew\ the opportunity to appeal to the general membership the regular

meetings are attended by a very small number of the members and in most

 

lDFT Constitution By-‘Laws, Article XIV, Sections l-7.

 

 

...

\

 

 

....

...

 
 

129

cases by the school representatives who often are friends of the leader-
flfip; e.g., Jan Skelnar was removed from the membership by a vote of ~

some 200 members out of.a total membership of over 5,000.

Referendum

Both the DEA and the DFT have similar methods for using the refer-
endum. The active membership of the DEA may initiate legislation by
submitting a petition from 10% of the membership. A vote on the petition
is taken in each school, and, if it is approved by a majority of the mem-
bers, the petition becomes law.

The DFT membership can prepose and amend its by-laws by submitting
a petition having the endorsement of 50 members. This amendment is then
voted on at a regular membership meeting; a majority vote is required for
approval .

In summary the two organizations are facing the same problem that
Gardner earlier described as faced by the general society, a problem that
has been the subject of continuing debate by labor organizations in private
industry: Is it possible, necessary, or desirable for an employee organi-
zation to insure internal democracy at the risk of sacrificing efficiency
and strength that may be the mandatory components to successful bargaining

against a basically autocratic Opponent? My own answer is an unqualified

”Yes". Michels would argue otherWiSé-

CHAPTERVI

PROM CHARACTERISTICS AN D SOCIAL BAQGROUNIB

or TEACHER ommzuxon mms'rs: WAYNE,
amp, AND moons commas"

he purpose of this chapter is to determine personal characteristics
and social backgrounds of teacher organisation "activists.” ”Activists”
are defined here as those ocmpying an official appointed or elected
position within a la; teacher organization. A questionnaire (see Ap-
pudix M) and a covering letter were sent to local representatives of the
MRI and the m, the two major uployee organisations active in the state
in 1965-67.

Beamsethequestionnairewas sentduringthesumer, aperiod
nomlly considered vacation tine for these representatives, it was de-
cided to limit both the nusber of people questioned and the geographical
area of coverage. hue, the questionnaires wore sent only to persons in
the tri-county area of Wane, Haconb, and Oakland counties of mchigan.
his decision may very well have biased the results, as all. three counties
are basicallar suburban areas. An upstate sawle may have given different
results. However, because the DH has virtually no upstate representa-
tion, it was necessary to choose these three counties in order to include

 

I"ill gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Bernard Dent and
Harold ‘1‘. alnpson, Jr. , who helped to fomlate the questionnaire and
tabulated the responses.

130

131

the DE! in the sample.

he number sat was determined by the availability of names and
addresses of organisational representatives, the anonymity of both the
respondents and the persons providing their nsnes was assured. meetion-
nail-es were sent to 89 representatives of the Mchigan Eiucation Association
(MED and to 17 representatives of the inchigan Federation of Teachers (MFI‘).
0f the questiomaires sent out, 146 (51.7%) were retumed from MEA repre-
sentatives and 1t; (82.3%) were returned from m representatives. in.
ccflined return was 59.10 per cent of the original 106 questionnaires.

W
is we can see, eighty per cent of the respondents were less than
forty-one years of age; thus, this group of employee organization "ao-
tivists" is relatively young. (Table #1) hose active in organization
wrk are pdmsrfly m with the MFI' having sclowhet a higher percentage
of Isle activists than the MEA. (Table #2) Finally, most of the re-
spondents in the group sampled are married and have children. (Tables

Band“)

TABLE 1
AGE

 

if? as In? a: 331°“ as
21 - 30 19 am 3 21.14 22 36.6
31 .. no 19 a1.3 7 50.0 26 43.3
#1 - 50 7 15.2 2 114.2 9 15.0
Over 50 1 2.2 2 lll.2 3 5.0

132

m2
sax ,6

m

 

MEL MFT Total
No. % No. % No.
Male 36 78. 3 12 85.7 1&8 80. 0
Me 10 21. 7 2 14. 3 12 20. 0
TABLE 3
MARITAL STATUS

 

 

MET
No. 6 No. i No. %
handed 36 78.3 11 71.1} 1+? 78.3
Single 9 19.6 1 7.1 10 16.6
Widowed or
Divorced 1 2.2 2 lll.3 3 5.0
TABLE it

NUMBER OF CHILDREN

 

None 2 5.1} 3 23.1 5 10. 0
a). 5 13. 5 3 23.1 8 16. 0
1510 16 43. 3 2 15. 4 18 36. 0
hree 9 24. 3 2 15.4 1.1 22. 0
Eur 5 13.5 1 7.7 6 12.0
live or more 1 2. 7 l 7. 7 2 1i. 0

133

(Further, almost all. of the respondents were native born 0.8.
citizens. (Table #5) However, the significance of these figures is
questionable because there are no comparable figures for ;_all__ teachers,
activists or otherwise. Most parents were also born in the 0.3. (Table
#6), so nest of the responding teachers were educated here. Perhaps
their exposure to American school systuns created an awareness of the
need for changes in educational policies and stimulated an interest in
uplcyee organisation activities.

Given that questionnaires were distributed only to organization
activists in the metropolitan area, it was surprising to find that a
considerable number of the respondents were raised in small towns.
(Table {7}) Less surprising and in line with other evidence from occupa-
tional sociology, was the fact that those who replied had classified
their wage earning parent as a "blue-collar” worker. (Table #8)

TABLE 5
PLACE OF BIRTH—- 12mm: DENT

 

MEA MFT htsl

 

U. 8. ’45 97. 8 1‘5 100 59 98. 3

Other 1 2.2 O O 1 l. 6

13“

TABLE 6

PARElTS PLACE OF BIRTH

 

 

0.3. #1 89.1 9 62.2 50 83.3
Other 3 6.5 1 7.1 A 6.6
One parent only
(11.8.) 2 M3 4 28. 6 6 10.0
TABLE 7

SIZE OF TONN WHERE RAISED

 

r3“. 1 if a $33“ at

War 500 7 15.2 0 7 1.1.6
500 - 1,000 a 8.7 1 7.1 5 8.3
1,000 - 5,000 9 19.6 1 7.1 10 16.6
5,000 - 10,000 5 10.9 2 11+.‘2 7 11.6
10,000 - 50,000 9 19.6 3 21.1; 12 20.0
50,000 - 250,000 6 13.0 2 1h.2 8 13.3
Over 250,000 6 13.0 5 35.7 10 16.6

135

TABLE 8

WAGE EARNING PAREN T CLASSIFICATION

 

 

if". 2 if? a £31.“ 2
unto—0.11.: 10 21.7 2 14.2 12 20.0
Blue-Collar 27 58.7 8 57.1 35 58.3
Professional 10 21.7 2+ 28.6 14 23.3
No response 2 b. 3 2 3. 3

The majority of the parents of the survey respondents completed
high school or less. (Table ”Au-B) 16.6% of the mothers and 11.6% of
the fathers had less than an eighth grade education. his result indi-
cates tin things! A high degree of motivation on the part of the parents
on behalf of their childrm and the increasing availability of additional
fornal education for those desiring it.

Further, a decided majority of the persons questioned were not the
only children in their faadJies. (Table #10) aince a large number of
the respondents ranged in ages from thirty to forty, most of then were
born and raised in large families during the depression years. The data
also shows that most of the children in each family attended college.
(Table in) m»- stuck of 121. individual questionnaires additionally
reveals that, in 73. 3% of the families, .11 or .11 but one of the children
attmdsd college. Table {‘12 simply shows the religious preference of the
uspcndents and that there is no significant difference in the distribu-
tion between EA and EFT activists—they are both decidedly Protestant.

136

TABLE 9-A

EIIICATIONAL WT OF 140mm

 

if? 2 gr. 7 $23.1 %

less than 8 years 6 13. 0 28. 6 10 16. 6
Water! 8 years 16 34. 8 28. 6 20 33. 3
hapleted mgh

School 9 19. 6 ll 28. 6 13 2.1. 6
Attemled @1103. 5 10. 9 1 7.1 6 10. O
Graduated 0.11.3. 9 19.6 0 9 15.0
Post-Grad. Degree 1 2.2 1 7.1 2 3.3

TABLE 9-H

200012101111. ACHIEva or m

 

1?. 2 is? 7 g?“ 7

less than 8 years 5 10.9 lll.2 7 11.6
Completed 8 years 15 32. 6 28. 6 19 El. 6
(bipleted mgh

School 11+ 30.4 6 35.7 20 33.3
Attended College 5 10. 9 1 7.1 6 10. 0
Graduated College 6 13. 0 1 7.1 7 11. 6
Post-Cred. Degree 1 2. 2 O 1 1. 6

137

TABLE 10

NUMBER OF CHIIDREN IN FAMIIZI-INCIDDEG REPONDENT

 

 

10.9
317.8
23.9

6.5
23.9

TABLEll

O\l-‘¢'I-’N

14.2
7.1
28.6
7.1
12.8

15

17

NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN FAMILY ATTENDING COILEGE

INCLUDING RESPONDENT

11.6
28.3
25.0

6.6
28. 3

 

if.“ 2 if? 7 33?“ 7
an. 19 41.3 7 50.0 26 43.3
The 13 28.4 3 21.4 16 26.6
Moo 7 15.2 2 14.2 15.0
m 3 6.5 1 7.1 4 6.6
live or more 1+ 8.7 0 4 6.6

138

TABLElZ
CHURCH AFFILIATION

 

MBA MFI‘ Total
no. $ we % NO. %
Catholic 12 26.1 2 1&2 14 23.3
Protestant 29 63.0 8 37.1 37 61.7
Other 5 10.9 2 114.2 7 11.6
None 0 2 117.2 2 3. 3
m

The majority of the respondents have master's degrees or are work-
ing towards than. (1.131. #13) Further, as mre than two-thirds of those
replying indicated that they had eamed upwards of twenty-five per cent
of their undergraduate college expenses, (Table #14) it becomes apparent
that nest are ambitious people, whatever the reason.

TABLE 13
EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEEENT—IESPONDE‘TT

 

 

if? as if? 5 $3?“ an
Bachelor's 11} 30.16 3 21A 17 28.3
Master’s 27 58.7 11 78.5 38 63.3
ILA. + 30 hours 4 8.7 O 0 ll 6.6
Doctorate 0 0 0 0 0 0
No response 1 2.2 0 0 l 1.6

139

TABLE 114

PORTION OF me (UNDEKSRADUATE)
EXPENSES EAINED

 

 

 

m m Total
No. 7: No. 75 No. 7
m1 2 4.3 1 7.1 3 5.0
o - 10% 2 4.3 3 21.4 5 8.3
10 - 25% 9 19.6 1 7.1 10 16.6
25 - 50% 11 23.9 3 21.4 14 23.3
50 - 75% 6 13.0 3 21.4 9 15.0
75 . 100% 16 34.8 3 21.4 19 31.6
and es onal s

Ebro than eighty per cent of the survey respondents claimed fifteen
or fewer years of teaching experience. (Table #15) It would so... that
those with added experimce are less likely to be active in teacher or-
ganization work. hose persons having considerable administrative elqle-
rienoe are shown not to be actively represmting classroom teacher organi-
sations. (Table #16) he figures also indicate that activists are more
likely to be secondary level teachers, and that social studies majors are
heavily represented. (Table #17) his commitment to history, economics,
politics, and political movements as well as echlcation probably provides
a greater awareness of organisational problems and potential solutions
than is found in the general teacher population.” Inasmuch as 85% of the
respondents are full time teachers (Table '[‘18) it is obvious that they are
dedicated to their roles as organisation activists, since they met perform
these organizational duties in addition to their regular work.

140

Table #19 when compared with Table #20 reveals that, while most of
those questioned take part in several professional organizations, they
are less likely to participate in social organizations. Quite likely,
they do not have sufficimt time for social matters in view of the degree
of their participation in professional matters combined with a full-time
job. When asked, ”Approximately how many professional books do you have
in your personal library", the responses revealed that MEA activists
have an average of 87 books in their personal libraries. Organization
activists of the EFT showed an average of 56 books. he figures for both
groups revealed a conbined average of 82 books. Additionally, MEA ac-
tivists subscribe to an average of three professional magav'sines or jour-
nals, while MFI‘ activists subscribe to an average of two. Collectively,
the two groups subscribe to an average of three professional magazines
or journals.

A review of the hobbies listed on returned questionnaires showed a
heavy percentage of people who (a) read, (b) have an interest in msic or
play an instrument, and (0) consider travel a major hobby. (Appendix bi)
Over half of those questioned listed football as a favorite sport, with
a significant number listing baseball, golf, basketball, and bowling.
(Appendix 0)

Finally, these questioned were asked to write a very brief state-
ment telling how they became interested in becoming involved in teacher

°rzln1saticn activities. he answers indicated three general trends 3
Ptl't-Zkatlpation came about as a result of (a) agreeing to serve on connittees
and gradually becoming more interested and involved; (b) feeling too 1.:
°f his oo-workers were willing to get involved and recognizing that ”someone

141

must do it"; or (c) venting to get into a position to express teachers'
concerns about various policies and worldng conditions. (Appendix P)

TABLEIS

NUMBER 01' YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE

 

 

1 - 5 13 28.4 2 14.2 15 25.0

6 - 10 18 39.1 5 35.7 23 38.3

11 .- 15 9 19.6 3 21A 12 20.0

16 - 20 6 13.0 1 7.1 7 11.6

21 - 30 o o 2 14.2 2 3.3

Over 30 0 0 1 7.1 1 1.6
TABLE 16

NUMBER or mass or mrmm (ABOVE LEVEL OF
cmsaoon TEACHER) memos

 

 

m m Total
No. 73 No. 73 N0.
an no 87.0 12 85.7 52 86.?
1 - 5 5 10.9 1 7.1 6 10.0
6 - 10 1 2.2 0 0 1 1.6
11 - 15 0 o 0 0 o o
16 - 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 - 30 0 o 0 0 o 0
(”or 30 0 o 0 0 0 0
lb reaponse O O l 7.1 1 1.6

142

TABLE 17
TEACHING FIELD

 

 

 

 

MEL MFI' Ibtal
No. 9% No. 73 No.
Mtary 13 28. ll, 1 7. l 14 23. 3
Secondary 30 65.2 10 71.4 110 66.7
mementary and
Secondary 3 6. 5 2 14. 2 5 8. 3
College 0 0 O O
AREA OF SPECIAIIZATION
MEA MIT Total
No. %* No. %* No. %*
Art 1; l
hditorium 1
Business Eiuc. 3 1
Counseling 3 1
English 2
library 2
Hatbmflcs 2
Music 3
Science 3 2
Social Studies 12 3
Special Educ. 3
Vocational Eiuc. 3 1
3° "spam 3 2

 

We percmtages are shcun in this table because some secondary
1”where listed more than one, and nest clenmtary teachers have no
area of specialisation.

143

TABLE 18

0mm TEACHING (IN ADDITION TO YOUR
OMIZA‘I‘IONAL DUTIES)

MEL m Total

 

“e g Ibo % N00 %
Isa ‘10 87. O 11 78. 5 51 85. O
No 5 10. 9 3 21.1} 8 13. 3
Just resigned l 2. 2 0 0 l 1. 6
TABLE 19

NUMBER OF PIDFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFIIIAIIONS

 

 

 

 

if? a: mug? a 33?“ a:
mo 2 4. 3 5 1&2. 8 8 13. 3
T” 7 15. 2 3 21. ’4' 10 16. 6
nine 10 21. 7 3 21. 4 13 21. 6
m 13 28. 4 0 13 21. 6
Five or more 11} 30.1! 1 7.1 15 25.0

1%

TABLE 20
NUMBER OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AFFIIIATIONS

 

 

 

5.35 a :33 ¢ 33?“ 5
None ll 8.? 2 14.2 6 10.0
One 10 30.0 4 28.6 18 30.0
no 12 26.1 2 10.2 10 23.3
m... 5 10.9 1 7.1 6 10.0
Four 6 13.0 0 6 10.0
live or more 2 it. 3 0 2 3. 3
No response 5 35.7 5 8. 3
W

A perusal of these figures might lead to the conclusion that the
"typical” unplbyee organisation representative's profile muld be as
follows:1

Beisanan-iedmaninhis thirties andthe fatherottwo
children. He earned more than three-quarters of his own under-
graduate expenses and has also earned a master's degree. He has
taught betmen six and ten years, although he lacks adxdnistrativo
experience. Probably he is a secondary teacher of social studies.

He is a Protestant and belongs to at least five professional

 

Lillie stuw and the resulting profile is not intended to be the
final nor definitive answer to role and background definition of teacher
organisation activists. wviously, considerably more work is required.

meirrtenthere, is sinplyto supplyanadfltionaldimensiontoboththe
earlier and later naterial.

145

organizations and one social organization. He subscribes to
three professional magazines or Journals and has about eighty-
two books in his personal professional library. In what little
spare time he has, he reads, travels, and expresses a musical
interest in one way or another. His favorite sports are likely
to include football, baseball, golf, basketball, and bowling.

He is native-born, as were his parents. His parents' educa-
tions were considerably less than his own, for his mother completed
eight years of schooling while his father graduated fro: high
school and then held a blue-collar Job. One of three or more
childrm, he doubtless was early impressed with the need for an
education, for a majority of the children in the family attended
college. hiring his childhood the family lived in a relatively
mall city with a population between ten and fifty thousand.

He appears to have become interested in employee organiza-
tion work in one of three ways: (a) he began by serving on com-
adttees and gradually became more deeply involved; (b) he became
involved becmse he felt too few of his colleagues were willing to
do so and he saw the need; or (c) be felt that the school board or
other administrative personnel were establishing policies with
which he strenuously objected, and he felt that teachers should
have more to say about these things.

Finally, since no discernible distinctions were apparent in
the characteristics of MFT and MEA leaders, they probably would have
become "activists" in either organisation and their present affili-
ation is more accidental than ideological.

CHAPTER VII

SCHOOL BOARD AND ADEINISTRATOR ORGANIZATIONS

flggg Association of S_c_h_ogl Boards
'Jhe Michigan Association of School Boards was incorporated in the

State of I‘flchigan on April 19, 1949. Members of a local school board
join as a group; any public school district in the state may become a
labor. he Association at present boasts approximately 600 member-
districts, out of a total pctmtial of about 700. mese 600 are pur-
ported to represmt 98% of the children in the state.1 To accomplish
its aims of improving the educational policy and the welfare of school
districts, the Association disseminates information, holds meetings,
courses, and special schools, and publishes a qumal, the Phchigg
Schggl Egg Jgurnal, bulletins, and reports. The MASB holds an annual
assembly, at which resolutions are approved by the delegates; each dis-
trict has one vote. he Association is also an affiliate of the National.
School Boards Association.

Basic to the Alerican school system is the ideal of local control
of education. In Michigan, the constitution requires that "every school

district should provide for the education of the pupils. . . ."2 From

 

967 llnterview, Dr. Julous Barbour, Ececutive Director, MASB, August,
1 .

2m R. Heselton, "Whither m w. 06mg?" W
M II: February. 196“, Po 20-

1%

11+?

this statment the loci]. school boards derive their right to operate and
control the schools. first local boards see themselves as lawful subdivi-
sims of the state is probably the single most important factor bearing
on the general policies and practices of an individual board (or an asso-
ciation of boards ). locally elected school boards have historically been
very conscious of their status as representatives of the public. lbey
have Jealously guarded their decision-making authority; their position
has been that, because their authority and responsibility are established
by la, they cannot legally (or morally, they believe) delegate then to
others.

As a practical matter, school boards have adhered strictly to this
philosophy; authority for detendning educational policy had never been
delegated. Boards, er in some areas their chief officer, the superin-
tmdmt, have set salaries and hours of mrk, ohosm the curriculum,
selected the textbooks, determined class size, and hired and fired almost
at will. Teachers were offered contracts individually. ’Eney could sign
if the terns were satisfactory; perhaps, but probably to no avail, they
might try to bargdn individually for some change; or they could seek
employment in another district if the terms offered were inadequate.
Since school boards are autonomous within the boundaries of their charge
to run the schools, districts do vary in unployment practices. Sole
school districts, Ferndale, Mchigan, for example, have bargained with
non-instructional employees, such as custodians, for nary years. an:
teaching staffs typically did not receive the same opporhrnity. Although
occasionally teachers received an explanation of why the terms of asploy-
nentwerewhattheywere, andinsoneinstanceshadachancetopresent

148

proposals of their own. In these cases, the school board generally not
with a teachers' comittee to inform it of the current tax situation,
the amount that would be available to the school for the coming year,
and what their salaries would be. By another procedure, representatives
of the teachers' group were allowed to give the board salary and other
proposals made by the staff. Sometimes this presentation was the end of
the procedure; at others perhaps there would be a discussion of the items.
In all these instances, however, the school boards were in no way obligated
to share their authority, and they made all final decisions. ‘Ihe School
Board Association has no concrete record of arm actual bargaining prac-
tices before the 1960's, but some undoubtedly existed.1

Given the school board philosophy and traditional practices govern-
ing its authority, one could easily predict that the School Board Associa-
tion would neither view lightly nor commend the increased demand by teach-
ers for a part in naldng educational decisions. There is evidence that,
during 1960, local. teacher groups were beginning to exert some pressure
for their rights. be president of the MASB reported in November of 1960
that the Association had reomtly been asked by local boards to enter ”dis-
putes" between these boards and the MEA. the Association's Board of Direc-
tors voted to continue to "investigate the facts and determine if the
board was right,” upon request.2 The first official indication that the
EASE was aware of this pressure, however, appears in two resolutions ap-
proved at the annual business meeting in Septuber, 1961. Both are

 

1Barbour, interview, gp, g1.

2mm: Zeiter, "no President's Message,” W
m VI, November, 1960, p. 11}.

149

strictly in line with the Board's traditional point of view. In re-
sponse to a National Education Association statement implying that
teachers should select their textbooks, the Board responded, ”he
mchigan Association of School Boards will strongly resist any and
all attupts to infringe upon the authority of school boards in the
selection and adoption of textbooks and other instructional materials. ”1
he second resolution states clearly the philosophy of local control.
Whereas we believe that ultimate decisions on all matters affecting
local public schools, including the welfare of professional and non-
professional personnel, should rest solely on school boards as repre-
sentatives of the people, Be It Resolved that concern for the public
welfare requires that members of this association resist by all lawful
means the enactment of laws that would compel them to arrrender ary part
of this responsibility. ”2

he actions ofthe MASBinthis areaofbargaining with teaching
employees can only lead to the conclusion that the Association was hoping
in sonawaytepreventthewholeproblen. Untilthepassageefmblie
Act 379 in 1965, the Association's program was not sparked with great
initiative. It took very little action. In April, 1961, the Michigan
Eiucation Asseciation' s first resolution on professional negotiation was
voted. Early in 1962, at the invitation of the MEA, the MASB Joined in
farting a Joint committee to try to work cut a set of negotiation prin-
ciples acceptable to both organisations. But not until October, 1962,

 

1"Resolutions Adopted Septanber 15, 1961." ragga: School Board
m VII, October, 1961, p. 11+.

221d.

150

did the MASB Etecutive Secretary report that such a committee had been
formed.

here was only one other official action on teacher negotiations
taken by the Association prior to 1963, but it was a reaction to events,
not an initiation of them. The delegates to the business session in
November, 1962, resolved that, because the state mediation law had been
interpreted to include relationships between boards and employees, and
because boards were being involved in this process, "a committee to study
policies and procedures with a view to resolving differences prior to re-
sort to the mediation process" would be established}

he year 1963 brought no greatly different official actions from
the Association, although on an individual basis local boards were be-
coming involved in real negotiations. The proposed procedures for profes-
sional negotiation drawn up by the joint MEAPMASB cenndttee were discussed
by the MASB Board of Directors early in 1963, but they were never ratified
bytheMASBBeard. heyweremainlyprecedures tobe usedinthe event
that a local professional negotiation (PN ) committee and its board of
education could not reach agreement on problems related to working condi-
tions, teacher contracts, salaries, and dismissals. hese were local
procedures; but the problem, and a najor issue from the school board's
point of view, was that they called for a form of compulsory arbitration
in impasse situations, and this was an item wholly unacceptable to the

11133.2 he joint oermaittee dnply ceased to operate; the we. stopped

 

1"Beselutiens Adopted November 8, 1962," Ifichigan School Begg
w VIII: W: 19629 P0 50

2Barbour, interview, 23. £2.

151

inviting the MASB to meetings (the MEA always did the inviting), and
the school board group never pursued the possibility of joint action
further.

Walter Averill, a director and former president of the MASB,
showed some awareness of the then (1963) current situation. In November
he stated, "We as school board members must in the future deal with
(teachers? as a group, not as individuals. We can no longer afford
to say, 'Take it or leave it.'"1 His suggestion was that boards use a
consultative procedure: citizens, teachers, and boards would form a
couittee and discuss school finances, teachers' needs, etc. his
should be a cooperative effort to agree on the best plan for the welfare
of the children. All policies should be written and distributed. The
school board, however, still must make all final decisions. hese sug-
gestions may have been a reflection of a statement made by the Delegate
Assenbly of the National School Boards Association meeting in April.
he NSBA was also reacting at this time to the increased pressures from
teacher organizations and had called for a program essentially the same
as Mr. Averill's. hey urged local school boards to fellow ”procedures
that will actively involve boards, administrators, and teachers in dis-
cussing budget needs-~especially salaries and grievances” and have
”written procedures. . . widely distributed and understood. "2 he idea
seemed to be that, by cemdcating with and taking into consideration

 

1Walter. Averill, Jr. , "School Board-Teacher Relationships," I‘fichigan
School Board Journal, 1, November, 1963, p. 9.

2”From the Executive Director's Desk," gagged 2.229; Board Journal,
Is my, 19639 P0 50

152

the views, recommendations, and needs of teachers, the new demands of
the staff could be satisfied.

Although the mchigan Association was particularly silent, at
this time, the National Association pointed out what the issues were.
First, of course, was the sovereignty of school board authority, which
could not be delegated. And in its "Beliefs and Policies Regarding
Teacher-Superintendent-Board Relations,” the NSBA went on to say that
”Strikes, emotions, boycotts, mandated arbitration or mediation are im-
proper procednres to be used by public school employees who are dissatis-
fied with their conditions of employment."1 Strikes, sanctions, impasse,
procedures, authority-«these were the issues, and some stand had to be
taken on them.

In 1965, and up to the time the Mchigan law was passed, the MASB
appears to have focused its attention on the specific area of impasse
procedure. The majority of school boards around the country were express-
ing doubts about the whole idea of bargaining. 'me NSBA went on record
as believing that school boards should ”refrain from compromise agree-
ments based on negotiation or collective bargaining and L-shouldy not
resort to mediation or arbitration. . . ."2 In a speech to the Illinois
State Chamber of Commerce, Mrs. Fred Radke, a former president of the
NSBA, confirmed this vigorous opposition to bargaining agreements between
school boards and teacher organizations, and said that, while the Associa-
tion recognized areas of mutual concern, it did not see aw area of joint

 

vvv

1"Ebccerpts from NSBA Beliefs and Policies Regarding Teacher-

mmwmt-Bom muons. ' WW 1.
December, 1963, p. 10.

22-29..

153

responsibility with teacher organizatinns.1 In contrast, the MASB' s
only resolution on emplnyee relations deals with a specific problem.

In response to proposals to have outside arbitrators make binding de-
cisions in school disputes, the delegates approved: "The Michigan
Association of School Boards expresses the belief that the authority

to an arbitrator to make decisions binding on a school district is both
illegal and improper . e e ."2 If Judgments can be based on the absence
of policy statanents, perhaps it would be safe to say that the MASB had
accepted the fact that there would be bargaining agreements. For them
the issue was to maintain as much decision-making power as possible under
the new circumstances.

Somewhat surprisingly, the Association did not launch a campaign
to fight the passage of the Public Enployee Relations Act. The Associa-
tion preferred the separate education bill proposed by the MEA, but when
it failed, the Association testified for and against specific items of
the bill that in final form became the law.3 Ear example, the school
boards were against compulsory arbitration, for which there is no pro- ' '
vision in the low. Q: the other hand, they spoke for the inclusion of
unfair labor practices against employees as well as employers, but they
did not succeed in having this provision enacted. The Association's
stand was for "mderaflon in the law."

 

1Mrs. Fred A. Radke, "Real Significance of Collective Bargaining
for Teachers," W XV, December, 1961+, p. 795.

2"Resolutions Aoted Upon By Delegate Assanbly,” mobigen School
Board Journal, XI, December, 1964, p. 13.

3Bar-bonr, interview, 22. gig.

154

here is no published official reaction by the MASB to the passage
of the amendments. he Executive Director, in his August column, noted
that PL-379 had been signed and that it opened up a whole new area of
relationships betlnen boards and employees. he President of the MASB,
at this time Dr. Lester Dankert, was not so unconcerned about the situa-
tion. He called for cooperation to influence a reversal of trends that
would restrict the discretion of local school boards.1 He condemned
strikes, emotions, and third-party mediation. He also pointed out that
the authority of the school board could not be delegated, but that, if
teachers just wanted to "share joint concerns”, the board had a respon-
sibility to take into account their views and recommendations.2 After
the fact of the law's enactment, these verbal and semantic exercises
carry little force.

As the MEA immediately stepped up its recognition and negotiation
activities, the School Board Association realized that it must act to
prepare its local boards to handle the bargaining situation. It was un-
prepared for the bargaining that took place in the fall of 1965, but in
January, 1966, the Association retained Mr. Leonard Keller as legal
council for negotiations. hey also cooperated with the Michigan Associa-
tion of School Administrators in publishing a guide called, W
3332! Wk {gr School Boards ad Administrators. he Handbook deals
with the legal rights and obligations of boards and administrators and
presents the techniques of collective bargaining and the preparation of

 

lhster Danlnert, "he President's Message," nobigg bongo; Board
Journal, XII, higust, 1965, p. 4.

2% 9 P- 5-

155

agreements. Articles with suggestions on and principles of negotiation
began to appear in the m, And workshops on the process of collec-
tive negotiation and grievance procedures were held and attendance en-
couraged.

he general philosophy of the MASB since enactment of PIS-379 is
that the Association must and will live within the law. If the Associa-
tion appears to be saying, "We are obligated to do this bargaining, but
we'll make evory effort to see that teachers get as little of our decision-
making power as possible," it is merely holding a position that is quite
in line with the standard position assumed by many managements in private
inchls'trye

he Association has also demonstrated that, when provoked, it would
take a hard line. he boards have always opposed strikes; but this op-
position was tacitly understood. In the spring of 1966, a number of
teacher walkouts occurred in the state, and the Board of Directors of the :
MASB reacted. At a meeting on May 20, it formulated a resolution recom- :
mending to local boards certain procedures to be followed as their col- '
lective bargaining policy: briefly, that school boards fulfill their
lawful obligations; that, in the event of strikes, employees be disciplined
up to and including discharge; that the board seek injunctions against
strikes or sanctions; that school boards stop negotiations with any
striking labor organisation and not continue until the strike ended; that
teachers participating in strikes or sanctions have this action noted on
their records and supplied to any other school district requesting such
information; and that school boards not reconmmd for employment teachers

156

who are on strike or whose district is under sanctions.1 (Ir. Barbour
stated that these resolutions were made at a moment when the school
boards felt threatened, and such harsh statements would probably not
have been made at another time. )2

Despite all the indications that the Michigan Association of
School Boards was ill prepared for the advart of fill-scale collective
bargaining, one must say that it was far ahead of its national organi-
sation. he NSBA's journal, School Boards, in June, 1967, noted that
an important change in the NSBA beliefs and practices had been enacted
by the Delegate Assembly. Its policy simply included a statement recog-
nizing the right of teachers to organize and 99313; (euqahasis noted) with
school boards on terms and conditions of employment. 3

In 1967, the MASB again sponsored numerous workshops on negotiations
around the state, and their legal counsel was at work constantly with
bargaining and representation and unfair labor practice cases. By August,
196?, there were still over 200 districts with contracts unsigned. he
Board of Directors made public a resolution recommending that local
boards ask teachers to go back to school in September even in the absence

or agreanent. In return, the boards would promise that any agreements

 

Walter Averill, Jr., "he President's Message," Michigan School
Board Jamar}, IIII, June, 1966, p. 20.

2Bar-bcrur, interview, 22. 9.3.

Bunsm Delegate Assembly Passes Resolutions on Federally-Related
Educational Programs," m1 Boards, X, June, 1967, p. 10.

.157

finally reached after school was in session would be retroactive.l And
on August 29, the Education Association charged in federal court that
certain Michigan School Boards were ”conspiring" to deny teachers their
constitutionally guaranteed rights.'

Regardless of past pronouncements and ideological positions, the
MASB appears to have recovered from its early unpreparedness and obviously
has moved to a rather classical (although perhaps ”unenlightened”) power-
oriented bargaining stance characteristic of many private industry labor-

management relationships.

Michigah‘AsSociation'of‘Schooi'AdministratOrs

When the subject of collective bargaining in the educational field
is considered, the discussion usually centers on the relationship between
teachers (or the teachers' organization) and their school board. While
these are the major parties to the bargaining and the agreement, there
are others in the hierarchy of a school system who must become involved
with this new process. One is the chief administrative officer of the
system, the superintendent of schools.

The superintendent is responsible for the efficient operation of
his district. This position demands that he perform a great number of
duties: he ”marshals resources, supplies infermation, stimulates dis-
cussion and research and . . . he evaluates, recommends and initiates

action.3 In all these activities, the administrator's main concern is

 

IBarbour, interview,‘gp§'cit.

2Attorneys for the MEA have written to the author in DeCember, l967,
indicating that the case preparation is continuing, but has not been heard.

3American association of School Administrators, School'AdministratOrs
View'Professional Negatiation, Washington: American Association of School
Administrators, i966, p. 53.

 

158

ostensibly the welfare of the student. he ideal superintendent is an

independent party, operating the schools within his broadly defined
mandate from the school board.1 How the superintendent's general role
works out in practice is not to be dealt with here, but we can assume
that the acquisition by teachers of bargaining rights would certainly
have some impact on a position of such responsibility.

he school superintendents have both a state and a national profes-
sional organization. It will be impossible to describe any set of pol-
icies for collective bargaining formalated by the l'fichigan Association
of School Administrators (MASA). hey have no official. position. I will,
therefore, look briefly at the positions taker by the American Association
of School Administrators to see what kinds of policies represent a con-
census of the ideas of superintendents from all over the illited States
and attempt to interpret these as they apply to the Mchigan situation,
and the inchigan Association of School Administrators (NASA).

he American Association of School Administrators (AASA) is a
Department of the National Eiucation Association, and its statements on
professional negotiation largely follow those made by the NEA. In 1947,
the AASA issued an invitation to teacher organizations to participate in
matters affecting teacher welfare and stated its disapproval of strikes
as a means of securing rights.2 here was no similar resolution of this

str'argth until after the NEA resolutions on negotiations in 1961 and 1962.

 

1mg.

zAmericsn Association of School Adrrbfistrators Official Report, 73rd
Annual Convertion, Atlantic City, March 1-6, 1947, p. 228.

159

In 1960, the AASA called for "constant cooperative review of local
school policies and programs by staffs, administrators, boards, and
citizens}; In a 1963 policy statement, "Roles, Responsibilities,
Relationships of the School Board, Superintendent and Staff," the
administrators defined shared responsibility in policy development
as a professional concept. But although the staff should discuss,
present proposals, and participate in program development, it had no
right to make decisions. he school board still possessed all rights
and responsibilities for deciflon making.2

In its policy statements from 1964 to 1966, the AASA stressed
the comncn goals and interests of teachers, supervisors, and adminis-
trators, and declared that the development of school policies and pro-
grams and the solutions to problems are best handled by these groups
working together. he Association has consistently held that education
should be independent of any one segment of society and that strikes are
not a proper means for teachers to assert their rights. In 1967, the
Association urged that "truly professional negotiation procedures” be
established and sanctions be intelligently applied.3

he might expect that, since the AASA has stated positions on pro-
fessional negotiations, the more imediately involved mchigan Association

of School Administrators would also. here is no certain reason why it

 

1American Association of School Administrators Official Report,
1959-60 Annual Meeting, February 13-17, 1960, Atlantic City, p. 214-3.

2Amorican Association of School Administrators, WM
Vifl Professional Ngggfiaticn, 2p. $3., 1). 32.

3"Preliminary mitt of 1967 AASA Resolutions is Completed," g;
Ml Administrator, XXIV, February, 1967, p. 6.

160

did not. he possible explanations could be advanced: First, the NASA
was long (until January, 1967) a department of the Michigan Education
Association, and in general its policies were those of the IEA. Secondly,
perhaps because the mchigan administrators have been drawn into the area
of negotiations by the rapid acceleration of activities of the state's
teachers and school boards, they have not found it necessary to formulate
a position for or against the process; they have simply been occupied with
the bargaining process itself and its implications for them specifically.

Prior to the passage of the Michigan law, the literature of the NASA
rarely dealt with the subject at all. In December, 196+, the MBA invoked
emotions on the Whi‘lzncre lake school district. he NASA Board of Direc-
tors voted to support this action.1 (his is the only example of such
support reported and cannot be interpreted as any kind of standing policy.)
In Jarmary of 1965, professional negotiation was the main topic of a two-
day MASA meeting. hese two news items are the only instances that indi-
cate that the Association was aware of current happenings.

With regard to the enactment of the legislation, the Executive
Secretary of the MASA, stated that the Association did not oppose a pro-
fessional negotiation law of the type the MEA proposed. A legislative
report in May, 1965, noted that there was a number of professional and
labor negotiation bills being discussed, and that "he NASA has not taken
a specific stand regarding these bills other than the general philosophy
that we favor legislation that will give boards of education the necessary

1"Sanctions Invoked by m on Whitmcre Lake," MASA Reflections,
VII, December, 1964, p. 3.

161

authority to operate schools efficiently. "1

Since the passage of the law, the NASA has been involved mainly in
the implanentation of its provisions. Workshops on techniques of nego-
tiation have been held. By October of 1965, the Board, with the help of
legal counsel, had distributed to its members a bulletin on what the
superintendent should do when his staff demanded their newly-won rights.
He should, this report said, review the law with the school board and
point out what is required of both parties.2 In 1966, the administrators
issued the Labor Relations Handbook, jointly with the School Board Associ-
ation, and secured for superintendents the services of the MASB's legal
counsel, 1h. Keller and at a conference reviewing the new law, the ad-
ministrators were told that their jobs simply had a new dimension.3

It is just this new job dimension, however, that has proved to be
the biggest difficulty caused by the widespread introduction of bargain-
ing. Both the AASA and the NASA have felt the weight of the problem;
just what should be the position of the school superintendent in the bar-
gaining process? Both groups agree that he should not be completely by-
passed. he AASA says, ”He should be an independent third party in the
negotiation process. He should review each proposal in light of its ef-
fect upon students and work closely with both the board and the staff

representatives in an attempt to reach agreement . . . . His position

 

1James H. fbsanan, "legislative Report," NASA Reflfitions, VII,
“8?: 19659 P- 3-

chhigan Association of School Administrators, "Supplmmtary
km“ #1," Pe 1e

3"NASA Reviews Negotiations Laws,” gggan Education Journal, XIIII,
January 21, 1966, p. 3.

162

as leader of the staff and executive of the board requires this. "1 He

should exercise free and independent judgment, provide resource materials
and information, clarify issues, and make proposals.2

Here again the NASA has no stated position. As the NASA Executive
Secretary explained, the superintendent's position is different in dif-
ferent districts. It is his personal opinion that the superintendent is
the chief officer of the school board.3 The NASA, in January, 1967, voted
to d_9_l_e_t_e_ from its constitution the section that read, "The Association
shall be a Departnent of the Michigan Riucation Association. "4 The
break is now complete and the position of the superintardent is clear.
In Michigan, operating under a law that bars supervisory personnel from
the teacher bargaining unit, administrators have moved to the school
board side of the bargaining table.

W and Conclusions
In no sense was this part intended to be a complete historical or

organizational treatment of any of the four organizations. Ihe intent :
was simply to review some significant developments and other factors
that most directly relate to each organization's evolving position and

- --.. on -_ .a

policies regarding collective bargaining.

 

1American Association of School Administrators, School Mflators
V11! nggsggifl Rem E‘uon, 22o at" Po sue

22-29. 1:. 55.
3Interview, Dr. Austin Bates, Ececutive Director, NASA, August, 1967.

967 ’“Action Taken at Grand Rapids," MASA Reflections, IX, January,
1 9 P0 1".

163

The evolution was shown to be abrupt for the Michigan School
Board Association (PSBA), continual for the Michigan Federation of
Teachers (m), gradual for the Michigan Education Association (MBA),
and unresponsive for the Michigan Association of School Administrators
(NASA). Ihe impact of the speed of adaptation to the new employment
relationship and the associated preparation for change had a significant
effect upon the results achieved by each organization dm'ing the first
year of bargaining after Act 379 became law.

Initially, the MASB had failed to react to the signs of teacher
discontent and political change and, like their private employer counter-
parts of 193 5 were totally unprepared to assume a constructive, intel-
ligurt bargaining position—or even to protect their own interests.

The MFI‘, because of its Ail—CID affiliations, was the best tech-
nically prepared organization of the four. However, either by design or
default, it chose to press this advantage only in the large metropolitan
arcas and ultimately was successful only in Detroit and in a handful of
neighboring, inner metropolitan suburbs. Ebwever, the experience and
technical assistance received by the MFT from both its national union and
other AFLCIO unions was unfledble and apparently unsuited to the or-
ganizing requirements of the "outstate" school districts (as will be
shown in Part III).

‘Ihe MEA's adaptation to the new law and environment was startling
and dramatic. Although the genesis of the MEA's militancy can be traced
to the middle 1940's and the evolution had been constant, the true nature
of the potentials for this militancy were kept carefully obscured and
camouflaged, finding expression only when seriously challenged by the

161+

rival PM. Many a school boards across the state were shocked to find
that the ”paper tiger company union, " MEA, suddenly was "out unioning
the union.”

Finally, in probably the most pathetic example of an organization's
inept reaction to changing circumstances, there was the NASA. A part of
the DEA until January, 1967, the NASA had no independent policy or action
until after that date. It wasn't until the school administrator found
that he was required by his board of education to assume the official
role of bargaining spokesman for his board that the delusions of neutrality
promoted by his earlier PEA advisors became meaningless and unworkable.
This realization brought uncertainty to the individuals and chaos to the
organization that even in 1968 has not recovered sufficiently to make an
affirmative impact on the bargaining relationship.

This part also partially identifies the characteristics of the
teachers' 1eaders--the new militants. Again, the interest here was to
present a dimension that will help to explain later material. There was
no intent, however, to suggest that the sample information presented is
a complete picture of the leaders of Michigan's teacher organizations.
Ibis must be the subject of future research.

In sunnnary‘, this part answered many of the "Who are they" and "What
have they done" questions concerning the organizations, their members,
and their leaders.

PARI III

THE DRIVE FOR EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATION

CHAPTERVIII

THE smon 0F EXCLUSIVE COILECTIVE
BAREAINING REPRESENTATIVES

Bath the enabling legislation a reality and the characteristics,
positions, and strategies of the contesting organizations reasonably
well determined, the stage was set in July of 1965 for the contest to
detenine which organizations (if arw) would represent the school ele-
ployees and how this representation would be apportioned among a variety
of possible bargaining units.

MW

"Section 15 of the Public Employment Relations Act
provides for collective bargaining between a public em.-
ployer and the representatives of its employees. This
representative must be chosm by a majority of the en-
ployees in an appropriate unit. He may be granted recog-
nition voluntarin by the uployer, or he may be elected
by a majority of uployees in a designated unit."1

he definition of appropriate bargaining units had also been earlier
suggested by court rulings and decisions of other agencies in other juris-
dictions. Fbr example, the Supreme Court of Michigan, in M v.

 

1am a fuller treatnurt of the provisions of the Act and the repre-
sentation procedures of the Inchigsn Labor Mediation Board, see m
Parker, ”The Michigan Public Enployment Relations Act and Procedures Ihder
the Act,” in Charles T. Schmidt, Jr., et (1.; A @de 2 Collective Nago-
tiations in Education, East Lansing: Social Science Research Bureau,
Michigan State Driversity, 1967, pp. 20-27.

166

167

State Iohor Mediation Board, 333 moh. 382 (1952), considered the ques-
tion of what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit. In this case,
the court cited a decision of the Massachusetts Labor Oomnisaicn, whose
primary objective was declared to be, to constitute the largest unit
which in the particular case was most compatible with the effectuation
of the purposes of the law, and to include in a single unit all corssm
interests.

Prior to the 1965 mendments, Act 336 of the Public Acts of 1947
made no attempt to define a unit. It provided that "any given group" of
public employees could petition for mediation. In constming this pro-
vision in m City School Board v. Labor Mediation Board, 358 Mich.
258 (1959), the Supreme Court said: _

"lire basic notion of a. 'group' or unit suitable for bargain-

ing or mediating employee grievances is that of unity of

interests.”

Additionally, as the mchigsn Labor Mediation Board was called upon
to render its own decisions, a body of suggestive (but not necessarily
controlling) precedents was establishedo

Fbr example, the Mediation Board has, on several previous occasions,
accepted the criterion of unity of interest or comaty of interest as
being the proper one in detendning an appropriate bargaining unit. It
has held in Eon School District of the City of Jackson and American
Fgerat~ion of State, County & liming Myees, AFL-CIO, and Non-
Tegcgg moms Club and International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, local Union 232, Case No. R-65-H-26 (January 25, 1966), in City of
Warren and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, local No. 222, and

American oration of State Octmt & Munici al 0 es AFL-CIO

168

Cases No; 3-65-3-30, and 5565-3-37 (January 18, 1966), and in South

ME MI mfiflfl and argon Federation of State, Coat; &
AFL-CIO and cal 2 Into ational therhood

 

3654-183 (June 30, 1966), that the largest bargaining unit which under
the circumstances of the particular case is most comatible with the ef-
fectuation of the Act is the appropriate and proper bargaining unit.

In the mth Redford Schoo; gstrict case it said:

We do not think the electricians have basic interests sub-
stantially distinct and different from those of the other crafts

in the maintenance group in terms of condiQQns of Mt,
cations skills aces f t methods of
WW W a WWW).
Thus, past practices of the parties, sindlarity or conditions of
uployment, qualifications, sldlls, pay, places of anploymmt, methods
of coupensation and duties have all been controlling criteria (usually
taken together) in the determination of the appropriate unit. Qlite
apparartly, these are also some of the criteria most cited by the National
Labor Relations Board in its over thirty years of experience in determin-
ing appropriate bargaining units.
the state‘dde results of the bargaining unit determinations and
representation drives will be examined in a later chapter. Necessary
and important as these statistics are to obtain a meaningful view of
the total unit determination and representation activity to Judge the
scope and relative success of each of the major organizations involved,
they do not present the total nature of the dynamics of the representa-
tion drive by the uplcyee organizations.
For this view, I will turn to three case studies, the first two
Mlflng specific teacher organizations and their attenuate to gain

'l69

representation, and the third, in Chapter IX will be a more general case
of the fight for representation and recognition by school principals and

supervisors across the state.

‘rcaSé’StUdY'NO. l"

The Drive for Exclusive Representation in Detroit

Followlng World War II, Detroit's teachers found themselves in vir-
tually the same position as were teachers after World War I. Average
salaries lagged behind those received by those employed in private in-
dustry. Unions were vigorously seeklng and receiving higher wages for
their members, consumer demands were high, and industrial profits soared.
The growth in numbers of.puplls found the school system woefully inade-
equate. The post-war shift of rural mlnorlty groups to the urban ghettoes
was emphasized by the frequent requests of senior teachers to transfer
out of the ”core”, center city schools.

When the United Federation of Teachers began an active drive for
exclusive representation for New York City's teachers, union officials
in Detroit made a careful analysis of the process.' The success of the
UFT drive in New York strengthened the decision of the Detroit Federation
of Teachers (DFT) to seek exclusive bargalnlng rights for Detrolt teachers.
The campaign for exclusive representation was initiated early in l963.
This concept and effort were resisted by both the Detroit Board of Edu-
catlon and the Detroit Education Association (DEA), the rival of the DFT.

,Detrolt School Board President, Wm. D. Merrlfleld, said

Wednesday he couldn't see what teachers had to gain by namlng

an organization to represent them. ”I am puziled as t? why
they should need a collective bargalnlng arrangement.”

 

‘11hg Detroit Free Press. Hay 16. 1963?

170

Ihtroit at that tine faced a financial crisis and scheduled an
election to increase its millage. he April, 1963, millage campaign
definitely inflnmced the timing and intensity of the exclusive repre-
sentation campaign. According to Mary Ellen Riordan, DFI‘ president,
the Federation postponed its request for an election until after the
April election "became we wanted to place our ml]. resources behind
the millage campdgn."1

a: Detroit Millage @aigzs

.“

Generally speaking, proposals to finance local schools have been
received with such reluctance. In 1961, thirty school bond proposals
fdled for every seventy that were successful in the United States. In
1962, the voters of New Jersey rejected school budget proposals of sixty-
five counties. In 1963, twenty-one suburban districts in the New York
City area rejected school budget requests.2 Simiarly, in Detroit since
1953, the voters have been presented with seven school budget proposals,
but only four were accepted. Surprisingly, in most of these instances,
even in those proposals that were ultimately accepted, the approved
millage was equal to or less than had previously been defeated.

Not until 1957 were the first signs of organized opposition groups
seen in the Detroit area. The mat active to appear was the Detroit
member of ('bmeroe, mich held the position that it would be better to

 

111:. gtmt & Press, May 16, 1963.

2Otis A. Crosby, ”Taxes and Tensions - Battle of Ballots," Public
Relations Gold Mine Volume Six (Washington 8 National School Public
Relations Association, 19 , p. ll3.

171

raise funds through a bond issue than a millage request. The More
campaign was shunted mainly in the last ten days of the election, and,
the proposal was soundly defeated.1

Prior to the next proposal, submitted in 19 59, the Board of Eiuca-
tion began a program of commnity involvement in school affairs. Under
the leadership of Dr. Norman Drachler, the Assistant Superintendent for
School-Gommity Affairs, a Glti sens Advisory Oomdttee on School Needs
was fomed. 'Dae composition of this committee made possible the involve-
ment of large numbers of citizens of varying economic and social back-
ground. heir comprehensive reconnnendations served as the foundation
for financial proposals in the 1959 election. At this time the Detroit
comnity embarked upon the first half of a ten-year program by passing
a 7.5 millage proposal and a sixty million dollar bond issue for school
construction and renovation. The voters had been presented with a blue-
print for a quality educational system and had endorsed it.

Major opposition never really developed in this election, and or-
ganised parent groups, some union and church groups, and education groups '
took strong positions in favor of increased financial support. The

Detroit (haslber of Comerce did not take a public stand.

Daring the next four years, the Board of Education attended to the
task of meeting as new of the recomended needs as possible. An atteapt
was made for improveuents in curriculu- developnmt, personnel, integra-
tion, building constmction, and other needs specified in the study.

 

1"Mlllage and Bond Election, April. 1957" (unpublished history of .
the campaign on file at the Detroit Board of Macedon), p.' 2.

172

As the end of the first five-year program drew near, the schools
were confronted by a falling tax base, a recently-approved city income
ta, increased sales taxes, and rising operating costs. To renew existing
millage would not be suffident to maintain the type of program suggested
by the Citizens' Report. To meet these needs the Board requested not only
the continuation of the previous 7. 5 mills, but an additional increase of
5.3 mills and a separate 90 million dollar bond issue.

Almost immediately marw groups publicly opposed both propositions.
Some of the most vocal. were home owners' associations, which were origi-
nally formed to fight neighborhood racial integration, local groups of
Negroes who were dissatisfied with the efforts to provide equal oppor-
tunities for education and housing, and small groups of retired people.1
‘lhese groups, with the support of small, neighborhood newspapers and
newsletters for both the white and Negro communities, were successful in
defeating both proposals.

At this point, the educational system was faced with financial

disaster. he superintendent quickly made austerity moves by cutting .
services in order to eartend existing and forthcoming funds. Additional

- --.-I'— .0

teachers needed were not hired and special services were cut; classes for
the first, fourth, and seventh grades were reduced to one-half days. Be-
cause of the reductions in the number of school groups (sections), one-
third of the physical education staff was released and amt to other
schools as resource teachers, in actuality, "pemanent substitutes”.

Not only were the teachers up in arms, but the voice of the public

 

lane.

173

resounded throughout the city. Newspapers, radio, community groups,
and television were denouncing the action. After six weeks of chaos
the case reached the courts and the Board was restrained from continuing
its course, on the grounds that it was illegally withholding funds which
were allocated until 1961+. Therefore, at mid-semester the school system
was returned to its previous organisation. In the meantime, a number of
the staff transferred to other systems, and the teachers who would have
been prowrred for the new semester had found jobs elsewhere.

me Board then requested special penission to propose another
millage increase, but, this time, they asked only that the 7.5 mill in-
crease about to expire be continued for ten years. Now that the public
was truly aroused, the Board reached out for total community support for
the renewed millage campaign. local parent groups were organized and
campaigned hard for the proposal for they had seen a glimpse of how an
under-financed educational system would affect their children. Public
media vigorously supported the proposal. Labor unions, real estate
boards (fearing losses in property values), the N.A.A.C.P., the Urban
League, the Wayne County Democratic Association, the U.A.W., and even
the Detroit member of Gomerce actively supported the issue. he only
distinguishable groups opposed were two white home owners' groups, but
fearing public wrath, they gave only token resistance. ‘Ihe millage pro-
posal was passed and the superintendent and staff made an eamest effort
to meet its educational objectives under a very limited budget. Fbrtunately,
in the Detroit area, federal support to education was granted and the Board
was able to offset much of its expenses with these funds.

'llms, Detroit's financial crisis led to overcrowded classes and the
reasdgnmmt of hundreds of teachers with little consideration for their

174

area of specialisation, the subsequent disruption of existing programs
and inconvenience to the individual teacher.

Widespread teacher dissension prompted the creation of an Assign-
ment Review Gomnittee to review cases of hardship and to recommend al-
leviation. Hindi-eds of requests were made for assignment reviews, and
one cannot estimate the number of teachers who were seriously effected,
but did not request a review. 'Ihe Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT)
was quick to challenge the Board's decision and promised teachers action
where violations of seniority rights, previous policy, or contract had
occurred. 'rnus, teacher discontent reached a high level due to: no
raise, indiscriminate reassignment, half-day sessions, and large class
loads.

In the meantime, the drive for exclusive representation was some-
what muted because the school board had decided to campaign again for a
November ndllage election for the extension of the present millage funds.
Nevertheless, both teacher organisations, the DFI‘ and the DEA, continued
tobeheardmdtomakerecomendationstotheboard.

Representatives of rival teacher organizations pressed

their conflicting demands on the Board of Education Tuesday

and the president, Leonard Kasle, demanded that they stop

their ”petty squabbling" until after the November 5th elec-

tion.1

The success of the November millage election gave impetus to the
DFT's drive for exclusive negotiation. Militant was the mood of a large
segment of teachers. ‘Ihey were not going to subsidize education for

parents who, unwilling to pay the full bill, had refused to support the

 

lfbberta Mackey, in ‘Ihg Detroit Free Press, October 9, 1963.

175

larger proposed millage increase in the earlier April election. A de-
cision was made to march to the School Center Building to demonstrate
the urgency of their demand for a representation election.1
lbre than 2000 Detroit public school teachers staged a
danonstration march to the Board of Eiucation headquarters
Tuesday in a show of strength to emphasize union demands
for a collective bargaining election...Mrs. Hordan told the
Board, "We march to enforce our petition which the Board has
not answered...'.l.‘eachers simply do not understand your delay...2
Mneteen-sixty-four began and the Board maintained its position
that the Hutchinson Act forbade exclusive recognition of one employee
organization to bargain for all of the teachers. ‘lhe Federation con-
tinued with its plan to have its membership authorize a strike to enforce
its demand for an election. A strike was authorized by the DFT membership
on February 27, 1961+.3

The Board's problem of the legality of an election took a slight
shift in the face of this threat:

’Ihe president of the Board of Education said Thursday
night that the strike vote by the Detroit Federation of
Teachers will not change the Board's position on a bargain-
ing agent for teachers. Even if the board did grant the
right to hold an election, it still would not have the right ll
to designate any single bargaining agent, said Leonard Kasle.
lhe DEA supported the Board's position:

The executive secretary of_the DEA which vies with the
DFI‘ for menbership called L sic / the decision to strike

 

labs Detrgit Free Press, February 15, 1961+. 68118 teachers had
signed petitions supporting this demand for a representation election.

2Ibberta Mackey, The Detroit Flee Press, December ll, 1963.

3111s Detroit bee Press February 28, 1961+. The strike vote was
P933“ 2109'fi5 e
“Ibid.

176

"flying headlong into a dangerous precedent." Patrick Basile
said the election results are not very indicative of the will
of the majority and do not speak for the total teaching staff
of the City of Detroit.1

While Kasle and Basile were citing legal restrictions and moral

obligations the tempo of militancy was increasing.

Strike Talk A ' Plenty

Teacher Mood: We Won't Budge
"I'm not a bit worried about state law," snapped Mrs.

Geraldine O'Ioan..., a teacher at Halley Elementary. "They

give us all parental responsibility, the children, then take

away our rights. We should have the right to vote for collec-

tive bargaining and if we can't have that I wouldn't hesitate

to go on strike despite the law. "2

Wm. Mead . . . . said, "Teachers have been forced to a

strike vote; no one wanted it. . . . "But its long overdue

and its the only way we're going to get a hearing. I don't

feel the law will hold up. And anyway teachers don't fit

under its definition. We're not a threat to public security. "3

In the meantime, the Detroit Board of Education showed its own
muscle. In an obvious attempt to set an example, Superintendent Brownell
invoked the Hutchinson Act against twenty-one Detroit school maintenance
workersumembers of the mechanical trades union-41110 struck in defiance
of an administrative directive to report to work on schedule. All twenty-
one were fired.

However, within ten days following the strike vote the Board of
Education moved from this extreme position and agreed to discuss a plan
for teacher representation. A visible crack had appeared in the Board' a

WP.

 

libid.

2Raberta Mackey, figs Detroit Free Press, February 28, 1964.
3mm.

177

Ihe plan was a variation of one in use by the Dearborn Board of
Eiucation and later incorporated into a number of state laws such as
those in California and Pfinnesota. Its principal component required a
delegate form of representation, whereby the percentage of the membership
of the bargaining team for each teacher organization is based upon the
number of members certified by each organization. Although strongly
endorsed by the press and incorporated into the policy of the Detroit
Board of Eincation, the plan was rejected by the DFT as a system which
would only lead to chaos--the only alternative to which was, in its view,
a single and exclusive bargaining agent.

Meanwhile, during the week of March 10, 1964, Detroit Federation
members set up informational picket lines at seven schools from 7:00 am.
until the start of classes to emphasize their demands for an exclusive
representation election. Ihe DEA maintained its long-standing position
that being a professional denied teachers the privilege of pressure
tactics. Patrick Basile, executive secretary of the DEA, was quoted
as saying:

. . . Picketing is not a constructive measure but . . .
the teacher representation plan presented by the board is
not to our liking. We hope to make refinements in it, but
this picketing is just an out-of-hand dancns‘lratinn.l
Neither appeals to professionalism, nor placation or paternalism
by the Board would at this point deter the DFT membership. They were
psychologically ready for a confrontation, legal or not, and they set

the strike date for April 15, 196“.

l‘Ihe Detroit a: Press, March 10, 1964.

 

f'r

 

178

Members of the DFT voted Tuesday to strike the City' 3
schools April 15. Whether the DFT orders its members out
of their classmams hinges on a proposal hammered out earlier
Tuesday at a school board meeting. The Board proposed that
a secret ballot be conducted April 8 at which Detroit's 10,000
classroom teachers would decide:

I. To keep the situation as is with DFI‘ and DEA submitting
grievances separately.

II. To adopt a board plan for a Teacher's Representation
%Md.tt”s

III. Or to have all teachers represented by a single organi-
zation;L

Part of the Detroit Board's position change to allow the secret
ballot poll can be attributed to a March, 1964, opinion by Mchigan's
Attorney General, Frank Kelley, who advised that teacher strikes were
illegal, but school boards did have the power to accept the organization
selected by a majority vote of teachers as the sole bargaining agent.
Even so, the school board was hesitant and explained that the April 8,
1964, teacher poll was strictly advisory and not necessarily a mandate.
One week before the teacher poll there was an intensive effort by some
members of the Board of Eiucation to rescind the previous agreanmt to
conduct the poll; only through the efforts of the Board's president, was

this proposal withdrawn.

lhe April poll results startled the Board of Education. Out of
more than 9,000 Detroit teachers, 7, 510 voted that they preferred to have
one organization represent them; i.e. , they chose exclusive representation

rather than either of the other alternatives on the ballot.

 

l'Ihg Detroit Free Press, March 25, 1961;.

179

Subsequently and not without some disclaimers, on April ll, 1964,
Just four days before the DFT authorized strike action:

The Detroit Board of Education agreed . . . to hold an
election in which Detroit teachers will choose one organiza-
tion to represent them in negotiations with the school board.

Board president Leonard Kasle emphasized that the winning
organisation will work within the framework of the Teacher
Representation Conmnttee established by the Board March 11th.]-

By this time, the DEA was campaigning for exclusive representation rights
but still deploring DF‘I' tactics.
The DEA, an affiliate of the NEA, considers itself a
professional group. It frowns on the labor union's approach
implicit in collective bargaining.2
The struggle for the principle of sole representation in Detroit
lasted for about a year. Beginning on May 28, 1963, when the DFT submitted
petitions requesting teacher representation in the collective bargaining
process, the battle was on and continued until May 11, 1961}, when 5,800
out of approximately 9,600 teachers voted the DFT as exclusive bargaining
agent in the Board of Education conducted election.

I'bre recently, and even more significantly, at the latest representa-
tion election conducted by the Labor Mediation Board beemse of a DEA
initiated decertification petition, 6,400 teachers on April 19, 1967 ap-

proved the DFT' s continuing as sole negotiating agent.

 

lnoberts Mackey, 111s Detroit Free Press, April 11, 1964.

2Don Beck, 'me Detroit neg mos, April 12, 1961+.

 

 

180

...-Case Study No, 2-

The Drive for Exclusive Re resentation
in Grand Rapid

In 199+, two organizations of teachers in Grand Rapids presumed
to speak for teachers: the Grand Rapids Teachers Association and the
Grand Rapids Federation of Teachers, local 256 of the American Federation
of Teachers (AFT).

Die Grand Rapids Teachers Association (which became the Grand
Rapids aiucation [ij in 1963), was affiliated with the Michigan
Education Association [MFA] and the National Education Association
['NEAJ. Membership in these organizations was voluntary and an individ-
ual might belong to any one, two, or all three. The Grand Rapids Federa-
tion of Teachers [cm] was affiliated with the mchigsn Federation of
Teachers [1m] and the American Federation of Teachers [in] , which
is in turn affiliated with the American Federation of Labor—Congress of
Industrial Organizations.

In addition, there was an active chapter of the Association of
Childhood Education, the Grand Rapids Association of Childhood Education
L-GRACEJ, a Grand Rapids momentary Principals Association (infcmal ),

a school mm's club, a school women's club, and a faculty wives' club.
In addition each of the secondary schools and some of the elementary ones
had a "building council,” which might to some extent be concerned with
working conditions in the building. Primarily, however, the teachers

 

11 am grateful to Mr. David England, former president of both the
Grand Rapids Federation of Teachers and the Grand Rapids Education Associa-
tion, for his assistance in reconstructing the early history and organi-
zational dynamics of these two organizations.

181

looked to the GREA and GRIT to improve working conditions and salary,
and to protect them in the event of some problem in their employment.
However, both the "improvement" and ”protection" activities of both
organizations can at best be described as consultations with the Board
of Education. Others are less kind, and frankly describe the process
as begging. Each year both the GREA and GRFI‘ made presentations regard-
ing working conditions and salary before the Board of Iliucation. ‘Ihis
involved attendance at board meetings and after the completion of the
agenda the board allowed an item ”presentations from the floor” during
which time representatives from various employee groups, various citizens
groups (especially P.T.A.'s), various student groups, individual citizens,
and an occasional eccentric might ask questions or deliver their opinions.
If questions were asked, the superintendent or a board member would re-
spond. If a statement or presentation were made, the presenter was
thanked and assured that their position would be given due consideration
by the board. (This procedure was common throughout the state and other
states as well.) '

In addition, in the spring, a special board meeting would be held
to hear presentations from employee groups on the subject of working
conditions and salaries. At this meeting there was usually no agenda
except for these presentations. Otherwise, the proceedings were handled
as at a regular board meeting.

Otherwise, from time to time some special area of concern might be
taken up with the superintendent and members of his staff. The general
conclusion of such a meeting was usually either the reassurance of the

group that the problem was being considered and dealt with or if that

182

was unsatisfactory, the creation of a committee of the superintmdent's
selection to study the issue and make a report.

An example of the nature of the consultations can be illustrated
by the 1954 confrontation. mat year the GREA took a hard line on
salaries and for the first time employed a local attorney to represent
th. before the board of education. As the controversy developed the
GREA took the position, ”$3, 500 or else.” Various actions were considered
by the assodation to cover the "or else” category, and the chief one was
the withholding of contracts. The board of education finally adopted a
beginning salary of $3,400, and the president of the GREA publicly thanked
the board for its action.

he Grand Rapids Federation of Teachers
In 1955 the GRFI‘ had about 2% members. Its president had been
instrumental in conducting a campaign asldng the board to establish a
unifom policy giving credit for unlitary service in the salary schedule.
Because that campaign was successful the Federation ranks were swelled
with people who had joined in his support. Emmr, the 2921.2 “bership
(as opposed to those who simply paid dues) was somewhat less than 20 of

when no more than five were willing to participate beyond attendance .a
an occasional meeting.

file GRFl‘ maintained affiliation with the local macro commnity
council. In addition the GRFT was affiliated with a Council of Public
Employees, a. local group, which had been started as a Initial assistance
organization composed of the mnicipal fire, police, and clerical. workers,
the school custodians, and the GRFI'. About four meetings were held a year .
by delegates chosen to serve on the steering council.

183

lhat year the membership was about 94 paid members. The 9511;:
umbership remained about five or six.

In 1958, the GRIT had approximately 9‘} dues-paying members, but by
1960 the pdd membership had fallen to 21+. In that school year a motion
was made to deactivate the local but was defeated by a vote of about seven
to three. In August, 1960, the schedule for secondary school days was
changed and when school resumed, secondary teachers in all high schools
found that they no longer had a fifty-to-sixty—minute lunch hour but in-
stead had a twenty-five to thirty-minute lunch hour. No strong position
was taken by either the GRFT or the GREA on this issue.

lining the fall, representatives from the high schools and Junior
high schools met and created an organization called the ”Secondary Teachers
Association,” the dues for which were $5.00 and were to be used for attor-
ney's fees to challenge the board of education. Between 325 and 350 teach-
ers Joined and included both GRIT and GREA nanbers. This organization was
led by a council chosen hon the representatives from the schools. In the
spring of 1961 the board of education, uncertain of expected revenuu,
issued letters of intent instead of contracts until a salary decision
could be reached. me letters expressed the board of education's intent
tocontinuesteacher's employmmtmdaskedthathedgnastatemen‘tand
returnittotheboard statingineffectthatheintendedtoreturnto
uployment the following fall.

The secondary teachers attempted to obtain an injunction against the
superintendent and the school board from collecting these letters of in-
tent. Ahearingwss held andthe injunctionwas refusedbythe local
circuit court. “he Inchigan Supra Court was not in session but a manner

181+

of the Supreme Court was reached and asked to issue a temporary restrain-
ing order pmding a hearing. ’lhe requested order was denied.
Nevertheless as a result of this activity, the attorney for the
secondary teachers was able to convince the board to add a clause to
the individual. contracts issued by the board stating that changes in
board policy which would change the working conditions of the certificated
staff would not be effected during the period of the contract without the
approval. of the group. Daring the school year 1961-62 the leaders had
only a few meetings. No membership drive was carried on and by late 1962,
the secondary teacher organisation ceased to function} However, it was
from this group of secondary teachers that the GRIT sought to draw its
strmgth in the later unit determination and representation battles with
the GREL.
me constitution of the GM specifically disavowed the strike as
a weapon. no local constitution also denied membership to any super-
visors. ms. provisions were local and not necessarily characteristic
of the other locals in the state nor of the stage organisation. Detroit, :
for example, did have principals in their early membership and the MIT
did advocate the use of the strike. no issue of the adndssion to member-
ship of administrators was of particular concem to some of the long-
standing members of the GM. Finally it is an interesting footnote that
both the previous and present superintendent had once been members of the
GRIT and that both had also served as president of the GREA.

 

1The Secondary Teachers Association is the organisation referenced
in the unit determination dispute befiteen the GREL and GRFT. See State of
Michigan, Labor Mediation Board; Case Nos. R65-I-9l and R65-J-l69; Grand '

Reads Board of Education, vs. Grand Ragds mucation Assoclation and
Rand Ragde Ffleration of Teachers, August 29, 19 , p. 7.

185

Worship in the GRFT is indicated by the following published
figures from the Department of Labor:

Egg Members Year Members
1960-61 42 1963-64 175
1961.62 69 1964—65 172
1962-63 58 1965.66 141

lbr the year 1966-67 the only available figure is the GRFT presi-
dent's estimate of 170 where. In the representation election the GRIT
received 172 votes. The GRFT stated that they had 325 teachers pledged

to them and that 250 teachers claimed to have voted for them}

The Grand Rapids Education Association
In 1951+ the GREA membership had reached about 1,000, which repre-
smted almost all of the teachers in Grand Rapids.2 The local dues at
that time were $4. 00 and most teachers were members locally even though
they might be members of other organisations as well. GREA membership
from 1960 to 1966 is as follows :3

Year Menbers Year Members
1960-61 1,108 1961565 915
1961-62 1,193 1965.66 835
1962-63 1.256 1966-67 859

1963—64 1,008

In 1960-61 the GREA was Just beginning a transition that would bring

 

1% mag Press, November 10, 1966.

malmmbershipinboththemandMEAwas aconmon practice

2
W the state.

3
hum the m “bership r11... headquarters, East busing, Michigan.

186

its practices into line with those that were developing across the
country. The question of employing help instead of depending on the
wrk of volunteers was beginning to be considered. The first movuent
in this direction occurred when the local president paid his wife to do
some clerical chores. ’Jbe constitution of the organization at that time
provided that stipmds be paid to the officers during their terms in of-
fice. he treasurer was the highest paid and the president and secretary
also received a sum; they had no expense account. In 1961-62 the asso-
ciation uployed a secretary on a part-time basis during the school year.

In 1962-63 the GREA in cooperation with the state organization paid
part of the salary of one of the state organization's field represmta—
tives, who also served as a half-time executive secretary. Fbr this
purpose the dues were raised. Also it became apparent that the consti-
tution needed to be revised to authorize the employment of a staff and
to change the governing authority from general meetings (usually with
less than 20% attendance) to some more workable device. Daring the year
an elected constitutional. comdttee worked on a revision of the consti-
tution, which was to be a completely new document. Further, actions
reocmended by the salary chaiman for the GREA (a former and future GRFI‘
presidmt) brought about the adoption of the GREA policy of requesting a
graduated salary schedule with increments expressed as ratios of the be-
ginning salary. Finally, a campaign was mounted to amend the permissive
state tumre law to make it mandatory.

The new constitution} which was ratified in the spring of 1963,

 

lPro sed Qmstitution Grand Rapids Education Association, Grand
Rapids, mchigan, April, 19 3.

 

 

187

provided that the governing authority of the organization would be voted
in a representative assembly instead of as the general meeting of members.
It provided for a president-elect, president, and past-president rather
than the one-year presidency.

In the creation of the new constitution the administration of the
school district was most active and, through their delegate, major is-
sues were raised and re-raised for discussion. art of this debate came
the compromise of the representative assembly. The new constitution also
provided for the enurloyment of an executive secretary.

In the fall of 1963, the first representative assemblies were held
and efforts were commenced to wrest control of the organization from the
”old guard. " Consideration was given to the proposal. that the GREA semre
office space outside the schools. The idea wes finally rejected. 3-
quests were made for a negotiated agreement, for dues check-off, for
exclusive recogrition determined by membership, and for the asdgmnent of
comittees by the association rather than the superintendent. None of ,
these requests was accepted but a series of regular meetings between the '
represmtatives of the GREA, the superintendent, and some members of the
board of education were started and these requests and others on salaries

- ---- .. --. .-

and other economic items were discussed and debated through 1961+. The
GRFT also presented a petition seeking recognition and the establishmt
of a negotiation procedure with the selection of the group to be chosen
by election.

After the Public Enployment Ant amendments, teachers in Grand Rapids
started the 1965-66 school year without contracts pending important de-
cisions by the Labor Mediation Board. mm: labor practice charges had

188

bear filed by the GRFT, which asked, among other things, for the disestab-
lishment of the GREA as a possible teacher representative because it was
dominated and assisted by the employer. The GRFT had also filed a petition
for a unit determination decision based on a sevm through twelve grade
unit. No decisions were rendered until into the 1966-67 school year.

A new constitution had been drafted and reflected the results of
an evaluation undertakm by the NEA of the GREA. It took into account
the provisions of the legislative amendments. lire presidmcy was made a
one-year term with no president-elect or past-president positions.

Tactics and Strategy in the Representation Fight

Upon the passage of the amendments, both the GREA and the GRFI‘
were faced ‘Ilith some imediete problems. he GREA found itself in the
embarrassing position of having a president who was a principal (and
viewed as a management representative) and having its offices located in
the school building (rent free) where the principal was assigned. Through-
out the state, the MEL fend itself confronted With the decision of either
wceptingthe amendments and seekingtowinthe largest manor ofunit
recognitions while at the same time upsetting its traditional structure

of encompassing the aims and interests of school administrators and school
teachers or refusing to seek recognition for its locals in hopes of further
amending the act to create a special set of rules. ‘nre decision was made
in the face of competition from the Federation of Teachers to seek recog-
nition for its local affiliates and to attempt to support them in the
negotiation process. he GREA not only faced decisions as to how to con-
form to the requirements of the act but more importantly how to run recog-
nition as the bargaining agent in the light of some real. feeling on the

l89

part of the teaching staff that it was substantially a “company union."

The GRFT faced the.questlons of how best to create a situation in
which it might win an election as the exclusive bargaining agent and
provide for its own survival. The decisions which were made resulted
in its overwhelming defeat of the GRFT. It is clear that the lntent of
the GRFT and the decisions reached were based upon a combination of
honest Intent, real concern for teachers' interest, and an Opportunity
for Institutional growth.

The GRFT began with these type of assumptions: (l) We are best
able to carry on the process of collective bargaining. (2) The GREA and
its affiliates are not able to carry on effective collective bargaining
by thelr tradition and by intent. (3) Therefore it ls Important that we
win recognition for at least part of the teachers in Grand Rapids. (h)

In any event the GREA and the employer must be made aware of the practices
and attitudes that prevent the real representation of teachers' interests.

The GRFT employed a local attorney to represent them. He had been a
Democratic candidate for office in a Republican stronghold, a supporter of
unions ln a determinedly open shop town, and was somewhat unfamiliar with
state and national Federation of Teachers' policy. These factors may have played
an important role in shaping the decisions that were reached.

The GRFT firstfiled several charges of unfair labor practices, and
then a petition for a unit determination on the basis of a divlslon of the
total staff Into that segment which it was believed might be won in an
election, the secondary division of grades seven through twelve. As the
cases began to develop a conviction grew that the GREA might in fact be

disestabllshed. This posed a very serious problem for the GRFT slnce its

190

petition was on file seeking a seven to twelve unit determination. As a
result the GRFT's position in the unit determination ease became one of
wishing to postpone the hearing until the unfair labor charges were de-
cided and of refusing to stand on their seven to twelve unit request for
fear that if the GREA were disestablished they would have then renounced
a large part of a unit they might have had by default. These actions had
all been taken unilaterally by the GRF'J.‘ and their attorney. ‘Ihe MFT,
hoping to win several other districts, some in which their strength was
in the elementary level, wanted no part in a seven to twelve unit deter-
mination controversy and hence did not file briefs or give any substantial
aid to the local.

mce having embarked on the two contradictory courses, the GRFI‘
could do nothing but press on, rationaJiring as they went. From the
GRFr's point of view, the situation became more and more serious as the
months went by as no decision was forthcoming on the unfair labor practice
charges. The Labor Mediation Board's ultimate decision to detersdne the
bargaining unit question without a prior decision on the unfair labor .
charge (specifically the question of disestablishment of the GREA), re-
moved any creditability from the stand in these hearings that the GRFT
was to take.

The GREA in the meantime had sought and received assistance from
the MEL. heir strategy was to intervene in the unfair labor practice
charge and to attempt to disqualify the relevance of GREA activities
before the mendmmts were passed and thus prevent the disestablishment
of the GREA, to assert publicly a belief that the board of education was
guilty of the alleged unfair labor practices but that to press the issue

191

would result only in frustrating the teachers' best interests; and finally
in the unit hearing, to try to prevent the separation of the teachers into
more than one unit.

On these grounds, the GREA asked for an election to determine the
exclusive bargaining agmt. In the face of the two-pronged attack by the
GRFT, they defended themselves on the above issues by saying that they
were ready, able, and willing to have the agent determined and if the GREA
were chosen, it would effectively represent and negotiate for the teachers.
hey accused the GRIT of placing organizational objectives over the inter-
est of teachers. herefore, in the fall of 1965 the GREA had two tasks:
to rid themselves of administrators, and to petition for an election as
the exclusive bargaining agent for all teachers (Ii-.12) in the district.

he follovdng is a synopsis of the charges, arguments and findings
that ensued at the unfair labor practice and unit determination hearings

condicted by the labor mediation board :1

 

lhe summary and much of the preceettlng discussion was taken from
the following:

a) Partial transcript of the proceedings had and testimony taken
in the hearing in hg Matter of the Grand RaEds Board 2f 11qu-
ca He Before the state r Media n Board' Grand
Rapids, Michigan, March 22 and 23, 19 .

b) %; Cases Nos. R65-I-91 and R65-Jql69.
c) Madam Bgef on Behal: of GREA; Re! Appropriate [hit -
Grand Rapids Teachers; May 31, 19 , heodore sun, Attorney.
d) %£ 21‘ Grand Ragds Federation of Tgachers, Re: Case Numbers
5, L37, Charges of Unfair Labor Practices; February 16, 1966,
A. Ibbert Heiner, Attorney, GRIT.

e) Exceptions to w Examingr's Decision and Becomended Order
and £21? in inmrt hereof, Re: Case Nos. G- 5—L-37; July 13,

192

I. Unfair labor Practice Hearing
A. Charges of Unfair Labor Practices by Federation

1. Evidence of activities prior to the effective date of the
act should be considered to show violations of the act
after its effective date.

2. he employer violated section 10A of the act by unilateral
action changing the conditions of employment.

3. he employer assisted and dominated the Grand Rapids Eiuca-
tion Association so that an order should be issued to cause
it to cease and desist; this domination should disqualify
the GREA from participation in the election.

B. Board of Eiucation's argments
l. he events before the act should not apply.
2. Daflnation and assistance were not exercised because

 

1966, A. Ribert IQeiner, Attorney - GRFT.
f) ggf as Grand Ragds Education Association, Re: Case Nos.
5, L37; lhdlted, heodore Mft, Attorney, GREA.

g) Exceptions 2 Decision and Recommended Order of Trial Examiner,
Re: Case Nos. 5-137; July 15, 19 , J. Michael Warren,
Attorney, GREA.

h) §gf of the Grand Reads Board of Eiucagon, Re: Case Nos.

5, L37; February l5, l9 , Eager Anderson, Attorney, Board
of EHucation.

i) Mtten Exceflons to Trial Mg's Eggsion and Recommended
Order, Re: Case Nos. 5-137; July 13, 19 , Rigor Anderson,
Attorney, Board of Education.

3) Trial Mer's Decision and Recomended Order Re: Case Nos.
5-1337; June ll}, 19 , Ibbert Pisarski, Quief Trial Examiner.

3.

193

a. While administrators were members they were so individ-
ually and not by direction of the employer;

b. While assistance was given it was offered to both or-
ganisations on an equal basis and therefore did not
favor one.

he employer did not in fact encourage membership in the

GREA to the exclusion of the GRFI‘.

he employer did not in fact take unilateral action contrary

to law in that it consulted with the various employee groups

and the action it took followed from earlier employee requests;

there was no bargaining unit with whom to bargain the issue.

Grand Rapids Education Association intervenor agruments

1.

2.

Membership by supervisory employees in a labor organization
does not constitute support or domination of the labor or-
ganisation.

he alleged assistance and domination by reasons of free use
of Board facilities was offered to the GIiFl‘ and used by the
GRFT albeit to a lesser degree and therefore was not a reason

to disqualify the GREA in the pending election.

MLRB findings

1.

2.

3.

he interfermce by supervisors was in violation of section
10A and 103 of act.

he holding of offices in organizations by supervisors was a
violation of sections 10A and 103 of act.

he presence of a supervisor at a labor organization meeting
was a violation of sections 10A and 10B of the act.

5.
6.

7.

9.

10.

19%

he menibership of supervisors in employee organizations
was not a violation of section 10 of act.

he use of school mails was not a violation of act.

he use of school office space was not a violation of act.
he adoption of the MEA Code of Ethics in the employer's
personnel policy was a violation of sections 10A and IOB
of act.

he charge of unilateral action by the board effecting
working conditions was dismissed.

Enployer censorship of association material was a violation
of section 10A of act.

he participation in an association election by supervisor
was a violation of sections 10A and 10B of act.

_h_e_ £33225. d_o_ n_o_t_ Justify Eh; disefiablishment 2; Lb;

association.

II. libit Determination Hearing

A. GREA Position 3

C.

1.

Board of Education

1.

he appropriate unit should be lip-12.

he appropriate unit should be 5-12.

Federation Position

1.

2.

he appropriate unit should be 7-12. (except see #3 below)
he appropriate unit should not be established until after
the decisions have been issued on the unfair labor practice

Chugeae

195

3. he unit determination decision should be reserved until
after the above decision (when the federation-«if it won-- '
would then support a 19.12 determination).
D. MIME Findings
1. he appropriate unit shall be L12 (plus determination of
three minor disputed categories of employees).
Since the issue of the unit determination was M. before the render-
ing of the decision of the unfair charges hearing, the GRFT made no clear
case for a unit other than K42 and thus the precedent was established.
he argument was in essence that the unit should be the largest appropriate
for an mnphyer. he hearing was ultimately ended by agreement of the
parties on the issue, and a complete transcript was not made of the testi-
mow.
In the election which followed the eighteen months of delay after
the original representation petition, the GREA gained more votes than
members for the teachers strongly felt that the GRFT and its attorney had
prolonged the dispute for their advantage agdns‘t the interest of teachers. i
he following election results were decisive and devastating to the
GRFI':
El.ection-November 9, 1966

GREA ll 5!.
GRFI‘ 172
Neither 13
Challenged 16
Total. eligible. . . approximately 1450

TommteeeeeeeeeeeeeJ-BSZ

CHAPTER IX

THE QUESTION OF THE RECOGNITION OF PRINCIPAL AND
OTHER SUPERVISORY UNITS

W
Teachers, bus drivers, maintenance personnel, and. cafeteria workers

have not been the only school employees in I-fichigan education directly
affected by the implementation of PA 379. Nor have these employees been
the only ones requesting exclusive recognition for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. Considerable activity has also been generated by
principal and other supervisory organizations in their efforts to rede-
fine their roles and identities in the changed environment of collective
bargaining.

An approximate, although not completely accurate, analogy may be
drawn between the anxieties and interests of the school principal and
supervisor in public education and those of the foreman and supervisor
in private industry. With the advent of collective bargaining, the in-
cumbents in both these supervisory positions feel threatened, their
decision-making authority may be drastically reduced, the relationships
filth those they are supervising may deteriorate, and they remain subject
to the directives from above and the demands from below. Both in private
industry and in Michigan education, one defensive alternative has been
the organization of supervisory units that have requested, and in some

196

197

cases received, exclusive recognition and bargaining rights. This alterna-
tive tends to serve the dual purpose of providing individual protection and
insulation from both above and below as well as furthering the parochial
interests (salary, working conditions, etc.) of the organization members.

In private industry, the manifestation of this activity was seen in
the dramatic and relatively successfill organization by the Rareman's Asso-
ciation of America, which up to 1947 had approximately 45, 000 members and
signed collective agremuents with about sixteen corporations}

However, the private industry experience was short-lived, for

"In 191”, Congress was revising the Wagner Act in response to
the widely-held belief that under the act' 8 bmeficient provisions
unions had become too powerful, and it was not difficult to per-

suade the framers of the new law that foreman should not be allowed
to use the NLRB to force employers to bargain with their unions. "2

he Taft-Hartley Act, in 1947. thus removed the legislative protections of

the supervisors' right to organize.3

 

laxarles P. Larrowe, "A Meteor on the Industrial Relations hrizon:
he Fbreman's Association of America,” Reprint Series No. 39a Labor and
Industrial Relations Center, Michigan State hiversity, 1961-62, p. 288. .

2&3” P- 2600 '

3%.; Sec. 2(3) of the Act excludes foreman and supervisors from -.
the definition of "employees" covered by the law. Sec. ll&(a) relieves em- 5
players of a duty to bargain with a union of foreman or supervisors. Sec. 5
2(11) defines a supervisor as: ”...anv individual having authority, in the b :
interest of the employers, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
promote, discharge, assign, reward or discipline other employees, or respon-
sibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectivoly to
recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of
such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires
the use of independent Judgment."

he Wagner Act had been silent on the question of foreman, withholding
protection of the law only from agricultural. laborers, persons in domestic
service of any family or person in his home, or any individual employed by
his parent or spouse. According to the committee which reported the Wagner
Bill to the Senate, workers in these categories were excluded because of
difficulties the National. Labor Relations Board would encounter in adnxin- '
istering the Act if it applied to such workers. See U.S. Senate Comttee
on Eiucation and Labor, Report No. 753, 7hth Congress, lst Session, 1935,

p. 7.

198

--Case Study No. :3;—
mchigan Principal and Supervisory Units

Ihder the Mchigan statutes, the situation is far from clear.
Appropriate unit determinations by the Labor Mediation Board have made
it clear that a "wait that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory
employees is clearly inappropriate."l But, in their own "appropriate
unit," supervisors (principals, etc.) may very well have the same rights
to mgage in collective bargaining and other concerted activities as non-
supervisory employees under the act.2

Ibwever, the Eillsdalg Administrative Unit "ng2 (discussed in detail
later in this chapter) notwithstanding neither the MIME nor the Mchigan
Courts have rendered any decisions directly dealing with the question of
the protection of school principal or administrative units under mchigan
statutes. However, a very convincing case has been made for this protec-
tion in a Brief of Grand Rapids Education Asggciation, Case No. C65-L37,
submitted on behalf of the intervening Grand Rapids Education Associaflon
in the matter of the 1 Board 0 the of Grand Ra ds vs. 3132 '

Grand Reads Federation of Teachers by 'Iheodore W. Swift, attorney, in
February of 1966. (See Appendix Q for an edited version of portions of

this brief.)

 

laiarles 1'. Schmidt, Jr., et al., A Guide to Collective Negotiations
in Elucation, East Lansing: Social Science Research Bureau, Michigan
State Ikliverdty, 1967, p. 26.

2On May 8, 1967, the Mine ruled in the Sggaw (buntz Ibad Oonmissicn
Case that supervisors are employees under the Labor Mediation Act and

qualify as a legal negotiating unit. he Board noted that Michigan Law has
no specific exclusion for supervisors; "Public Enployees” includes all ’
public employees without qualification of stattls.

199

In summary, therefore, it appears that the major question under
the Michigan statutes is not whether supervisory tu'sits are covered under
the legislation (although it must be emphasized that this is only the
apparent trend which has developed from the Sflaw Road Comnission Case)
but rather, whether the supervisory units may be affiliated-either
directly or indirectly—with parent organizations, departments, or sec-
tions that are also the organizations representing the teachers. The fore-
most organizations in question are the Michigan Federation of Teachers and
the Mchigan Education Association.

Although the EFT calls itself exclusively a teachers' organization
(and has among other actions denied affiliation requests from the Detroit
administrators' group), this attitude has not been historically pervasive
in Michigan; furthermore, it is not the policy of the parent American
Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. The constitution of the AFT (as of
January 1, 1966), allowed membership to 111ch school principals, assist-
ants to principals, heads of departments, or other supervisory officers
except superintendents L-article III, section 2:] . Further, at least five i
AFT locals are primarily for supervisors or administrators. hese are:

AFL local NoI Name and location
1327 E. St. Iouis Principals Federation; Illinois
890 Hammond Federation of Principals and Supervisors; Indiana

101:2 Council Bluffs Federation of Principals and Super-
flwmgbm

1240 lflnnesota (State) Department of Elucation; St. Paul,
Minnesota

1350 St. Louis County Principals and Supervisors Federation;
Missouri]- '

 

1mchi an Education Journal Vol. #3, Number 9, P. 2. (undated)

200

Ibwever, the major question is not with the Federation (in Michigan
at least) but with the Eiucation Association. Constitutionally, organi-
sationally,1 administratively, and philosophically, administrators,
principals, and superintendents not only have been affiliated with the
MBA (and the national mm) but have, on many issues, assumed a high de-
gree of control over the policies and actions of these organizations.
ally after the enactment of PA 379 did the MEA reappraise its position
regarding school administrators.

In a 1966 policy statement on the role of school executives, Dr.
Dale Kennedy, MEA Executive Secretary, set the stage and direction of
the MEA's new approach to reformlate the organization's structure to
serve effectively both the teacher and the administrator.

file assumption that adfinistrators and supervisors "have
no place in mach groups L teachers' organizations _/ " is a
failure to differentiate between a negotiating team of the
representative group and the education association. ‘Dae
representative group must negotiate for all personnel ,
whether they are members of the association or not.

It mst be pointed out that administrative and super- ;
visory personnel are certified as teachers for purposes of §
tenure. filerefore, being properly certificated and holding
a bachelor' s degree with required professional preparation, :
they are eligible to become and remain members in the m E
(MEA Standing miles II, A).

We can and mast retain the professional status we have
established over the past many years. The MBA Board of
Diroctors has adopted the following position: "...that all
local units request to represent and bargain for all certif-
icated personnel in the school system within the present law. "

 

llhe Michigan Association of School Administrators, the Michigan
Atabulation of Secondary School Principals, and the Michigan Association
01' Elementary School Principals were or continue to be organizational
dOPu'tments or units of the MIA.

8 213. Dale Kennedy, ”The Role of School Executives (Under Public Acts
2 2 and 379),” £522ng Education Journal, January, 1966, pp. 18-19.

201

l
The steps that were taken to implement this statement soon followed.

On January 14-15, 1966, the Board of Directors approved an amendment to
the MEA constitution and standing rules to permit administrators and
supervisory personnel to organize MEA administrative districts (this amend-
ment was later approved by the 1966 representative assembly). The amend-
ment would:

Provide such administrative districts with all the bene-
fits accruing to other MEA districts including: subsidy to
the district based on membership, delegates to the Repre-
sentative Assenlfly, delegates to the MEA region councils,
participation in leadership training activities, etc.;

Allow the formation of administrative chapters and admin-
istrative districts to be composed of adndnistrative and
supervisory personnel in single school district or districts;

Provide that, where no adnunistrative district exists,
administrative and supervisory personnel shall be members in
good standing of their respective departments in order to be
members of the state association...2
Although not specifically stated, one of the purposes of the amend—

ments clearly was to. provide an organizational vehicle for the purpose of
collective bargaining by MEA-serviced supervisory units.

However, the proposal of these amendments was also obviously timed
and announced in an attempt to influence the deliberations of the Michigan
Association of School Administrators, an affiliate of the MEA, composed
primarily of school superintendents, whose manbers had recently denounced
the bargaining position that the MEA had assumed on behalf of the teach-
ers. Their position was simply that the parent organization, by serving

as the exclusive bargaining agent of the teachers, could not at the same

 

101'. ‘Ihe legal position of the man developed in the Grand Ragds
Case, Appendix Q.

ZMchigan Ehlcation Journal, Vol. #3, No. 14, p. 4. (undated)

. -.-- -a -— .a

202

time best serve their interests and in fact, their dues and contributions

could be and were being used against their interests at the bargaining table.
Despite the MEA's attempts to redesign the internal organizational

relationships (the proposed constitutional amendments), the NASA was unimp-

pressed and, on January 19, 1967, voted to disaffiliate as a department

of the MEA by a vote of 392 to 106.

1

In a February, 1967, editorial, the MEA announced the disaffiliation

 

Inchigan Ehlcation Journal, vol. 44, No. 21, (February 1, 1967); p. 2.

Events now extending backward for more than a year undoubtedly have
left an unknown number of superintendents feeling that they were, in fact,
already "going it alone.” The public law (Pi-379) giving teachers the
right, as public employees, to organize and to negotiate concerning salary,
hours, and "conditions of employment” instanteously defined a new legal re-
lationship between teachers and their employers. Ihe change set into motion
by this new legal relationship was revolutionary. In most cases, only a
beginning has bean made in the personal adjustments which the change ulti-
mately will require of all the individuals involved-both teachers and
school achdldstrators.

Consequently, recent days have been difficult for superintendents (as
they have been for classroom teachers). First, in some districts the super-
intendent found the door closed (for the first time in history) to his mem-
bership in the local education association. ‘Ihe door-closing was related
to interpretation of law, which excludes "supervisors" from membership in
the employees' bargaining unit. Superintendents did continue to see their
teachers, however, but from across the negotiating table in what resembled
to some an adversary relationship—a threat to their authority as superin-
tendent. 'Ihey found themselves alone somewhere between the professional
staff of their school and their school board, of which they are the execu-
tive Officer e

lhe chief school administrators have now acted to adjust their profes-
sional organization relationship. Apparently many of them see relations on
the state level paralleling those in their local districts-«going it alone
and defending as best they can an embattled position. They have answered
the question concerning their position within the profession. Or have they?

What leader is not aware that to achieve objectives he must "bring
along his staff" 7 Some superintendents have already decided for themselves
what the only realistic answer can be. It is that they cannot "go it alone"
in their districts and achieve their goals. Ihey mst solicit and accept
the consultation, ideas, and occasionally the decisions of their profes-
sional staff. Some superintendents already see the new public employees'
law as offering new opportunities to exercise their leadership role. ’Ihey
do not confllse that leadership role with authority that commands and often
gets nothing more than servile obedience.

Some 106 superintendents voted to remain with their state education
association during this "traumatic" transitory period in mchigan education.
As more days pass, perhaps tempers will cool, minds will change, and new
effective relationships will emerge.

203

and offered some reasons for the action. Mare importantly, however, they
politely took the superintendents to task for not recognizing the legiti-
macy and virtues of acquiescing to the teachers' demands for joint de-
cision making. Thus, the MEA stated as its principal concern the effec-
tive representation of the rank and file member while, at the same time,
it attempted to incorporate administrative units within this same concern.

Following the acceptance by the General Assembly of the revised or-
ganizational relationship of administrative units with the State MEA, the
state organization issued a set of guidelines for the formation of admin-
istrative districts and chapters that included steps for organizing and
bargaining procedures. Ihe guidelines recommended that:

All certified administrative and supervisory personnel,

who are members not included in a teacher negotiations unit,

may organize to seek recognition and designation as the sole

representative of these personnel for the purpose of nego-

tiating with the Board of Education on salaries, hours, and

other tems and conditions of employment.1

In February, 1967, the first two MEA administrative chapters were
announced (Garden City Administrators Association and the Mt. Morris 5
Consolidated School District Administrators) as follows :

‘Ihis represents a continuation of the "umbrella" profes-
sional organization concept under Public Act 379. ‘Jlle MEA

Representative Assembly has made it possible for administrators
to stay "in the family" through this appzoach.2

. ----.. u— .-

Within the next two months, ten additional chapters had been recog-
nized by the MBA and four others were about to seek recognition.3

 

lmchigan Education Journal News, Vol. M, No. 8 (October 14, 1966),
p. 2.

2Micmgan Education Journal News, Vol. ’44, No. 2‘! (February 24, 1967),
p. 2.

3m an I'Hucation Journal News Vol. Ml», No. 32 (April 21, 1967),
p. 1; and lbid., Vol. 51:, No. 37 (May 26, 1967), p. 2.

 

 

201+

heanwhile, the two organizations of principals, the Michigan
Association of Secondary School Principals (MASSP) and the Michigan
Association of Elementary School Principals (MAESP), both affiliates
of the MEA, had not remained silent or inactive. As early as December,
1965, the MASSP passed a resolution that called professional negotia-
tions a ”logical step forward in building the stature of the teaching
profession" and recognized the need for "formalizing and structuring
bargaining procedures in all schools."1 More importantly, however, the
resolution further urged "all school districts to take steps to provide
bargaining agents representing administrative and supervisory groups..."2

Approximately one year later, on December 1, 1966, at the MASSP
Annual Business Meeting a series of constitutional amendments and resolu-
tions were proposed both to support the concept of organization and bar-
gaining by administrative and supervisory units and either to withdraw
from the MEA or to require major changes in the MEA organizational struc-
ture as it pertains to the MASS? and MAESP. After lengthy discussion the
MASSP voted to remain affiliated with the MBA provided that the MASSP
"constitute a statewide administrative district of the MEA. " (A companion
motion to disaffiliate was defeated. ) Additionally, strong resolutions
were passed supporting negotiating groups for principals and the grouping
of a wide range of administrative personnel for the purpose of negotiating
with the boards of education.3

 

haggg Education Journal, Vol. #3, No. 9. p. 5. (undated)
2%

3'mnuten MASSP Annual. Business Meeting, December 1, 1966.
(mimeographed,

205

On March 8-l0, I967, the Michigan Association of Elementary School
Principals (MAESP) adopted a posltlon similar to the MASSP's by defeating
a motion "to sever MEA afflllatlon” and voting to support professional
negotiations for administratlve units.I (See ”special note” below)*

These actions by the two MEA affiliated principal organizations were
quickly followed by MEA recognition of the MASSP as an administrative
district (as well as a department) and two regions of the MAESP as one
administrative district.2

The administrative organization and the legal arguments (see Appen-
dix Q--Grand Rapids Case) were now available to meet the inevitable and
predlctable challenge by boards of education across the state. In March,
a newly-recognized MEA administrative chapter In Hillsdale had Its peti-
tion for recognition denied by the HilIsdaIe Community School District.
The three contentions of the school district were that: (I) principals
do not have the right to negotiate under PA-379; (2) the unit was Inap-
prOprIate; and (3) the MEA is not a proper representative to negotiate

3

for principals and supervisors. It was alleged throughout the MLMB

hearings conducted from March 23-June 6, I967, that the Hillsdale Board
had been solicitatlng funds from other boards throughout the state to

z.

assist in meeting their legal fees in this precedent-setting case.

 

lMichigan Education Journal News, Vol. Ah, No. 27 (March l7, I967),

p.‘l.
'ZMichigan Education Journal News, Vol. #h, No. 32 (April 2], 1967).

p. 2.
3Michlgan Education Journal News, Vol. Ah, No. 30 (April 7, 1967),

p. 2.
llMichigan Education Journal News, Vol. At, No. 34 (May 5, I967),

p. ‘e*
Special Note: At the most recent conventions of the MAESP and the
MASSP, (late I967 and early I968) both organizations voted to

dlsafflliate from the MEA.

 

 

206

Of obvious assistance to the MEA's position was the lvflMB's ruling on
May 8, 1967 (in the middle of the Ifillsdale heating), on the sgnaw
County fbad Conmdssion case that supervisors are employees under the
Labor Mediation Act and may qualify as a legal negotiating unit.1 In

January, 1968, the 1MB had yet to issue a decision in the Hillsdale case.2

However, all supervisory unit recognitions have not been contested,
nor are they exclusively tied to the organizational structure of the MEA.
A case in point is ..the Detroit Organization of School Administrators and

Supervisors. " ‘

8

Organization of School Administrators
and Supervisors3

me impetus for administrators and supervisors in the Detroit

school system to seek the strength and protection they could gain rnon
collective bargaining occurred in early 1964. The Junior High School
Principals Association took the lead in protesting a substitute directive
in October, 1964. 'Ihe directive required administrative personnel to
substitute for about teachers anywhere in the system. The protests came
from all members of the group. In the hearing that resulted from the
protests, some modifications were made in the rule. But the most im-
portant notion to emerge from this incident was a realization by admin-
istrators that they were faced with common problems and that the best way

 

13w Count; Road Commission, 22. at,

2M Parker, Chief Mediation Officer, personal correspondence,
January 29, 1968.

3Background information supplied by Mr. Soleman Cash, Assistant
Principal, Detroit Public Schools.

207

to resolve these problems was to band together. Ihe junior high and
senior high school principals decided to meet together at Cooley High
School in November, 1964. At the Cooley meeting, the School Adminis-
trators Councdl (SAC) was formulated.

Ihe formation of such an organization came after years of failure
to achieve this goal. For many years officers of the different organiza-
tions on the three levels of administration had tried to establish joint
meetings, but their efforts were consistently unsuccessful. But after
the October, 1964, general principals' meeting, there was a widespread
demand to create a united organization. During the two years of SAC's
existence, the three levels have apparently learned to work comfortale‘
and harmoniously with each other. Ibis confidence in the integrity of
other administrators with different responsibilities but similar inter-
sets is one of the basic tenets on which the new OSAS was formed.

At about the same time that SAC was being formed, a plan was de-
veloped for forming an administrators' organization that would include
department heads and supervisors as well as principals and assistant
principals. It was believed that if an adndnistrators' group was to be
an effective bargaining agent it should include as many middle management
personnel as it could accommodate. In the plans it was envisioned that
there would be a bargaining unit of more than 1,100 administrators and
supervisors. From these plans the Detroit Federation of Administrators
and Supervisors (DFAS) was born.

hiring the year 1965, both DFAS and SAC officers met periodically
with Dr. Brownell, Superintendent of Detroit Public Schools, to discuss
the problems that principals were facing with the new teacher collective

agreement and to examine other administrative concerns. Some precedents

208

were set in these meetings; e.g., the administrators were asked for
reactions to the 1965-66 teacher contract. Heretofore, there had been
no involvement by middle-level administrators in such discussions.

In December, 1965, officers of the School Administrators' Council.
appeared before the Personnel Committee of the Detroit Board of Education
and asked that their organization be made the sole bargaining agent for
principals and assistant principals. In a separate move, DFAS officers
submitted a petition before the Personnel Committee requesting that
their organization be given exclusive bargaining rights for their more
comprehensive group. The Detroit Board of Education denied both requests.

Both groups filed petitions with the State Labor Mediation Board in
the spring of 1966, and each requested that it be designated as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent. In April, representatives of both groups met
with Elbert Blackwell of the State Labor Mediation Board. After a series
of discussions, Mr. Blackwdl asked representatives of the two organiza-
tions whether they could work out their differences and form a single
organization. A caucus of the two organizations was held, but the dif-
ferences between the two groups remained unresolved.

The following month, the president of SAC and the president of DFAS
not together and worked out a joint written plea to the members of both
groups. This plea strongly advocated a merger of the two organizations
and made the following points: (1) Everyone would lose if the two organi-
zations continued to oppose each other, and (2) by acting as a unified
group, one organization, stronger than either of the other tm, would be
formede It was further proposed that the merged organization have three
basic mlitS-—princd.pals and assistant principals, department heads, and

209

central staff administrators and supervisors. Ranks of field executive
and higher were considered top management and were consequently not to
be eligible for membership.

SAC members rejected the joint plea. ‘lheir petition for sole
recognition was still pending before the State Labor Mediation Board,
and they felt that any move toward merger at this time would jeopardize
any chances their petition had. However, in July, the attorney retained
by SAC engaged in conferences with Mr" Aubrey McChltcheon, Labor Relations
Representative for the Detroit Board and the officers of DFAS. Mr. Mc-
Gutcheon promised to recommend voluntary recognition by the Board of Edu-
cation if both organizations agreed to merge.

On September 6, officers of SAC proposed to the officers of DFAS
that a caucus of officers of the two organizations be held on September 15.
Attomeys representing both groups were present at the caucus meeting, as
were a small committee of officers. General suggestions for a merger were
scaperatively made. For all practical purposes, the new, merged group was
organized.

A second caucus meeting was held later in September. ’lhen, on
October 5, a meeting of the executive boards of SAC and DFAS was held.
A slate of officers was named to serve until a constitution could be
drawn up and an election held. Ihe Detroit Board granted voluntary recog-
nition to the newly-merged organization in the late fall of 1966. A con-
stitution for the OSAS was adopted in March, 1967, and on March 10, 1967,
collective negotiations began with the Board of Education upon the pre-
sentation of a formal set of contract demands by the OSAS Negotiating
Committee. Negotiations continued through 1967 into early 1968, when the

first contract between the OSAS and the Detroit Board of Education was

- -.-. Os 9. .-

2l0
signed and ratified.
"COnClUsion

It is obvious that organizing for collective bargaining purposes
by principals, administrators, and supervisors in Michigan education is
in an embryonic stage in early I968. The legal questions have not been
entirely resolved, nor have the organizational and philosophical relation-
ships and positions been fully explored. However, it is abundantly clear
that this middle management group is vitally interested in entering into
a bargaining relationship with their respective boards of education (as
some have already done). For those who consider collective bargaining
an extremely effective institution for the resolution of conflict and
the positive benefits derived from shared decision making, this deveIOp-
ment can be viewed only with extreme optimism. They would hope that the
Michigan legislature is equally impressed and does not make the same
errors in judgment that let Congress to remove the protections of the
Wagner Act from supervisory units. From the early resistance shown by
boards of education (e.g., Hillsdale), there is serious doubt that the
school administrative units can survive (much less expand) without legis-
lative protection, any more than the foremens' unions could survive once

Magner Act protection was removed.

- -.-- .0 .0. -5

CHAPTER I

A sums 3mm or THE STRUCTURE, CHARACTER-
IS'I'ICS, AND DETERMINATION or MICHIGAN
EDUCATION ammmc UNITS
July 1965 - June 1967

The scope of this chapter is chiefly quantitative. It examines
various facets of public education units, their method of determination,
and their characteristics. As such, the main variables to be discussed
are: (1) type of bargaining unit, (2) method of determination, and (3)
affiliates, 1967.

mus-as.

The methods and data sources discussed in this chapter are the
questionnaire survey and the data analysis of material in the MIME files.
Ihe questionnaire was used to obtain broad-based statistics regarding
the general structure and characteristics of bargaining units within
mchigan school districts. line data. from the MIME files represent the
univorse of cases that can be thought of as ”non-voluntary recognition"

cases. Insofar as the survey statistics are representative of Michigan

school districts in gmeral, bargaining unit structure and characteristics

may be inferred for all school districts. Further, the survey statistics

identify characteristics occurring before cases were sent to the MIME-

21.1

- -l-- .0 -- .-

212

that is, since infometicn such as bargaining unit affiliate, type of
bargaining unit, etc" is not available from the MLMB files in those
school districts not asking for no assistance in the detendnation of
the appropriate unit or where recognition woe not challmged, the ques-
tionnaire was used as the source for this data.

no mestionndre

he questionnaire was sent to a list of 57 5 Michigan school districts
that were considered most likely to have a collective bargaining relation-
ship. ‘Ihese represent the larger districts. are proportion of school
districts not covered by the questionnaire who m have engaged in col-
lective bargdning and resolved questions of unit determination is neg-
ligible. flares-hundred and five school districts responded to the ques-
tionnaire for a 53 per cent return. Within these 305 districts were 5’49
bargaining units, an avorage of 1.45 units for each reporting district.

file format of the questionnaire (see Appendix B) was developed in
order to accomdate two opposing needs: keeping the questionnaire reas-
sonably short for a higher response rate, and cbtdning the mmerous and
detdled information required for this survey (Inst choices and categories
were constructed so that the respondent merely checked the appropriate
response). It was felt that, since the respondents were W
of school districts, proper and accurate compliance in accurately con-
ploflng this fairly detailed questionnaire could be achieved by people
who in most cases had obtained at least a master's degree. his assumption
mod to be not entirely correct. the "grid" format of the questionnaire
1m itself to easier quantification of the data. lbwover, flexibility
1” l‘GIZ'<>:I"l’-:i.ng data was somewhat hampered. 'Ilo overcome this problu of

213

flexibility, the ”other" category (as in the bargaining unit type) was
used. Where responses could not be fit into any pro-existing category,
they were dropped from the sample. Where intent was clear or where
alteration would not distort the study, the responses were evaluated to
fit into the defined categories.

Remnsg Error
fire following represent the most frequent problems that were en-

countered with response error and coding in the questiomaire: (1) Some
superintendents evidently didn't understand the directions on the bottom
of the questionnaire. For instance, mtually exclusive bargaining unit
types were reported for the same school district. (filese responses were
less than five per cent of the total.) Sometimes, where evidence of in-
tent was clear, unclear responses could be altered. For instance, where
bargaining types 01 and 02 were reported, the 02 category was selected
as the proper category since category 02 is more inclusive.

(2) Dudssions in one or more of the informational categories con-
stituted the most serious and sure frequent type of response error. 'Ihe
most frequent emissions were: failure to specify the 22-212 of the bargain-
ing unit affiliate (some merely checked the appropriate cell), and failure
to specify the method of bargaining unit determination. In total, these
response errors constituted approximately ten per cent of the total re-
spouses.

( 3) Under the column asking for information concerning affiliates,
the following two problems occurred: (A) Some respondents (three per
cent) put "melon down for an affiliate instead of its national member
union (most probably the operating engineers (IUOE) ). ibis "AH—CID"

214

response was counted as a category since there was sufficient response

to make even this general category usable for purposes of analysis. (B)

It was found that some secretaries affiliated with the Michigan Associa-
tion of Educational Secretaries (MES) were listed as belonging to the

MEA, the parent organization. 'Ihese were recorded exactly as the responses
indicated.

(4) The final major type of response error concerned specifying
"voluntary recognition" in the same year as "consent election” or other
types of WEB-involved representative disputes. Since it is impossible
to have both types representation determination in the same year, the
responses were given a value of ”O" for computational purposes. This
procedure insured that such a dubious response would not be accorded
the same weight as the non-dubious responses, but it still left such
dubious responses in the sample. A later verification from MIME files
showed that this was the most prudent method of disposition.

Random Sample
The question of the randomess of the sample may be one of the

weaknesses of the questionnaire survey. However, a presumption of random-
ness can be made on two bases, the large number of responses obtained, and
the relative conformity of the response pattern to the geographical (actual)
pattern of distribution in the State. Every one of the eighteen educational
regions of the state was represented in the sample with reasonably equal.

mags

MIME Files
The MIME files were examined to obtain the universe of contested

representation cases. Data regarding the time the case came to the

215

MIMB (Table 21), length of time for disposal (Table 22), parties involved
in the contention, type of bargaining unit, and type of case disposal
(Table 23), was collected from the MIMB's card files.

The most common problem with the MIME case file material was
quantifying and coding of the various types of bargaining units. Because
the 141MB wording in bargaining unit determination cases is so precise,
over 60 different types of bargaining units might have been isolated.

For purposes of simplicity, these various types were broken down into
seventeen basic types plus one ”other" category. (See Table 26)

A further problem was the definition of the type of case disposal
given to each of these cases. For some, the files merely stated "closed,”
which can mean any number of things. Fortunately, these cases were a
small minority of the total.

The third problem involved the identification of affiliates. Often,
the identity of a locally-affiliated group would be hard to determine,
especially when local groups call themselves " Eiucaticn
Association". Unless there was a clear statement that such a local (with
the nme "association") had pg ties to the state and national affiliates,
they were recorded as belonging to the state and national organizations.

Analysis, Results and Interpretation
These data were all appropriately coded, and IBM type punch cards
were used for the analysis. in IBM 3600 computer performed the contingency
table print outs of frequency and percent data of the non-contiguous vari-
ables included in the survey questionnaire responses. Tables were con-
structed to present one variable as the independent variable (variable

down) against the dependent variable (variable across); e.g., bargaining

216

:38 coco-bumsoeh .. $9 $23 588009.33. .. me? n

6.80m nonsense: song 93 he. oobfloeon new ones 23 meg: mfiuhoo “35.82 a

. madam m5: u season

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..oos m.cs a.mm F.w:

.auulhmmluuu m.em on 0.00, nos . 0.00, cm, fleece
sense 0 -- 0.0 o a.o a seesaw soz
o .i mé w m. 3 pm nongoon .. kangaroz
o nu woe N... Q3 5 tongue .. nognmcm
o -- «.ma ms F.w as- nausea - ease
o.ms c e.ma m, o --- ease - as:
m.om em m.ms as o --- Hence - seem:
:.om e: ©.mm on o :3. Eanoh I hump—8h.
a aw u. a n \mwmwmmmmmnulunnuln.

seem, _ emm_ : ems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

some: ha 33 undo cefipflmomohmem .m .2 ..H .2
E 0.3.3.

217

tango snowshaegmw ..

menace Headgear u momp m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$9
595% a «coupon
0.8. we we .5. we 22.: ... a ea...“
4.0 a -- --- F 0a
2.0 F .. --- P me
E m -- --- M Na
N.0 N .. --- N an
:.0 a -- --- a or
_.s m u- a N m
N.0 N -- 0 N 0
F.N e u- a m a
m.m P. I- m 0 e
0.a NN -- m as m
fiNP em -- a aN e
0.0N mm N m_ an m
0.0N mm ms aN ma N
a.mN as :N 0N m_ F
ma 2 m m N Essa . 5% need 0
a Near mmmw - moms sage semen one, moms
La Hence 830 .3 cm mango: no an

 

momma cospggmoacom Mo apnoea define:

mm 0.3.3.

218

$.30 0:3. .. Enema. 1 $3 “has nope—coon .. 5.26 a moms o.

.mofinomepmo chomp mo :owpfifimoo new plan. com a

6an BE «coupon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N02 N09 P.00FN0JNM6F m6, 0.0034 mam wmm name 50.04 0.04 ~3me «)2
N; N02 3 m 4.0 4.2 N.N a 4.0 4.9 m0 a 4.0 4.2 no _ swede: $3
0.0 0.00, m.m 0s 0 0 0 0 4.0 0.2 a0 . N.m 0.0m we a senseea “sheaves
0.2 0.00;.9 em 0; 92 n2 m E mém 328 m4 a.mm 0.0:: $22..)
m.m 0.00. m.m ma 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 m.m 0.00s 0.: m. 89
E F.8F E m 0 0 0 0 4.0 4.3 no a ~20 ~28 m... N ness 3)
m.m 0.00am.m ms tN 0.04 0.9 o E 0.0N 0.m m fiN 0.04 4.4 0 smegma
0.: has 0.: cm 0; t2 no, m N.m 0.mN ad a 06 0.4m m.NF: earners: 23M
mam 0.00.0.mm SFNé 4.: 0.8 mN m.mN 9mm 0.38 4.mN E4 m.Nm Na 838E enemas
38.. as $3 a as as new» Hmma 25 as a gang in u
was a .39 as e a reams a W a ems u a .05 censors
gamete a once a l 8% - ems: 1 . J.

womenmcmp nuance no 5330de mega .. :ogagooom 5:327:02

mm 0.3.69

219

unit affiliates (down) by bargaining unit type (across). (See Table 27)
All analyses of the MIME case file data were performed on the IBM card

sorter because the size and number of variables in the data did not war-

rant computer analysis.

Voluntfl vs, Contested Recogn_ition of Bargaining Units

he survey data, supported by the data from the Michigan Labor Medi-

 

ation Board files (Table 24), indicate that, in the two-year period from
July, 1965 to June, 1967, approximately three-quarters (73.8%) of all the
bargaining unit determinations in mchigan education were worked out and
achieved by voluntary agreement betwaen the parties involved. Further,
of the remaining one-quarter of the contested cases (26.2%), three out
of five (59.0%) were resolved through the MIME and the parties voluntarily
agreed to a consent election. herefore, about 90 per cent of the unit
determinations involved a considerable degree of voluntarism. In broad
perspective, the voluntary nature of these unit determination proceedings
must be considered the most outstanding characteristic of the Michigan
education experience, not only in the organizing stage of the collective
bargaining process but in the negotiations as well.

In fact, further soldies which are beyond the scope of this thesis,
will hypothesize that this emphasis on voluntarism is the key variable
influencing the overt conflicts (strikes) in Michigan education and that
attempts to eliminate the strike cannot succeed unless the vcluntaristic
nature of the decision-making process is drastically curtailed—a very
dangerous and potentially costly policy unless the benefits of volun-
tarisfic methods are critically analyzed and found deficient. Unfortunate-
ly, motions are too often weighed on the same scales as are facts.

. .moHnmp omen». 5.” 20385030 confine—no.3: on» me 9:350

ESSEN— ofi 3 can Enhanced m.“ mg .3 o:o mm mediums :H ocoflnoo magma” ”8.: o5 R365 23. Q... oomommo

no enema manage anon. on». oonegmgo on code peas 33:0 demo hegemgoaneHgo ma £0.23. «92. Ho

enema.“ :onfigooo: hump:ng o5 6.8.3.85. .3933 demo paoogdflcfi 25 E95 cargo one: home woman
open—soon once one ooaoowmcoo on one: nod omoHo on one smegma o3 omen» oofim upon» mw one: 533395" can. a

.mofih a one 2.350.383 hmshom «ransom

L

 

 

 

 

 

 

220

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.mm #0.. A \ Amado meals :oHpooHo p.523 .9.
F
0.09 mrN R h first mean confirmooom goofioséoz Nm
{Hm mm W Aesop naming :oapooao ¢:em:oo 2m
Now 43.. Amoco anatomy coasaoomm humpgflohwéoz Fm
92. mo: Amoco hernomv oo>eEo< :owpfigooom §:=Ho> .<
00.. gm Acorns hon/.33 395m Hence .F
i) m K
see“: 83a chaosuooz Hosea

 

 

 

 

 

bums—5m .. :onpo:§on 3:5 madamnem
4m 0.33.

 

   

..‘
II..1.O,94 slu’.olx{
,qt... Iri

   

221

(the Oommsition of Bargaining Units
Tables 25 md 26 give a clear indication that both the voluntarily

recognized units and those units that were contested were heavily con-
entrated (as expected) among the teacher, secretary/ clerical, and main-
tenance personnel. Eccept for the janitor/maintenance personnel (type 09
-Table 25), the percentages of other defined unit types achieving volun-
tary recognition do not significantly vary. Further, Table 26 clearly
indicates that over 60 per cent of the teachers, secretaries/ clerks, and
non-teaching employee groups (types 01, 02, and 03) all established their
contested units in 1965 and that the total per cent of contested unit cases
was very close between the teaching personnel and the non-teaching person-
nel (types 01 and 03 ). me most significant departure from these trends
was in type OL-Janitors and Maintenance Personnel except Supervisors
where the per cent of total contested cases increased from 2.9 per cent
in 1965 to 19.8 per cent in 1966 and 32.6 per cent in 1967, and the ma-
:Jority of contested units (51.3 per cent) were determined in 1966 rather
than in 1965 as in the 01, 02, and 03 types. Percentage changes for the
other units cannot be considered significant because of the small number
of cases represented in the data. However, this small number of cases
certainly reflects the Mediation Board's position of not allowing (in
contested cases) larger units to be fractured. There is some indication
that the voluntarily recognized units (Table 25) have been somewhat dif-
forently conceived and fractured than have the units that were established
Imdor 2mm contested procedures, although the data give ndxed evidence on
this point.

azm oHnea mom omHev

222

ill-II I

.uemmopocH mm: sz one son: co>m Amm oHnmav m GOHpHcmooou humpcsHob mHsp no muqmpmHmcoo map may

muHmGGOHpmoso hvbhpm

 

 

.mwl _ “z“

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m Hpebhouno UoHMHpH
3.5a ea ,.eoe me em.aa ea mmw me e.ooa me
«5 am The H To
0.: m.m m.mm 4N m.m mm cho
Hoqzomnom mHnepono
no as two on i: am flee Hoeeeeeem
occmcequezTnopchh
o3 Fm Nd: ma hm aw Ego e358 mom
Na NA 0. 5 t 0.: a Hoodooeom
I! HdfiOflmwmmoenmufioz H:
We a. : e2.» 3 9: we HHeo Hoeooeeem
HdoflhwfloNHmEPOMOQm
o o o o ~.o H Hoccomnom
anomH>homsm a Hod
-aomnom Hm:0Hmmemonm
m.o 0.9 o.ooF : m.o : Heqcomnom HmwwmoHu
\HcHnmpohoom use He:
.aomnom He:0Hmmomonm
m.> :.m m.:~ mm N.m Fm Annexemop «mGMHndn
-cHH emeoEoHeee
uhumv Hocsomnom
\HNGOHmmomonm HH<
QNN SN 95 a: ném mi .23 efigepfi
mhwnowmaleGCom
Ihmm UmHMHPHmU HQ
3: mg 2. 4.: 3 ads Hoeeoeeom
xk \HI mcHnowoa vonHpAmo
a J
m .w -fiemsom is. I: odes ens
hebnsm :H monks m uanHo> wchHdo .quchwnmm man
H2782 a fleece eefidoommlem eoHeHemoeom has 25 35 9: Hopes eeeeo u wfifiemeem He 25. 3:: 93:33
He» seem «stem 5 -eeeesHos H2 do -ooHos mfifioo -5...QO 35 ca do Hopes cameo
e25 HH< do 25. flea Jose fies mfi can. flee mfi
mfifiemeem e2» .m .338 one on -fiemeem one .u x J
IOI I I I I

 

co>oHno< mGOHpH 00cm

 

mm candy

 

.EHCO mflafi I gnaw I N;

omF thco nonsmoenuthw u
moHHm mzaz

 

.223 ‘

pom

ncomnod

«Hoccomnmm mHampemoo
numb .

upodsm pamuko Hoccomnom

lawman pmooxo Heccomhom

flee $3 Hoodoo fine 89 fig $2 25 fig: mfifiomeem

  
 

pomp\o a mom—xx u pch mcHsHumndm yo mama op mcHunooo¢ condo uoHecmm mgn: no nunsnz
0N manna

221i

9_rganizational Affiliates
The organizational affiliates with the most outstanding success

in achieving recognition (both voluntary and contested) have been the
MEA and local (independent) organizations. Together, these two groups
account for over 80 per cent of the total bargaining units in the state
(MEA - 63.84 per cent; local - 16.29 per cent). (See Table 27) Further,
these two groups have achieved exclusive representation for the majority
of seven of the eleven bargaining unit types identified. mese types
are: OluCertified teaching personnel only, 02mm. certified personnel
(teachers, librarians, etc. ), 03--All professional personnel (psychol-
ogists, nurses, teachers, and librarians), Ohm-Professional personnel and
Secretary/ clerical personnel, 06—Secretary/ clerical personnel only, 08--
Bus drivers only, and lO-u-Cafeteria personnel only. The MEA and the in-
dependent organizations also have had substantial success in representing
units of: mag; non-Professional Personnel, 09....Janitor/ maintenance
personnel only, and lanther (usually bus drivers or janitors or combina-
tion 06-10).

The remaining 20 per cent of the units are widely scattered among
the state, county, and mmidpal employees L-AFSGMEj (the next highest
with a per cent of 7.11! of all units), the MFI', the operating engineers
[mos] unidentified affiliates of the AFL-CIO, the mas, and others
(none of the proceeding category). We must recognize, however, that for
the MT the 2.146 per cent of total units and low per cent even among
teacher units is not a true reflection of the EH" 3 power, because the
MFT is the exclusive representative of the Detroit teacher unit—the
largest and mat visible in the state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o o o dorm mod 0 o. 3 . dorm BE: 1
HH.“w M .9
S o o o o P P o o a d _. o
o 3.5 .33
5 339an .mll
E
1%.1o1 maids“? --Hflm11mmum11 www.11wwum------,..m1--.-Mwue._ ._ do... -- - -- molar: 1 autumn--.
was: HHm me to
ww.m 8% a; 8.m1 486m draw 0 Sam. 3.. «one 5.3 ~oflm
zoom 5.5H3
. REED H .Ho M .o
mmé mwé mo; mmé fie: RA 0 mo; 40.3 SW4 «9% ocean:
a HHd .Ho 6.
I
owe a a m a a 2 e m Jellldla "11de in:
o . fleas .38
GH nHoEmHQ .ml.
a
No To .513 Hmno NHao Hon Ho: Ho: flops NH1no 1
.830 Henson Hon mucloo unomnom tho Hon usomnom £8QO .93 enHH Henson
no 93H. .Hom wH usomnom e5 H.233 3:8qu how HonnoHo unseen. anyone them wnH
Icon. .8 when cess though HeoHaoHorEompm Ihpoom om 28H :83 Ho: unseen. ,
depoe $3.?th -8958: £82 HHd. \mpoom use Ho: 98 Ho: .23an nqonhom ...?Hoo conga:
e m3 5H >8»ng ucomnom ncomumm momnsz noHqu 53¢qume
...—”263 Hedon Hmcon «hues ....Hoo H
.883 $395 umomohm House
umnom Hm
ucoHnmom
e _ e m e _ M area 1
5 P o o o q o o 5 1
some 05:. u 09 E. u m ..z msoHnsHocH no .8 o HHS.» 55% Hmm
I mflOHflwNflfiduL—HO 0M0WHW.-OMMMHMMMW:O¢S. gm . -....GD 0. £09 ”GHUDOGH

. . 85304. GOvau.

hm 0.5.3.

“OQOeH 2...

. p.25 H..HHaHgmflHsm Mo 9‘

eHcp .meem
:H mPOprmHQ% .m
mopH

    

 

 

 

mm.w—

mp.~

m—.m

 

o:.m

mm.o

om.m

mm.o

1

o w meeeem ea
, mHHCD HHm moxfl .U

 

 

ec.om

O0.0>

me.©m

mo.—m

fl
,
l
W

mm.mm , o o . o

me.o

   

Amman
some :ansz
mHHcD HHm mo w .o

 

me

:_.N

 

w~.m_
JP

Nw.o

oo.m

,ael» ,4 ii, 7,7,,

wo.mr

HF

0:.m %

QF.©N

a

mw.o

oo.m

m:.m
a

NF.H

mm.©m

ww.mm
em

mm.~

e _

           

weeds
_ Heeeq HHe co m .p
o w odes
. pHo: .meem
:H wpoanmHn% .m

,, Aeeoeeefieefi H83

 

o M finesse oH

. oped: HHe do m .e
0 Homes

M some chesz
when: HHe.mm m .e

 

mr.m

wm.:m

m—.m

me.m_ M

   

mpch

  

HHw Mo .n

 
 

 

 

 

m
_ eHes .meem
CH m OHM mH ..m
_ . e . e .om
i vbmhafi
IIIlurnunuuuluu|uuualilnnl

   

 

mm.o

mw.o

  

mm.o Heston eH

i epHo: HHe no a .e

 

om.m

Pm.w mm.w

 

_
_
_
A
_
_
_

 

 

Hence

 

I'll

 

 

 

mo

 

No

 

 

1Imo .

 

 

no
Aene—

:o .11 mo 4
ooze - Hemp HHeH - szzumw.

 

    
  

mP.H flock»

some eHeeHsv

who

Aao>onw mo one: nonpo

cHep emeem

 

  

 

 

mm.o o

 

hMbnom :H U
mpHcD HHm mo1R .6

 

 

 

,ih.’ ,_ 4

wm.m o

Aodhp
some :ansz

whens HHo co m .o

 

 

 

”,e‘i_ullfiL new,

oo.ooH1 o o

 

eeHep
Mme: HHe no a .c

 

 

 

ease
eHea .mnem
:H mHOHAHwHQ% .m
mean

 

 

 

mo.m

4m._ 4

L

0

Museum :H
mpHcD HHm M0 R .n

 

 

00.0m 1

o

 

Ammhp
some :anHsv

eeHee HHe to m .e

 

oo.om

eeHes

 

NP

0Ho-gma HHe no a .p
omHH
eHde .weem
:H eeeHeeeHnm .e
ooeHHHaea
eosteoeeeem oHoLHmH

 

 

 

mtfinH
meHep HHe do u .e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| Hmpoy

OF

 

mo

 

No _

:o m

i

 

 

 

as
HeoeeHe

coo NM

 

w flees

_ o no
Ce? 8a. - men: 32. -

mo
as;

 

mo

Ho
mconoHqu no

Sam

Numhp
some eHeeHsv
epHes HHe com .e
e go
He has

   

\\
.1

OO
2

9. .cwMHAOHz mo cemem one cH eoHAech Hoonom emoMAMH one . mHoonom OHHnsm eHoneoa one :H mnenomoe one new enema mchHmmnmn

omeoHoxe one mH 9&2 one edge vonmneusmn on eons eH ease ooch emuHemonHs emnzosom on hug am: one new moA:MHm omens ;

R one eno>oaom

one :H noeoonon one: m:0Hem>nonpo For omega

.RF eaone :HneHB hunk eon on nonstH

.csou no a: moHnwb sz oHnemp one no moHpee mchoooosn :H eegsmsom hem» HHHR massage eloemHu omega 2

.mHthwcw oHpee hvaomcHecoo
.odae eeeo mdeoHemeep am no oeeHHHeee cede meHoHemeep A, eeeeeo aweeeooe

oe ousHHdm meceenoewou ..o.H «meme one cH mnonmHEo scam wnHeHsnon msoHeebuomno equmouqs Foe can: chose ecoHeHuem cH :

 

eoeoz em oHeee

.measHoo mo :OHesHomon oeoHeEoo mo xoeH new oHnHmcoenoh mH mohstm mo wchcsom :

 

00.009 05

.0

mp.m

pm.oe

mm.o

0:.0H

mm.om

1me.me

odes pee: hem m Heeo

 

on

we.m
cm

_e

o:

o
O

J

u:

pm—

2m

eeae sees
.HGWOHeHmH .mo,

 

 

mm.o

>©.o

o

o

mm.o

o

NN.O

0

seem he
when: HHe no a .e .

 

oo.m

4H.m

o

oo.mm

o

me.o

0

“came
some 2335

weeds HHe eo m .e

 

No.0H

oo.om

No.09

eo.oe

meflcb
ammzwzv= HHw

 

H

H

F

me e wmj

1mmae
pee: .meem

QH meoHAemHQm .m

eeeeeeeoeH poo

oeeHHHaee e see“

  

 

om.m mm

.0

No.0

mu.—

om.e

om.e

wansm :H
opens HHe co m .e 1

 

mm

.m

oo.m~

mo.me

oo.mm

om.m—

Heeee

some eHeesz

mech HHm mo M .o

 

 

3m.ew

N~.Om

mm.om

 

FF

 

Ow

 

m0

 

flatmg

mm.om

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

O
mwme case :

 

nuHmwnnl

 

mom. eHsH . $32-2 eeoH

 

 

 

      

meHe=

 

apogee: HHm me u .n
.eeeo tees”

 

229

Chiming now to Table 28, we can see that the MEA and the local
organizations are considerably ahead of all of the other organization
affiliates in their ability to achieve voluntary recognition. Of 5-1.4.
voluntarily recognized units, 87.? per cent are either MBA or local,
and each achieved over 80 per cent of its units by the voluntary process.
Interestingly enough, the AFSCME and the Unidentified AFLCIO Affiliates
have also enjoyed considerable success in achieving voluntary recognition
(55.9 and 66.7 per cent, respectively). However, these organizations
represented only 7.7 per cent of the total of all voluntarily recognized
units. The organization having the lowest per cent of all voluntarily
recognized units, (0.6) as well as the lowest per cent of units gained
by voluntary recognition (18.2) was the MFI‘.

The implications here appear obvious. The MEA and the local or-
ganizations were considered ”safe" by many school boards and voluntary
recognition was quickly and easily granted. It wasn't until later that
these ”paper tigers" showed that they really had "claws". Alternatively,
the HF]? was considered a serious challenge to the boards of education and
subsequently voluntary recognition was denied.

However, a somewhat different picture appears in the data of the
contested representation cases (Table 29 )0 Although the MEA continued
ahead of the m, the difference is now considerably narrowed; i.e.,

MEA "wins"--55.3 per cent; MFI‘ "wins”--45. 3 per cent. Further, the suc-
cess of the local independent organizations in contested cases is the
lowest of any of the employee organizations, 38.9 per cent. A higher
degree of success is also evidenced for both the teamsters (IBT) and the
AFSCME. It also appears that the 1231‘, the mine workers (UMW) and the

230

.nm oHnee one mm loee .oeoz com

can—838:0 gm

 

u moon":

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mam sz Hoe

mm mquegnob none—”Mon.
m.oe ea 0.00, ma en.oe he mam ma m.md «9 em: as

e; a... m.mm m m; w AoeeHHHmHe.

1:1 eoHcHeeoeHeey omoeno

o.m o.m o.hm d e.m om HoeeHHHeee
uoHMHeno oHGB amneo u
o o o 0 m5 F as _

m; m.m e60 w 02w NF AoesHHHmed.
noHMHecoUHnS oHouHBH _
o o o «:0 P HODH _

e.m_ m.om he N.oa he cheese ooeH
no 03 A
:.m mamm ea e.a an mzume<_
m6 m.w_. mi. Tm .... E”

m :6 m. mm Mam Acmw mlmm Hm:

ASH; coz ow ms k

, HmHnmecng eEon. N Lhoards“ cH m coHe :oHe E. mean oemHHHmHe.

, “hogan :H meHaz mqus noNHcmOcou uHsmoooa ensHo> uHawoooa SecHerp I... oHdEwm QH nonnooom GOHemNchm.

needs eeeHHHeeH

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHe co cone sHHeeeceHoe HHH no mcheem .oeeHHHeee meHeHem .oeeHHHeee oeeHHHeeH eHee
, -Hecce here .u oeeHHHcee nee» em hens .neenp me n mere .neHee no a Hence oneno m
-e- .m- -n- . -m- -N- -7

HHe co Heeoe u=m&c

 

embodied enoHeHnmooom §§Ho> .Ho ecoohom new .8852 n oemHHHmHe. :oHesNHfiwmhd

mm oHnwn.

 

1|
3
2

obHeHmoQ one

 

 

.mdm ween mHne mo heHnowefi one pom ecpooom nomeEmHn no anemoneHz ammo

.ann knob on oe nonHanm mH esp c30nxcs mH QOHemosv :OHemescmonmea one we GOHeSHomoH

.mmooopd 2H HHHem once 0

.GOHewanmwao HmbHa a mo coaches one :H enomm wchwaan

th90 oczwjhaoscmh u meme

o>Hw5Hoxo cm mo GOHeeCMHmon one mcHemoeaoo mH :OHemospm mo venom one when: momma omone oe uneven GOHemcMHmop mng n

.szo nongoooQJmHsm n meme m

moHHeH msz «coupon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eoeeed
Hmeoe
nonwoammm
8.22.5 mm m a 0m 0m ".33ng e02 $er
Umbumommm
33-0? am 2. on
unecomonmom .
0.0% N 0.00. n 0.02 a 0.3 a “R P 0. a 0 0 0 .380
mummi 0 00.00, . . .Mko m The D 0 0 T? 0 0 0 M83
0.00, 0.08 m 0 0 0 0 .02 m fimm a Tmm e E
dém $00.02 ea 0 0 NE N 58 m HG m hum: 1m H
NB; 0 0.00s 9 0 0 0 0 . m :0 a an? m Bea
fimm e 0.00s 9 0 0 0 0 .8 m1 0.0N [M 0.0m Lme mwlfi
hm w F.00a a: 0.00 e 09 a 0.0m m 9% m dam 1 .208.
mime mm 0.00, mmmém a m we 12 New ma mam m8 m5: Mm Bowed
.m m 0.00. . m tma m .00 o .2 a 0.8 E
LBW. 0.00s .3 .mm M 06. Mrmfim 3 .mm m 0.8 a. E
to we 0.00. m? e. N a. a m .9 0 him m1 N mien mp penance Heohem
RCHS *. u Hweo % RnH % m Hweoafi mam: % & Hweoa :Hzr. % u He 0 % coHewuchmao
. h . . .
Eon. ch20 new? i 8? %§

 

 

.esowd. mchmehmm omesHounm one on oe noamHoon we:

soHeequwmao :oan :H momma mo essence new nonspz.n:o

enosebHoan cOHeequemeo I momma GOHewenomondom.noemoenoo

mm

oprB

232

IUOE were much more selective in their contested cases (especially
after 1965) than was the AFSGME. Finally, it is obvious that the
school boards wasted a. considerable want of time, energy, and
probably money in contesting 198 cases of which they ”Iron" only 12

or 6.1 per cent. There could be no clearer evidence that the school
employees were ready and willing to organize for collective bargaining

WSOSe

(INCLUSIONS

here is no doubt that the efforts to organize for the purpose of
collective bargaining in Michigan education has been highly successful
from the general point of view of the employee organizations, although,
obviously, some employee groups are more satisfied than others. this
success was achieved by a combination of design, strategy and accident
with the final results not totally as expected by any of the organizations
involved.

1b achieve the legal protection required for effective organization,
a combination of political, organizational, resource and leadership fac-
tors were required. In this process the Michigan Labor Movement exercised
a decisive role, both as an institutional force and in supplying the lead-
ership to the Public Esploynsnt legislative Committee. Further, sympa-
thetic labor relations experts, principally the Mediation Board members
and key staff officers were indispensible. However, both of these forces
had actively supported legislative change in the past and had been unsuc-
cessful. It was not until the political composition of the legislature
was changed to give a Democratic majority that success was possible.
Hanover, with the change in legislative control one a change in leader-
ship as well. It is doubtful that Democratic control itself would have
boa: sufficient to effectuate the PEIB purposes if Senator Levin had not
exercised strong leadership within both the Senate and House.

233

234

Basically, this phase of the organizing process (achieving the
protective legislation) was a labor novucnt effort. me Education
Association was active but ineffective. Its contribution was as a
vocal critic (a challmge in kind, not in principle) but not as a
rallying point for others who opposed the PELC amendments.

However, after the legslation was passed, an mtircly diffeer
pattern merged. be earlier MEL challnge to the particulars of the
legislation quickly dissolved, and that organization quickly foamed
its Idacrs attaition upon the desirable features of the new laws. his
was possible only because it had not directly opposed the PELC usndncnts,
but had merely suggested that its proposals were better. If the sand—-
nuts supported by the MEA had been «tasted, the organisation mld
probably not have lost the m-bership of the superintendents and would
have been in a stronger position in the Ibtroit suburbs. However, it
was prepared to begin intensive organizing and bargairdng efforts re—
gardless of which proposals were ultimately supported, as evidenced by
its early efforts in preparing its local groups for organizing and bar-
gaining activities. his preparation was based upon the assumption that
new legislation would be forthcoming that in one way or another would
require trained local leadership to quickly organise for bargaining
purposes. The MEL would certainly have preferred the piocedures of its
own legislativo proposals but was still able to effectively respond to
its advantage what it became clear that these objectives were not to be
realised. lbs review of the evolving and chandng policy and position
state-fits, as well as m activities abundantly support this point.

he organization structure of the Elm an important part of the
ma ability to adapt to changing dmstanoes. Bccsuu its Board of

I} —

 

235

Directors could promote policy change in the interim period betwun
representative assemblies, the reaction by the Board was quick and
decisive. Further, the concept of representative danccracy rather
than that tied artirely to general nenbership matings provided the
Board of Directors and the hecutive Secretary with broad authorita-
tive power to act. By the tine the representative assembly net after
the intendfied organising practices of the MEA had been implanted,
it was too late to reverse revised practices even if the delegates had
desired to do so. Since the Board's policy changes were implemented
by headquarter' s staff personnel, the local organisations had been
fully indoctrinated with the necessity and desirability of the policy
changes and strong resistance by delegates at the representative assembly
never developed.

Cbnversely, the MIT did not have the lunry of flexibility. fled
to the AFL-CIO organisationally, politically and philosophically, its
appeals to the teachers were not subject to modification as were the
KEA's. Microby the MEA could initiate a Idlitant response when required
or alternatively assune a "reasoned" professional posture if the cir-
cumstances warranted, the MFI" s organising appeal was rigid. Its legis-
lative and philosophical support was within organized labor, am! it had
specifically rejected professionalism in order to gain this support.

Although the m was successful in Detroit, it met be renumbered
that this success was achieved before the legislative mendnats were
inplenented and before the war had displayed its later nilitancy. in
obvious consideration that the m faced at the ties of the first Detroit
electienwaswhetherto oppose the mm the aggressive andnilitent
Isnnerthatlaterbecane anacoeptahleandastandardelternativebutby

236

doing so to face the potntiel loss of other upstate districts by
W revealing this possible policy shift. it this Junotnre,
without fin: evidence that its on legislative proposals would not be
enacted, the risk was too great. Further, the historical evolution
of the DEA and DFT organisations and leadership indicates that Detroit
wuld have been a rather poor risk for the MEA at the tine.

the contrast with the Grand Rapids organisation is startlingly
clear. ‘Ihe GREA was well-organised and financially secure. Historically,
it had represented the najority of teachers in Grand Rapids ova though
the evidmce of employer dcdnation was substantiated. Further, and
met importantly, when the issue of enployer donination was raised, the
local organization was not left to its own defense but received the sup-
port-albeit the gn‘troli of its defuse-whom the state organisation.
This defense coincided with and supported the changed stance and policy
of the MEA to, above all, effectively represent and bargain for the class-
roonteacher throughout the stateu

W his message and evidence of support was not lost
by other local teacher groups, nor was the state organisation's assistance

 

denied elsewhere. Alternatively, the HF]? allowed the GRIT to depart from
statewide federation objectives and offered little or no support to the
local. likewise, this response was not forgotten elsewhere.

Further, the EA successfully capitalized on its national profes-
sional image to convince many boards and administrators throughout the
state that it was a ”safe” organization. the preponderance of first
year voluntary recognitions that were achieved testifies that the strategy
was effective. It was not until later, whm the nature of the position
change of the HEAbecane evith through strike actions andhardbargaining,

237

that the employer representatives recognised the impact of their early,
uncontested recomitions. It was then obviously too late.

In summary, the MEAwas willing, prepared and organised to engage
in a statewide organising campaign according to a strategy and plan ad.-
ninistered and controlled by the state headquarters staff. he MIT's
plan was vague, it lacked effective control and influence over its locals,
and was inflexible in its approach. By unqualified support and earlier
training and indoctrination efforts, the MEA was able to convince the vast
majority of teachers in the state that it could best service their inter-
ests.

The MEA offensive was almost impossible for the NET to counter.
the MEA had the resources, the trained personnel, the image, the support
of the administrators as well as local organisations in virbrally every
school district in the state. Ewever, as inappropriate as the We re-
sponse was, it did provide the MEA activists a tangible opponent (a rival
in fact or imagination) which could be portrayed, where necessary, as the
visible justification for dlitancy and change in policy and approach.

here is no reason to believe that the orientation of the local
teacher leadership played a significant role in detemining which or-
ganisation was to represent the Michigan teachers. Insofar as the teacher
organisation activist profile represents a reasonable cross section of
teacher leaders throughout the state, there appears to be no significant
variation between m and MEA local leaders. Most activists probably
would have supported and led either group, and it was only by the accident
of their district of enploynnt that caused them to lead either organiza-
tion. Of mch greater significance is the Mt; of their profiles
which indicates that the iwportant variables are not the orientations and

238

backgrounds of the local leadership, (or necessarily how dedicated or
hard-working they may be) but rather it is the organization, strategy,
inage and resources of the state level organization and its ability to
mobilise these resource leaders that is important. An obvious departure
from this analysis is Detroit, whose leadership, image and resources are
substantially stronger than the total state organisation. The DH did
not and does not need the NHL-other locals in the state did.

lhe lack of flexibility and inept and non-political response is
the central characteristic of the employer organisations and certainly a
najor cause of their early failures. lme Municipal league remains today
prinarily with a reactionary posture, while the School Board Association
has belatedly assumed a definitive ”hard bargaining" stance, which at
least represmts an organisational response to the demands of the new
uvironnart (even if some of us object to the context of this fern of
activisn ). The school administrations renain passive and ineffectual.

Itis clear, inallthreepartscfthestudy, thatthepubliocp
ployers in Michigan by their failures to respond politically, adminis-
tratively or philosophically to changing enployncrt relationships, have
learned little fron earlier similar experiences by their counterparts in
private industry thirty years ago. It is unfortunate that the positive
features of shared enployer-enployee decision-making will apparently have
to be learned once again in the public sector, evm though ample positive
experience is svailable elsewhere.

Finally, the Michigan experience tends to discount much of the
hypothesizing that white-collar professionals do not need ”unions”, will
not organise, and will not support silitancy. Further, it re-enphasises
the earlier evidence in the private sector that supervisors will support

239

organizational units formulated to bargain on their behalf if the required
protective legislation is effectuated. The.Detroit and Hillsdale prin-
cipal and supervisory units appear certain to be only a beginning.

In summary, this extremely effective organizational campaign in
Michigan education was conducted in an environment which was created
through the efficient political and organizational work of AFL-CIO affil-
lated organizations and individuals but whose major benefactor beCame the
Michigan Education AsSoclation. The MEA's dramatic, flexible and ef-
fective response to changing circumstances should serve as a warning to
the hierarchy of the American Labor Movement and a model for their own
future organizational reSponses in the white-collar professional field.
However, it may be much too late.

Obviously, the methodological approach utilized throughout this study
i.e. in large part historical-institutional, is neither the full nor the
final answer to the identification of the reasons why Michigan teachers (and
others in education) chose to organize in the manner described. Moreover,
further analysis of the dynamics of the organizing efforts is left to
sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists to initiate the neces-
sary studies to explore additional questions, and to subsequently challenge,
modify or reject the stated and inferred conclusions. Certainly, the con-
cept of professionalization as detailed by Vollmer, Mills and other soci-
ologists may add an additional dimension to the study and deserves a fuller
exploration as a possible intervening variable contributing the success (if
not the tactics) of the MEA.

Also, although the fg£m_of the employee-management confrontation in
Michigan education appears to closely resemble that which has devel0ped in

the private sector of the economy, a detailed comparative analysis of the

240

constraints, values, and idealogies effecting and entering into the two
systems would help further identify whether this emerged Similar form
was accidental or is perhaps common to many different employment rel-
ationships and systems.

Finally, it is incumbent upon researchers in other regions and states
to initiate comparative studies of teacher organizing developments carried
on under entirely different logislation, leadership, and institutional pat-
terns to determine if common characteristics and key determining variables

can be identified.

JAOA

ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS OF KEY ORGANIZATIONS IN STUDY
(SIMPLIFIED)

 

[GOVERNOR OF MICHiOANfi]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[State Board of Education 1 [State Dept. of LaboF1
- T - c
I
L
[State Dept. of Education} [‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mediation Poard

‘ Mich. Labor .
MLMB or LMR

 

 

 

[MICHIGAN S’fATE LEGISLATURE]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IT I‘]
l I I t
[SEnateLabor [House COmmittee I House Committee]
Committee on Labor on Education
NATTONAL SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION
NSBA
I
I
__ ._ I
|II I
III 1
[Michigan School Board Association
MSBA
I j
I
_ l
'—T I I If ' I I

I I l | I 1E ,
Grand Detroit Board
Rapids of Education 1
Board DBE

of
Education

 

 

GRBE

 

QAOB

owm>z_N>a_oz>r xmr>4.ozm:_vm om Xm< owo>z_N>A_ozm _z mdco<
Am_3vr_m.mov

 

 

 

 

zanymmm: macnmnmo: >mmonmmnmo: - _ . _ _ _
zm>

 

‘

umomwa 0* cmwmnnowm
urommm_mnm<m noaamnnmo

Hflonm_ macnmnmo: >mmon._ fiwoqamw oovnu >mmm_mmnmm _

_ I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H .4d—I-
m.m=A omnqomfl . . _ . _ - . , , III
nm> om> zmnj. >mmon. . . ,zmorw >wmoo. :mnz. >mmon.
0* moroo_ om monoaamw< cm m_mao:nmw<
>aamammdwmnowm mnzoo. 11.:nmomam moroo. wwmzomom.m

z>m> z>mmw z>mmv II

 

QAOC

onn>z.~>4_oz>r zmr>4_ozm:—1m on xm< ozn>z_N>4_ozm _z m4¢c<

 

mcwr_n mzvro<zm24 rmm_mr>a_<m no:z_44mm

Amnxvrnmqmov

  

vmrn-

 

_

z _ _

___

wflam. .IOnmJ m

 

 

>am_u
Awmsmmn
came:

 

 

 

mamnm. n0c3n<

m zczmnmom_
mao_o<mmm
A>mmnzmv

 

 

wROnrmqwCOQ

om m.mnn1mnm_
{wamqm
A_wmzv

 

 

E

  

 

_

m_wmmfim:HO1m zmnr. vo_mnm m
>mmonmmawo: >mrnn_o mrmwflfimm

>mmon.

 

 

 

 

  

m.am. qwmaow
nocsnm.

   
 

  

downrowm
Aznav

 

mm1<.nm wmmwmcwman
mao_o<mmm imav_o<oOm

 

 

 

   

om-o_~ moo.
0m Homnjmwm

ammamfimwm

 

APPENDIXE

Zhl
APPENDIX A

TEN YEAR LIST OF BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE1

 

Year Changes in Create a Public Enployees

 

 

Bonine-Tripp Lab. Rels Rt to Coverage of Repeal Compul'y Teachers
(DIAL Board org'ize chg lMA Hutch'son Arbit'n
1965 H295h(S619) H2923 H2817 H2817 S119 H2869 H2h50
(3657) H2953 H2953 H2953,in (3559) H2953
(3621) (3621) part H2871 (S621)
H2329
H2856
8558
196h S1111 s1h96 H857 H375 H389 Hh05 H37h
(H37h) H312 HhSI H311 (S1111)
Passed (S1130) H270 (S1181) H375
Senate H375 H861
$1039
1963 S1178 Hth Hhh9 H226
H585 (S110h) (S1103) H391
H689
(31139)
1962 H709 H27h H27h H113
(S1169) S1169 (S1307)
(s1h29) SIhZS
1961 ss131h thS Hh17 H372
Hh39
SB1299
1960 Hh7h H33 331065 SB10h2
H515
1959 H60h 331027 H390
H55h (H395)
1958 H1132 H1168 331019
1957 H198 H197 $81153 HBhO?
H590
passed House
1956 Hh90 H186*
(S1067) H206
1955 H138 s13u1
H121

 

1. Sources: Michigan, Senate Journal, 1955 to 1965; Michigan, House Journal,

Legend :

1955 to 1965.

H=House Bill; S=Senate Bill; fi-enacted; ()=same bill as above.

242

APPENDIX B

POLITICAL OOMPOSITION
OF THE 1
MICHIGAN STATE LEGISLATURE 1962 TO 19611

House Senate

1962

Republican 38 23

Democrat 119 1 1

Total ‘3'?- 3'5
1962-196k Change

1961;

Republican 3? -1 15 -8

Democrat 12 +2I4 23 +12
New constitution Total 11 3'8

Two-thirds vote needed to override a governor's veto: 71; votes

required in the House and 25 in the Senate.

 

1. Source: Michigan, Michi an Manual, 1962-1963; 1961:4965.

243

APPENDIX C

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE:
ATTENDANCE 8c FINANCES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organization No. on Money No. on Participation at PELC
Member- Donated Exec. Meetings
ship Comm' te 7/ 2L; 12/15 1 / 28 2/13*
list
5% 55 Z i 3 H F i 3 i # fl # f
AFL—CIO (State Level, II
(Marshall, Young,
Dingwell &
Kendziorski, etc.) I; I; 250 5 8 1 8 <1 5 8 2 3 2
MFTsDF‘I'3Repas I; I1 I400 8 8 1 8 2 3 2 3 -
Fire Fighters 17 1II 238 5 12 1 8 9 15 11 18 2
Police 7 7 600 12 12 1 8 I; 6 3 5 -
Bldg. Serv. Enployee
Int'l Union 12 12 385 8 - 2 17 7 11 8 13 -
Amalgtd Transit Un. 3 3 500 IOI - - - 2 3 3 5 -
Michigan Bldg. Trades
Council 1 1 --- - - - - — - 1 2 1
IBEW 1 1 I42 1 - - - - - 1 2
Hotel 8: Rest. - q --- -| - - - - - - - 2
Affiliation unknown:
Bill Sharon 1
Slingerland 1
TOTALS 98 $5,092.60 26 12 61 61
1. The figures are incomplete as are the original records. However,

they do tend to indicate the over-representation of the Fire

Fighters on the PELC.

it 0

2141+

APPENDIX D

MICHIGAN AFL-CIO CONVENTION RESOLUTION, 1961;1

C(NMITTEE MEMBEI BENTLEY: Mr. Chairman and Brother and Sister Dele-
gates, this is RESOLUTION NO. 11, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR PUBLIC

EMPLOYEES.

”WHEREAS: Local, state and federal governments as employers in
a free democratic society should be an exemplar of the best in employer-
employee relationships, and

"WHEREAS: The Government as an employer should be most zealous
to insuring to public employees all the rights guaranteed to citizens
by constitution or law, instead of keeping them in second- or third-
class citizenship status, and

"WHEREAS: Public employees have long been denied rights of col-
lective bargaining and full citizenship assured to employees in private
(or non-governmental employment), and

"WHEREAS: The federal government under Ebcecutive Order 10988
at long last has given federal employees the right to bargain col-
lectively, and

"WHEREAS: Local and state government should also permit their
public employees to bargain collectively, and

"MIEREAS: Representatives of public employee unions in Michigan
have recently organized the Public Rrployees Legislative Committee to
coordinate legislative action of all bona fide public employee unions
to secure full rights of collective bargaining and first-class
citizenship for all public employees in Michigan, now

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Phlchigan AFL-CIO give all-
out support to the Public Ekrployees Legislative Committee in its con-
certed drive to secure immediate legislation which will assure to all
public employees in Michigan their full rights as employees and citizens,
and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Michigan AFL-CIO call upon
all its affiliates to initiate and implement an educational program
among their members to apprise them of the needs and ways of helping
their sister unions in public employment to achieve these basic rights
for their members, and

"BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: That the Michigan AFL—CIO use its in-
fluence to secure the inclusion of such legislation in the platforms
of both the Democratic and Republican Parties of Michigan."

"Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee I move the adoption of
this resolution. (Motion supported)

 

1. Source: Michigan H'L-CIO, Proceedings of the Fourth Michigan
State AFL-CIO Convention Grand R ids Se tember T toBe Iiember

     
 

L955.

H.121

H.138

3.13111

Ho 90

H.186

H.206

H.197

H.198

2&5

APPENDIX E

SYNOPSIS 0F MMYEE RELATIONS BILLS INTRODUCED

1955 - 1965

Labor mediation; public employees, Labor Mediation Board
empowered to enter dispute on own motion, after 30 days
board may certify dispute to Governor, who shall designate
commission which shall conduct hearings...ste Journal,

1955’ 2, p. 2051.

Labor Relations Board; create and impose powers and duties,
unfair labor practices, procedures. H. J., 2, p. 2051.

Labor mediation; public employees; mediation to continue
after facts of case have been made public...S. J., 2,

p. 1856.

Labor Relations Board; create and impose powers and duties,
unfair labor practices, procedures. House Journal, 1956,
2, p. 1615, same as 8.1067 S. J. 2, p. 1371.

Labor mediation; labor disputes involving public employees
provide procedure for appointment of delegates who shall
attempt to recommend a settlement; in case of failure,
delegates to designate impartial mediator, who acting as
chairman of mediator panel shall recommend a settlement.
(Passed. H. J., 2, p. 1663.

Public employees; empower the Labor Mediation Board to enter
dispute on own motion after 30 days from time of interven-
tion of board, governor to cause dispute to be submitted to
special commission, powers of commission, findings filed
with governor to be made public. Amends Section 7, Act

336, P.A. 19117. H. J., 2, p. 1665.

State Labor Relations Board; provide for action of, powers
and duties, unfair labor practices, employees, election
procedure, court procedure and penalties. House Journal,
1957, 2, p. 2213. 3.1183 same.

Labor Mediation Board; employer to include the state and
political sub-divisions...remove necessity of mediating before
calling a strike election, repeal sections requiring notice of
strike, secret ballot, detennining bargaining unit, unlawful-
ness of mass picketing, strike election vote... H. J., 2, p. 2213.

H.h05

H.590

sa153

2H6

(Appendix.E Cont.)

Public employees, grievance procedures, empower board to enter
diSputes upon own motion, governor to submit dispute to
special commission if not resolved in 30 days, powers and
duties of special commission, findings of commission filed
with governor who shall make findings public. H. J., 2,

p. 2251. Same as 8.1163.

Labor mediation board; public employees, findings of fact made
public, mediation to resume until settlement reached. Passed
House, died in Senate. H. J., 2, 2286.

Public employees; permit employees covered by Hutchinson Act
to fbrm, join or assist labor organization and.union activi-
ties not prohibited from.act, Senate Journal, 1957, 2, p. 1680.

3.118u73ame as H.19h2.

1958
H.832

Hh68

5.1019

1952
H.395

H.390

H.55h
H.6Oh

1960
H-33

IMediation Service, create; Michigan Mediation service, describe
powers, duties, functions and responsibilities of the service.
Repeals Act 176, P.A. 1939.

Labor Relations board, create; provide for the establishment

of board, enumerate unfair labor practices on part of employers,
powers and duties of the board, establish election procedures,
evidence, testimony, rushing and appeals.

Public employees, permit employees covered by Hutchinson Act
to fbrm, join or assist in labor organization and union act-
ivities not prohibited by act. S. J., 1958, 2, p. 1309.

Public employees; permit employees covered by the Hutchinson
Act to form, join or assist in labor organization and.union

activities not prohibited by law. 8.1027 same, S. J., 1959,
2, p. 2162.

Labor mediation; public employees, provide that board shall
make its findings public, that the appointed arbitrators
findings shall be final and finding on the parties.

Labor Relations; regulate certain activities; fix.penalties.

Labor Relations; create board and define powers and duties.

Labor Relations; create board and define powers and duties.

H.391

H.h7h

H.515

247

(Appendix E Cont.)

Public employees; permit employees covered by Hutchinson Act
to form, join or assist labor organizations and.union activi-
ties not prohibited by law. Same as 8.1065, S. J., 1, p. 972.

Labor mediation; create Michigan mediation service, describe
powers, duties, functions and responsibilities of the service.
Repeals Act 176, P.A. 1939.

Public employees; mediation of labor diSputes, mandatory on
part of governmental units.

S.10h2 Public employees; labor disputes, required board to make recomp

1961

H.372

H.1415

H.h17

H.1139
3.1299
3.13111

1 962

H.113

H.27h

H.28h

mendations concerning disputes which shall be made public.

Labor relations; provide for compulsory arbitration of labor
disputes, including disuptes involving public employees. H.
J., 2, p. 1906.

Public employees; permit employees covered by'Hutchinson Act
to form, join or assist labor organization and union activities
not prohibited by law. H. J., 2, p. 1912.

Labor mediation; public employees provide that board make its
finding public, that the appointed arbitrators' findings shall
be final on all parties. H. J., 2, p. 1912.

Public employment; permit organization and collective bargain-
ing. JO J., 2, p. 19150

Public employees; permit formation of unions; require attorney
general to proceed against violations. S. J., 2, p. 1299.

State labor relations board; established powers and duties of.
S. J., 2, p. 1511.

Labor disputes; require compulsory arbitration including public
employees. Passed in House. H. J., 2, p. 2251. Same as 8.1307.

Public employees; permit union activity. Labor mediation;
public employees; findings to be public and binding. Same as
1169. Same as S.1h25.

Arbitration agreements; delete requirement that such agreements

must be sgparate from main contr cts. Amends section 5001,
Act 236, .A. 1961. Passed. H. 57 same.

.1292
Hlma

H.hh9
H.226

H.391

H.689
H.585
196A

H.h05

H.375

H.857
H.270
H.37h
H.311

H.312

H.389
H.861

288

(Appendix E Cont.)

Public employees; permit union activity.
Same as 8.110h.

H. J., 2, p. 2039.

Labor mediation; public employees; findings to be public and
binding. p. 2039. Same as 8.1103.

Labor disputes; public employees findings of the board to
be binding upon the parties. p. 200D.

Labor disputes; require compulsory arbitration for public employ-
ees; permit public elections to decide disputes if arbitra-
tion order not appealed. p. 2031.

Labor disputes; require compulsory arbitration including public
employees. p. 2069. Same as 3.1139.

Labor Relations; create board and define powers and duties.
p. 2057. Same as 1178.

labor disputes; require compulsory arbitration for public
employees; permit public elections to decide disputes of
arbitration order not appealed. H. J., 2, p. 2338.

Public employees; mediation of grievances; right to organize
and designate representatives; election procedures. p. 233h.
Same as H.h51, p. 23h6.

Public employees; permit organization and collective bargaining,
p. 2h01.

labor disputes; public service, coverage (Bonine-Tripp),
p. 2318.

Public utility, hospital employees and teachers; disputes
involving union representation election procedures, p. 233h.

Labor mediation; public employees; findings to be public and
binding. p. 232D. Same as 3.1181.

Public employees; permit union activity, p. 232A. Same as 8.1130.

Hutchinson Act; repeal, p. 2334.

Labor disputes; public employees; finding of board to be
binding on parties, p. 2h01.

249

(Appendix E Cont.)

8.1039 Labor disputes; require compulsory arbitration including public
employees, p. 16h8.

8.111 Public utility and hospital employees and teachers; diaputes
involving union representation; election procedures. Passed
in Senate.

8.1h96 Labor Relations; create board; prescribe powers and duties,
Pa 17290

250

APPENDIX F

MAJOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON 1965 LABOR BILLS1

H.B. 2869: A bill to provide for compulsory arbitration of disputes
in the Public service; to provide for the selection of’members or
arbitration panels; to prescribe the procedures and authority thereof;
and to provide fer the enforcement and review of awards thereof.

April 11; entered House and referred to labor committee

May 13 reported favorably out of committee with amendments

May 28 passed House 56-38 as amended

June 1 referred to Senate labor committee

June 11 reported without recommendation; bill laid on table

June 22 motion to take from the table failed 19-16 (20 votes needed)

H.B.2953: Amendments to the Hutchinson Act

April 11; entered House and referred to labor committee

May 26 reported favorably out of committee with amendments

May 27 passed House 68-32 as amended; Grim amendments to create
a professional negotiation Commission failed LIL-53
referred to Senate labor committee

June 10 reported favorably with amendments

June 16 passed Senate as amended 311-1, returned to House

June 21 approved by House with Senate amendments, given immediate
effect, 90-6.

H.B.29§g: Amendments to the Labor Mediation Act

April 11; entered House and referred to labor committee

May 11; reported favorably with amendments

May 27 passed House 69-28 as amended; referred to Senate labor
committee

June 11 reported favorably with amendments

June 21 passed Senate as amended 35-2 returned to House

June 25 passed House with Senate amendments, given immediate effect,
93-0

Legislative Schedule
April 21 FinEI day for introduction of bills except money bills
May 21 Final day for committees to report bills in House of origin
May 28 Final day for passage of all bills in House of origin
June 11 Final day for committees to report bills originating other
House
June 22 Final day for passage of bills originating in other House

 

1. Sources: Michigan, House Journal, 1965, Vols. I, II, III;
Michigan, Senate Journal, 1965, Vols. I, II, III.

251

APPENDIX C

HOUSE BILL N0. 28691

April 1h, 1965, Introduced by Reps. Holmes, Mrs. Elliott,
Snyder, Goemaere, Michalski, Faxon, Hood, StOpczynski,
IMcNeely, Ryan and Kehres and referred to the Committee

on Labor.

A bill to provide for compulsory arbitration of disputes
in the public service; to provide for the selection of mem-
bers of arbitration panels; to prescribe the procedures and
authority thereof; and to provide for the enforcement and
review of awards thereof.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

1 Sec. 1. It is hereby declared as the public polioy

2 of this state that in the public service, where the right
3 of public employees to strike is by law'prohibited, it is
h requisite to high morale and efficient Operation of govern-
5 ment to afford an alternate, effective and binding pro-

6 cedure for the resolution of disputes, and to that end
1171'65

 

1. Text as originally introduced.

252

(Appendix G Cont.)

H.2869

1

CD") O‘VLP’DJ N

\0

11

12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22

23

the provisions of this act, providing for compulsory arbitra-
tion, shall be liberally construed.

Sec. 2. Whenever in the course of mediation of a public
employees dispute, the dispute shall have been submitted to
fact-finding and a report with recommendations has not been
issued'within 60 days from the submission of the dispute to
fact-finding, or within such further additional periods to
which the parties may agree, or if issued within the 60-day
period, shall not have been agreed to by the parties within
30 days following, or within such further additional periods
to which the parties may agree, either the public employer
or the public employees may initiate binding arbitration pro-
cedures in the manner provided in this act.

Sec. 3. Within 10 days thereafter, the public employer
shall choose a member of its governing body as a delegate
and the public employees' designated or selected exclusive
collective bargaining representative, or if none, their
previously designated representative in the prior mediation
and fact-finding procedures shall choose 1 of its number as
a delegate to discuss, consider and recommend the settlement
of the question or questions at issue.

Sec. I4. The 2 delegates shall enter upon a discussion
to reach a recommended settlement of the matters in dispute.

In considering the matters the 2 delegates may hold hearings

253

(Appendix G Cont)

H. 2869

1

N

\0 CI) '4 mm Pk»

10
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

if they deem the same to be helpful or advisable, and con-
sider testimony, affidavits and documents which may be sub-
mitted to them at their invitation and in an effort to reach
a recommended settlement on all points of controversy. The
interested parties shall be required to submit all documents
and information within their knowledge and control. If the
delegates reach a recommended settlement on all points at
issue, they shall reduce it to writing, file it with the
parties and it shall be binding upon the parties. During
the discussions, each delegate who is a public officer or
arployee shall continue on the payroll of the public employ-
er at his usual rate of pay. Each delegate shall have the
right to have legal counsel or a representative of his
group present at all times.

Sec. 5. Upon the failure of the 2 delegates to reach
a recommended settlement on all questions at issue within
20 days of the date when they were appointed, or within such
further additional periods to which they may agree, within
5 days thereafter, or within such further additional periods
to which they may agree, the delegates shall designate an
impartial, competent and reputable person to act as an ar-
bitrator and with them to constitute an arbitration panel to
further consider and order a settlement of all matters. Upon

their failure to agree upon and appoint the arbitrator within

254

(Appendix B Cont.)

H.2869

1

2
3
I1,
5
6
7
8
9

10
11

12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
2b,

the time, or mutually extended time, either of them may re-
quest the state mediation director to appoint the arbitrator,
and the state mediation director shall promptly appoint an
impartial, competent and reputable citizen of this state as
arbitrator.

Sec. 6. Upon the appointment of the arbitrator, he
shall proceed to act as chairman of the panel of arbitration,
promptly call a hearing, and give reasonable notice of the
time and place of the hearing. The chairman shall conduct the
hearing and shall take testimony. .Any interested person may
appear and.be heard.both in person and by counsel or by
other representative chosen by him.appearing at the hearing.
Any oral or documentary evidence and other data deemed
relevant by the arbitration panel may be received in evidence.
A transcript of the proceedings shall be taken, and the ar-
bitration panel shall supply the necessary stenographic ser-
vice. One-half of the expense of the proceedings, including
a fee of $100.00 per day to the chairman for the time actually
spent as a member of the arbitration panel, shall be borne by
each of the parties to the dispute. The delegates shall con-
tinue on the payroll of the public employer at their usual
irate of'pay. The hearing conducted by the arbitration panel
may'be adjourned from time to time, but, unless otherwise

agreed by the parties, shall be concluded within 30 days of

255

(Appendix G Cont.)

H.2869

1

\0 m‘QQU‘lC‘w

10
11

12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21

22
23
2A

the time of its commencement. Its majority actions and rulings
shall constitute the actions and ruling of the arbitration panel.

Sec. 7. The arbitration panel may administer oaths, re-
quire the attendance of witnesses, and the production of such
books, papers, contracts, agreements and documents as may be
deemed by it material to a just determination of the issues in
dispute, and for such purpose may issue subpoenas. If any per-
son refuses to obey a subpoena, or refuses to be sworn or to
testify, or if any witness, party or attorney is guilty of any
contempt while in attendance at any hearing, the arbitration
panel may, or the attorney general if requested shall, invoke
the aid of any circuit court within the jurisdiction in which
the hearing is being held, which court shall issue an appro-
priate order. Any failure to obey the order may be punished
by the court as contempt.

Sec. 8. The arbitration panel, within 20 days after the
conclusion of the hearings, or such further additional periods
to which.the parties may agree, shall make written findings of
fact and promulgate a written opinion and order upon the issues
presented to it and upon the record made before it, and shall
mail or otherwise deliver a true copy thereof to the governing
body of the public employer and to the attorney or other desig-
nated representatives of the employees of the public employer.

The findings, Opinions and order shall be just and reasonable

256

(Appendix G Cont.)

H. 2869

1

owmfimmr’um

—b

12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23

and.based upon the factors prescribed in sections 9 and 10;

Sec. 9. When a valid agreement is in effect defining
the rights, duties and liabilities of the parties with res-
pect to any matter in dispute, the arbitration panel shall
determine the proper interpretation and application of the
agreement provisions which are involved.

Sec. 10. Where there is no agreement between the par-
ties, or where there is an agreement but the parties have
begun negotiations or discussions looking to a new agreement
or amendment of the existing agreement, and wage rates or
other conditions of employment under the proposed new or
amended agreement are in dispute, the arbitration panel shall
base its findings, opinions and order upon the following fac-
tors, as applicable:

(a) The lawful authority of the public employer.

(b) Stipulations of the parties, if any;

(c) The interests and welfare of the public, including
considerations of cost.

(d) Comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of emr
ployment of the employees involved in the arbitration proceed-
ing with the wages, hours and.conditions of employment or
other employees doing the same, similar or comparable skills
and expenditure of energy

(i) In public employment, in comparable local, state

237

(Appendix G Cont.)

H.2869

1

O‘WP'UJ

CON

113

12
13
111
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

and.proximate geographical areas,

(ii) In private employment, in comparable local, state
and proximate geographical areas,

(iii) In other comparable georgraphical areas or levels
of government, nationally.

(e) The average consumer prices for goods and services,
commonly known as the cost of living.

(f) The overall compensation presently received by the
employees, having regard not only to direct wage compensation,
but also to other compensation, including, but not limited to,
vacations, holidays and other excused time, insurance and.pen-
sions, medical and hospitalization benefits, the continuity
and stability of employment enjoyed by the employees, and all
other benefits received.

(g) In discharge or discipline cases, the existence of
just cause therefor, and the reasonableness of the penalty
imposed.

(h) Such other factors, not confined to the foregoing,
which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration
in the determination of wages, hours and conditions of GM!
ployment through voluntary collective bargaining, mediation,
fact-finding, arbitration or otherwise between the parties,
or in the public services or in private employment.

Sec. 11. A.majority decision of the arbitration panel,

258

(Appendix G Cont.)

H.2869

,1

N

\O 03% O\U'l:"w

10

111

12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22

23

if supported by competent, material and substantial evidence
on the whole record, shall be final and binding upon the
parties after 30 days, and.may be enforced, at the instance
of either party or of the arbitration panel in the circuit
court for the county’in which the dispute arose or in which
a.majority of the affected.public employees reside. Increases
in rates of compensation authorized by the arbitration panel
may be effective only at the start of the fiscal year next
commencing after the data of the arbitration award. At any
time the parties, by stipultation, may amend or modify an
award of arbitration.

Sec. 12. Orders of the arbitration panel shall be re-
viewable by the circuit court for the county in which the
dispute arose or in which a majority of the affected.public
employees reside, but only for reasons that the arbitration
panel was without or exceeded its jurisdiction; the order
is unsupported by competent, material and substantial evi-
dence on the whole record; or the order was procured by
fraud, collusion or other similar and.unlawful means.

Sec. 13. This act shall not apply to classified state
civil service employees.

Sec. 1h. During the pendency of proceedings before the
arbitration panel, existing wages, hours and other conditions

of employment shall not be changed by action of either party

259

APPE-IDIX H

HOUSE BILL NO. 29531

April 1h, 1965, Introduced by Reps. walton, White,
Hood, Bradley, McNeely, Stopczynski, Mrs. Mc-
Collough, Crim, Thorne, Michalski, Faxon, Ryan,
George F. Montgomery, Snyder, Edwards, Mrs.
Ferguson, Mrs. YOung and Constantini and referred

to the Committee of Labor.

A bill to amend the title and sections 1, 3, 6 and 7 of
Act No. 336 of the Public Acts of 1987, entitled

"An act to prohibit strikes by certain public employees; to
provide certain disciplinary action with respect thereto;

to provide for the mediation of grievances; and to prescribe
penalties for the violation of the provisions of this act,"
being sections h23.201, h23.203, h23.206 and h23.207 of the
Compiled Laws of 19h8; and to add 8 new sections to stand

as sections 9 to 16; and to repeal certain acts and.parts

of acts.
THE PEDPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN EVACT:
1 Section 1. The title and sections 1, 3, 6 and 7 of

2 Act No. 336 of the Public.Acts of 19h7, being sections
3 I123.201, I123.203, I123.206 and I423.207 of the Compiled Laws
1560'65

 

1. Text as originally introduced.

260

(Appendix H Cont.)

H.2953

1

03 N O\\I'l L‘w

10
10a
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

of 19II8, are hereby amended and 8 new sections are added to
stand as sections 9 to 16, the amended title and amended
and added sections to read as follows:

TITLE

An act to prohibit strikes by certain public employees;
to provide REVIEW FROM disciplinary action with
respect thereto; to provide for the mediation of grievances
AND THE HOLDING OF ELECTIONS; T0 DECLARE AND PROTECT THE
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; and to prescribe
MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT AND penalties for the violation of the
provisions of this act.

Sec. 1. As used in this act the word "strike" shall
mean the CONCERTED failure to report for duty, the wilful
absence from one's position, the stoppage of work, or the
abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful and
prOper performance of the duties of employment, for the
purpose of inducing, influencing or coercing a change in
the conditions, or compensation, or the rights, privileges
or obligations of employment.

Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to limit,
impair or affect the right of any public employee to the
expression or commmnication of a view, grievance, complaint
or opinion on any matter related to the conditions or com-
pensation of public employment or their betterment, so long

as the same is not designed to and does not interfere with

261

(Appendix H Cont.)

H.2953

1

\0 OJ“! (hUlF‘W

1o
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23

the full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of
employment.

Sec. 3. No person exercising any authority, supervision
or direction over any public employee shall have the power to
authorize, approve or consent to a strike by public
employees, and such person shall not authorize, approve or
consent to such strike, nor shall any such person discharge
or cause any public employee to be discharged or separated
from his or her employment because of participation in the
submission of a grievance in accordance with the provisions
of section 7.

Sec. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other
law, any person holding such a position who, by concerted
action with others, and without the lawful approval of his
superior, wilfully absents himself from his position, or
abstains in whole or in part from the full, faithful and
proper performance of his duties FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING,
INFLUENCING OR GOERCING A CHANGE IN THE CONDITIONS OR OQL
PENSATION, OR THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEBES OR OBLIGATIONS OF
MW shall be deemed to be on strike.

BUT THE person, upon request, shall be
entitled to A
DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER he did violate the provisions

of this act. THE request SHALL be filed in writing,

262

(Appendix H Cont.)

H.2953

1

\ooo~10\\n£=‘w

1o
11

12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21

22
23
211

with the officer or body having power to remove OR DISCIPLINE
such employee, within 10 days after regular compensation of
such employee has ceased OR OTHER DISCIPLINE HAS BEDI IMPOSED.
In the event of such request THE officer or body shall
within 10 days commence a proceeding for the determination
of whether the provision of this act have been violated by
THE public employee, in accordance with the law and
regulations appropriate to a proceeding to remove THE
public employee. THE proceedings shall be undertaken
without unnecessary delay. The decision of THE pro-
ceeding shall be made within 10 days.
IF the employee involved is held to have violated this law
and his employment terminated OR OTHER DISCIPLINE IMPOSED,
he shall have the right of review by way of petition to
the labor mediation board, as provided for in section 7
of this act TO THE CIRCUIT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF
THE PARTIES, AND IN THE EVENT OF STATE EMPLOYEES TO THE
INGHAM CIRCUIT COURT, WITHIN 30 DAYS FRa-I SUCH DECISION,
FOR DWATION WHETHER SUCH DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY
C(MPETI'INT, MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE WHOLE
RECIRD.

Sec. 7. UPON THE REQUEST OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
RERESI‘NTATIVE DEFINED IN SECTION 11, OR IF NO REPRESENTATIVE

HAS BEEN DESIGNATED (B SELEBTED, upon the request of a

263

(Appendix H Cont.)

H.2953

1
2

3
h
S
6

N

11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
211

majority of any given group of public employees evidenced.by
a petition signed by said.majority and delivered to the

labor mediation board, or upon request of any public

EMPLOYER of such employees, it shall be the duty of

the labor mediation board to forthwith mediate the grievances
set forth in said petition or notice, and for the purposes of
mediating such grievances, the labor mediation board shall

exercise the powers and authority conferred upon said board

1 by sections 10 and 11 of Act No. 176 of the Public Acts of

1939.

Sec. 9. IT SHALL BE LAWFUI. FOR PUBLIC ETPIOIEIS TO
ORGANIZE TOGETHER OR To FORM, JOIN OR ASSIST IN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, To ENGAGE IN LAWFUL CONCERTEO ACTIVITIES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION OR BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID AND PROTECTION, OR TO NEGOTIATE OR BARGAIN COL-
LECTIVELI WITH THEIR PUBLIC EMPLOYERS THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES
OF THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE.

Sec. 10. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PUBLIC E-IPIOYER 0R
AN OFFICER CR AGENT OF A PUBLIC EMPIOYER (A) TO INTTRFIRE
WITH, RESTRAIN OR COERCE PUBLIC EELOIEES IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 9; (B) To INITIATE,
CREATE, DOTTINATE, CONTRIBUTE To OR INTERFERE WITH THE FOR-
MATION d1 AIT-TINISTRATICN OF ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION: (c) TO

DISCRIMINATE IN REGARD TO HIRE, TERMS OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF

264

(Appendix H Cont.)

H.2953

1

ODKJChU'lt-‘w

CV)

11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

EAPLOITLENT IN ORDER To ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP
IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION; (D) TO ENCOURAGE MELBERSHIP IN,
OR INITIATE, CREATE, DONINATE OR CONTRIBUTE TO ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION, PROVIDED THAT A PUBLIC EMPLOYER SHALL NOT
BE PROHIBITED FROM PEEETTING EMPLOYEES To GONFER WITH

IT DURING WORKING HOURS WITHOUT LOSS OF TIME OR PAY; (E)
To DISCRIIIINATE AGAINST A PUBLIC ELPLOYEE BECAUSE HE HAS
GIVEN TESTIMONY OR INSTITUTED PROC-INGS UNDER THIS ACT;
OR (F) To REFUSE To BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRES-
ENTATIVES OF ITS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 11 .

Sec. 11 . REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED OR SELECTED FOR
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE MAJORITY OF THE
PUBLIC EIPLOYEFS IN A UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES,
OF BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE VOTING IN AN
ELECTION CONDUCTED PURSUANT To THIS ACT, SHALL BE THE
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN
SUCH UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN
RESPECT To RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT OR
OTHER CONDITIONS OF ELPLOIUIENT,AND SHALL BE SO RECOG-
NIZED BY THE PUBLIC EMPLOYER. ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE AT
ANY TIME MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCEE To HIS EMPLOYER AND HAVE
THE GRIEVANCES ADJUSTED, WITHOUT INTERVENTION OF THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, IF THE ADJUSTMENT IS NOT IN-

265

(Appendix H Cont.)

H.2953}

1

CON ONVIC'W

\O

11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
2h

CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT
OR AGREEIENT THEN IN EFFECT, PROVIDED THAT THE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT
SUCH ADJUSTMENT.

Sec. 12. EHENEVER A QUESTION ARISE BETWEEN A PUBLIC
EMPLOYER AND ITS EMPLOYEE OR A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS TO
WHETIER THE LABOR ORGANIZATION REPREENTS SUCH EMPLOYEE,

A PETITION MAY BE FILED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULE AND
REGULATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD

(A) BY A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES,
OR AN INDIVIDUAL OR LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTING IN THEIR BE-
HALF, ALLEGING THAT 30% OR MORE OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
WITHIN A UNIT CLAIMED To BE APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSE
WISH TO BE REPREENTED FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND THAT
THEIR PUBLIC EMPLOYER DECLINE TO RECOGNIZE THEIR REPRES-
ENTATIVE AS THE REREENTATIVE DEFINED IN SECTION 11, OR
ASSERT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL OR LABOR ORGANIZATION, WHICH HAS
BEEN CERTIFIED OR IS BEING CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED BY THEIR
PUBLIC EMPLOYER AS THE BARGAINING HEREENTATIVE, IS NO
LONGER A REPREENTATIVE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 11; OR

(B) BY A PUBLIC EMPIOYER OR HIS REPREENTATIVE
AIJEGING THAT 1 OR MORE INDIVIDUALS OR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
HAVE PREENTED TO HIM A CLAIM TO BE RECOGNIZE AS THE RE-

PRESENTATIVE DEFINED IN SECTION 11 .

266

(Appendix H Cont.)

H.2953

1

CD ‘3 0‘ m? b.)

10
11

12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21

22
23

2h

THE BOARD SHALL INVESTIGATE THE PETITION AND, IF IT HAS
REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A QUESTION OF REPRESENTA-‘e
TION EXISTS, SHALL PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE HEARING AFTER DUE
NOTICE. IF TIE BOARD FINDS UPON THE RECORD OF THE HEARING
THAT SUCH A QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION EXISTS, IT SHALL
DIRECT AN ELECTION BY SECRET BALLOT AND SHALL CERTIFY TIE
RESULTS THERmF. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CON.
STRUED TO PROI-DIBIT THE WAIVING OF HEARINGS BY STIPULATION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF A CONSENT ELECTION IN CONFORMITY WITH
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD.

SEC. 13. THE BOARD SHALL DECIDE IN EACH CASE, IN ORDER
TO INSURE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR RIGHT
TO SHE-ORGANIZATION, TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND OTHER-
WISE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT, THE UNIT
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES (IF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 9B OF ACT NO. 176 OF TIE PUBLIC ACTS
OF 1939.

SEC. 114. AN ELECTION SHALL NOT BE DIRECTED IN ANY
BARGAINING UNIT OR ANY SUBDIVISION WITHIN WHICH, IN THE
PRECEDING 12-MONTH PERIOD, A VALID ELECTION HAS BEEN HELD.
THE BOARD SHALL DETEPMINE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE
ELECTION AND SHALL ESTABLISH RULE GOVERNING THE ELECTION.
DI AN ELECTION INVOLVING MORE THAN 2 CHOICES, WHERE NONE

OF THE CHOICE ON THE BALLOT RECEIVES A MAJORITY VOTE, A

267

(Appendix H Cont.)

H.2953

1

\0 (EN O‘sUlC'h)

1O
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
2h

RUNOFF ELECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE 2 CHOICES
RECEIVING THE 2 LARGEST NUMBERS 0F VALID VOTES CAST IN THE
ELECTION

SM. 15. A PUBLIC EMPLOYER SHALL BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
WITH THE:REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 11 AND IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE AND ENTER INTO COILECT;
IVE BARGAINING AGREFIIDIES WITH SUCH REPRESENTATIVES. FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, TO BARGAIN OOLLECTIVELY IS
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE EMPLOYER
AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MIDYEES TO MEET AT REASON;
ABLE TIMES AND CONFER IN GOOD FAITH WITH RESPECT To WAGES,
HOURS, AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ETEIOYMENT, OR THE
mmmmwmmmmmmmmmwmmmmk
UNDER, AND THE EXECUTION OF A.WRITTEN CONTRACT, ORDINANCE OR
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING ANY AGREEMENT REACHED IF REQUEST-
BY EITHER PARTY, BUT SUCH OBLIGATION DOES NOT COMPEL EITHER
PARTY TO AGREE TO A PROPOSAL OR REQUIRE THE MAKING OF A
CONCESSION.

SEC. 16. VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS.£CT
SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND IN ADDITION
TO SUCH REMEDIES AND RELIEF AS MAY OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED BY
LAW OR BY THIS ACT, MAY BE REMEDIm BY THE LABOR MEDIATION
BOARD IN THE MANNER. PROVIDED IN SECTION 23 OF ACT NO. 176 OF

THE PUBLIC ACTS OF 1939.

268

(Appendix H Cont.)
H.2953
1 Section 2. Sections 11,, S and 8 of Act No. 336 of the
2 Public Acts of 19147, being sections h23.20h, 1423.205 and

3 1423.208 of the Compiled Laws of 19b8, are repealed.

269

APPENDIX I

HOUSE BILL N0. 299:1

April 1h, 1965, Introduced by Reps. Goemaere, Kehres,
Ryan, McNeely, Constantini, Hood, Mrs. Young, Mrs.
Elliott, GeorgeIMontgomery, Edwards and.Mrs.

Ferguson and referred to the Committee on Labor.

A bill to amend the title and sections 13, 13a, 13g, 16,
22 and 23 of.Act No. 176 of the Public Acts of 1939, entitled
as amended

”An act to create a board for the mediation of labor dis-
putes, and to prescribe its powers and duties; to provide
for the mediation and arbitration of labor disPutes, and

the holding of elections thereon; to provide methods for
settlement of hospital or public utility labor diSputes, in-
cluding the use of Special fact finding commissions, to regu-
late the conduct of parties to labor disputes and to require
the parties to follow certain procedures; to regulate and
limit the right to strike and picket; to protect the rights
and privileges of employees, including the right to organize
and engage in lawful concerted activities; to protect the
rights and.privileges of employers; to make certain acts
unlawful; and to prescribe penalties for violations of the
provisions of this act,"

as amended and added by.Act No. 230 of the Public Acts of

1559'65

 

1. Text as originally introduced.

270

(Appendix I Cont.)

11.29514

11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20

19h9, being sections h23.13, h23.13a, h23.13g, h23.16, h23.22
and h23.23 of the Compiled Laws of 19h8; and to add 5 new
sections to stand as sections 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Section 1. The title and sections 13, 13a, 13g, 16,
22 and 23 of Act No. 176 of the Public.Acts of 1939, as
amended and added by.Act No. 230 of the Public Acts of 19h9,
being sections h23.13, h23.13a, h23.13g, h23.16, h23.22 and
h23.23 of the CompileaiLaws of 19h8, are hereby amended and
5 new sections are added to stand as section 26, 27, 28,
29 and 30, the amended title and amended and added sections
to read as follows:

TITLE

An act to create a board for the mediation of labor
disputes, and to prescribe its powers and duties; to provide
fOr the mediation and arbitration of labor diSputes, and
the holding of elections thereon; to provide methods for
settlement of hospital or public utility labor disputes, in-
cluding the use of special fact finding commissions, to
regulate the conduct of parties to labor disputes and to re-
quire the parties to follow certain procedures; to regulate
and limit the right to strike and.picket; to protect the
rights and privileges of employees, including the right to

organize and engage in lawful concerted activities; to pro-

271

(Appendix I Cont .)

H.29Sh

1

\O GIN} amt-"DJ

1o
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
2h

tect the rights and privileges of employers; to make certain
acts unlawful; and to prescribe MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT AND pen-
alties for violations of the provisions of this act.

Sec. 13. The provisions of sections 13a to 13g,
shall be applicable only to public utility employers,
public utility employees, hospital employers and hOSpital em-
ployees and to labor organizations representing
such employees. LABOR DISPUTES INVOLVING THE
DESIGNATION OR SELECTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAIN ING REPRESENTA-
TIVES FOR SUCH EMPLOYEES SHALL NOT BE CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD
TO THE GOVERNOR, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 13A, BUT SUCH DIS-
PUTES SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 26 T0
30.

Sec. 13a. (1). In case of any labor dispute involving
hospital or public utility employees, EXCEPT LAHJR DISPUTES
CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OR SELECTION OF COLLECTIVE BAR-
GAINING REPRESENTATIVES, the following procedure shall be
followed.

(2). Disputes for which a settlement procedure is pro-
vided in a collective agreement between a hospital or public
utility employer and a labor organization shall be handled
in accordance with such prodedure, or if such procedure does
not terminate in voluntary arbitration or does not result in

settlement, then in accordance with the procedure provided in

272

(Appendix I Cont.)

11.2991

1

ODxI ChU'lC'w

1o
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

subsection (3).

(3)v Disputes concerning wages, hours, or other terms
or conditions of employment, or concerning the interpretation
or application of a collective agreement, which are not
settled pursuant to the procedure, if any, provided for such
settlement in a collective agreement or in a separate agree-
ment between a hospital or public utility employer and a
labor organization, shall be handled and settled in accord-
ance with the following procedure:

(a). The board shall intervene and investigate such
dispute to determine whether theparties have engaged in
collective bargaining as herein defined. The parties to a
hospital or public utility di3pute shall be obligated.under
this act to bargain collectively at all.times. The parties
shall be under a further obligation to participate actively

and in good faith in the mediation of such dispute by the

board.
(b). The board shall also, if at any time it concludes
that the parties may not be able to settle their disputes by

bargaining, mediation and conciliation, urge upon the parties
that they submit the same to arbitration pursuant to section
9d. If, within 30 days following the notice to

the board, the diSpute has not been resolved, or sumbitted

to voluntary arbitration, the board forthwith shall certify

273

(Appendix I Cont.)

H.29Sh

1

0.me

N

10
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

such dispute to the governor.
(c): The governor shall cause the diSpute to be submitted

to a special commission as provided in section 13b

Sec. 13g. It shall be unlawful for a hospital or public
utility employer to engage in or continue a lockout, or for
a labor organization to engage in or continue a strike or
other work stoppage, slowdown, or other attempt to interrupt
a hospital or public utility service, before the proceedings
provided in sections 13a to 13e have been com-
pleted.or where the same is applicable, before completion of
the procedure contained in section 9c. At the request of
the governor, the attorney general shall, on behalf of the
people, petition any'circuit court having jurisdiction for
appr0priate injunctive relief with respect to any such unlaw-
ful conduct. An employer or labor organization which engages
in conduct in violation of such injunction shall, upon con-
‘viction thereof, be deemed guilty of contempt of court and
‘be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 fer each
day during which such violation occurs or continues, and any
officer or agent of such employer or labor crganization who
instigates, aids, or abets such violation shall be subject
to a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for

not more than 6 months, or by both such fine and such imprison-

271+

(Appendix I Cont.)

11.29511

1

2
3
h
S
6
7
8
9

1o
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
2h

ment: Provided, that SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT THEREFOR. Nothing
in this act shall be construed to require an individual em,
ployee to continue rendering labor or service without his
consent or to make illegal the quitting of his employment,

and no court shall have power to issue any process to compel
any such employee to continue to render such labor or to re-
main at his place of employment without his consent.

Sec. 16. It shall be unlawful for an employer or any
officer or agent of an employer (1) to interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organizationy; (2) to initiate, create, dominate,
contribute to, or interfere with the formation or administra-
tion of, any labor organization; (3) to discriminate in re-
gard to hire, terms or other conditions of employment in
order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor or-
ganization; (h) or encourage membership in, or initiate;
create, dominate, or contribute to a company union; or (S)
to discriminate against any employee because he has given
testimony or instituted a proceeding under this act. 'Vihla-
tion of this section shall be a misdemeanor and punishable
as such.

Sec. 22. (a) It shall be unlawful for an employer to
engage in a lookout or for a labor organization to engage in

or instigate a strike (1) without first having served notice

275

(Appendix I Cont.)

H.2953

1

ChU'lE‘w

«1

11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
2h

as required in section S9of this act, or (2) which has not
been authorized by a vote of employees as required by section
9a of this act, or (3) while mediation is pending or proceeding
with.res>ect to the issues involved under section 9a of this
act, or (h) while mediation or an election is pending under
section 9c of this act, or (5) while any of the procedures
Specified in sections 13a to 13e, inclusive, are pending or
proceeding with respect to the issues involved. Any employer
or labor organization which commits such unlawful act, shall
upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more
than $1,000.00 for each such violation, and for this purpose
each day during which such unlawful act occurs or continues
shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.

(b). It shall be unlawful fOr any individual to insti-
gate a lockout or strike which is unlawful under this section.
Any'individual who commits such unlawful act, shall, upon
conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and.punishable
as such.

(c). The board, the attorney general, or any prosecuting
attorney, on behalf of the people, or any individual or per-
son, nmw'pursue any apprOpriate legal or equitable remedy or
other'relief in any circuit court having jurisdiction with
:respect to any act or conduct in violation of any of the pro-

‘visions of this act. The existence of a criminal penalty

276

(Appendix I Cont .)

H.29Sh

1
2

3
L1
5
6
7
8

9
10
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

with reSpect to any such act or conduct shall not be deemed
to preclude appropriate equitable relief.

Sec. 23. Rulings or orders promulgated by the board
shall be reviewable only by the supreme court and on petition
for writ of certiorari or such other process as may be ap-
propriate, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION.

(A) VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, EXCEPT
SECTIONS 9F, 15 AND 17, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE AND, IN ADDITION TO SUCH REWEDIE AND RELIEF AS
MAY OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED BY LAW OR BY THIS ACT, SHALL BE
RE'IEIE BY THE BOARD IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION.

(B) WHENEVER IT IS CHARGED THAT ANY PERSON HAS ENGAGED
IN G1 IS ENGAGING IN ANY SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THE
BOARD, OR ANY AGENT DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD FOR SUCH PURPOSES,
MAY ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED UPON THE PERSON A COMPLAINT
STATING THE CHARGE IN THAT RESPECT, AND CONTAINING A NOTICE
OF HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OR A MEMBER THEREOF, OR BEFORE
A DESIGNATED AGENT, AT A PLACE THEREIN FIXED, NOT LES THAN
5 DAYS AFTER THE SERVING OF THE MAPLAINT. NO C(EIPLAINT
SHALL ISSUE BASED UPON ANY UNFAIR LAHJR PRACTICE OCCURRING
MORE THAN 6 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE CHARGE WITH
THE BDARD AND THE SERVICE OF A COPY THEREOF UPON THE PERSON
AGAINST WHCIJI THE CHARGE IS MADE, UNLESS THE PERSON AGGRIEVED

‘I'EHBEBY WAS PREVENTED FROM FILING THE CHARGE BY REASON OF

277

(Appendix I Cont.)

11.29511

0 \O 03‘} OUT-E'UJ N

-—|

12
13
1b.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCE, IN WHICH EVENT THE 6 MONTH PERIOD
SHALL BE COMPUTED FROM THE DAY OF HIS DISCHARGE. ANY COMPLAINT
MAI BE AMENDED BY THE MEMBER OR AGENT CONDUCTING THE HEARING
OR THE BOARD, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER
BASED THPREON. THE PERSON UPON WHOM THE COMPLAINT IS SERVED
MAY FILE AN ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL OR AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

TO APPEAR IN PERSON OR OTHERWISE AND GIVE TETIMONY AT THE
PLACE AND TIME FIXED IN THE COMPLAINT. IN THE DISCRETION OF
THE MEMBER OR AGEVT CONDUCTING THE HEARING OR THE BOARD, ANY
OTHER PERSON MAY BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDING
AND TO PRESENT TETIMONY. ANY PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONDUCTED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 OF ACT NO. 197
OF THE PUBLIC ACTS OF 1952, AS AMENDED, BEING SECTION 211.105
OF THE CITGILED LAWS OF 191.18.

(0) THE TETIMONY TAKEN BY THE MEMBER, AGENT OR THE
BOARD SHALL BE REDUCED To WRITING AND FILED WITH THE BOARD.
THFREAFTER THE BOARD UPON NOTICE MAY TAKE FURTHER TETIMONY
OR HEAR ARGUMENT. IF UPON THE PRIPONDERANCE OF THE TETIMON!
TAKEN THE BOARD IS OF THE OPINION THAT ANY PERSON NAMED IN
THE COMPLAINT HAS ENGAGED IN OR IS ENGAGING IN THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE, THEN IT SHALL STATE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND
SHALL ISSUE AND CAUSE To BE SERVED ON THE PERSCN AN ORDEI RE-
QUIRING Hm TO CEASE AND DEIST FROM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE,

AND TO TAKE SUCH AFTIIMATIVE ACTION INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT

278

(Appendix I .Cont.)

11.29511

‘

\O 03% 0‘1er

10
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
21

OF EVIPIDYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT. THE ORDER MAY FURTHER REQUIRE
THE PERSON TO MAKE REPORTS FROM TIME TO TIME SHOWING THE EX-
TENTTOWICHHEHASCOMPLIEDWITHTHEORDER. IFUPONTHE
PREPONDFRANCE OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN THE mARD IS NOT OF THE
OPINION THAT THE PERSON NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT HAS ENGAGED
IN OR IS ENGAGING IN THE UNFAIR LAHJR PRACTICE, THEN THE
W SHALL STATE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND SHALL ISSUE AN
ORDER DISIflSSING THE C(EIPLAINT. NO ORDER OF THE HIARD SHALL
REQUIRE THE REINSTATE‘IENT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL AS AN H’IPIDYEE
WHO HAS BEEN SUSPENDED OR DISCHARGED, OR THE PAYMENT TO HIM
OF ANY BACK PAY, IF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS SUSPENDED OR DISCHARGE!)
Fm CAUSE. IF THE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED BEFORE A MEMBER OF
THE BOARD, 6% BEFORE EXAMINERS THEREOF, THE MEABR, OR EXA-
MINERS SHALL ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED ON THE PARTIES TO
THE PROCEEDING A PROPOSED REPORT, TOGETHER WITH A RECDW’IENDED
ORDER, WHICH SHALL BE FILED WITH THE HEARD, AND IF NO EX-
CEPTIONS ARE FILED WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE THEIEDF UPON
THE PARTIES, OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER PERIOD AS THE BOARD MAY
AUTHORIZE, THE RECQ’IMI'NDED ORDER SHALL BECCME THE ORDER OF
THE M AND BECOME EFFECTIVE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE (BDER.
(D) UNTILTHERECORDINA CASEHASBEENFILEDINA
COURT, THE RJARD AT ANY TIME, UPON REBONABLE NOTICE AND IN

SUCH MANNER AS IT DEBTS PROPm, MAY MODIFY OR SET ASIDE, IN

279

(Appendix I Cont.)

H.29Sh

1

0‘»er

\1

1O
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY FINDING 0R ORDER HADE OR ISSUED BY IT.
(E) THE BOARD HAY PETITION ANY CIRCUIT COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION EITHER OVER THE PLACE WHERE THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE OCCURRED OR OVER THE PLACE WHERE THE PERSON UPON WHOM
THE COMPLAINT IS SERVED RESIDES OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS, FOR
THE MOI-{CEMENT OF THE ORDER AND FOR APPROPRIATE TMORARY
REEIEF OR RESTRAINING ORDER, AND SHALL FILE IN THE COURT THE
RECORD IN THE PROCEEDINGS. UPON THE FILING OF THE PETITION,
THE COURT SHALL CAUSE NOTICE THEREOF TO BE SERVED UPON THE
PERSON, AND THEREUPON SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE PRO-
CEEDING AND SHALL GRANT SUCH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT RELIEF
OR RESTRAINING ORDER AS IT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER, ENFORCING,
MODIFYING, ENFORCING AS SO MODIFIED, OR SETTING ASIDE IN WHOLE
OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BOARD. NO OBJECTION THAT HAS NOT
BEEN URGED BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER OR AGENT, SHALL BE
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT, UNLESS THE FAILURE OR NEGLECT TO
URGE THE OBJECTION IS EXCUSED BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIR-
CUMSTANCES. THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO QUES-
TIONS OF FACT IF SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, MATERIAL AND SUB-
STANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE SHALL
BE CONCLUSIVE. IF EITHER PARTY APPLIES TO THE COURT FOR
LEAVE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SHOWS TO THE SATIS-
FACTION OF THE COURT THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL

AND THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE FAILURE TO PRE-

280

(Appendix I Cont.)

H.29Sh

1

O‘UI-C'w

N

11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h

SENT IT IN THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER OR AGENT,
THE COURT MAY ORDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN BE-
FORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER OR AGENT, AND TO BE MADE A PART
OF THE RECORD. THE BOARD MAY MODIFY ITS FINDINGS AS TO

THE FACTS, OR MAKE NEW FINDINGS, BY REASON OF ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE so TAKEN AND FILED, AND IT SHALL FILE THE MODIFYING
CR NEW FINDINGS, WHICH FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO QUESTIONS OR
FACT IF SUPPORTED BY Gm-IPEI‘ENT, MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE SHALL BE CON-
GLUSIVE, AND SHALL FILE ITS RECOIT-IENDATIONS, IF ANY, FOR THE
MODIFICATION OR SETTING ASIDE OF ITS ORIGINAL ORDER. UPON
THE FILING OF. THE RECORD WITH IT THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND ITS JUDGMENTAND DEGREE SHALL
BE FINAL, EXCEPT THAT THE SAME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW
BY THE COURT OF APPEAIS AND THE SUPREIE COURT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE GENERAL COURT RULES .

(F) ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD
GRANTING OR DENYING IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE RELIEF SOUGHT
MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN ANY CIRCUIT COURT IN THE
CIRCUIT WHERE THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN QUESTION WAS
ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED OR WHERE THE PERSON UPON NEW THE
COMPLAINT MAS SERVED RESIDES OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS, BY FILING
IN THE COURT A COMPLAINT PRAYING THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD

BE MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE, WITH COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED

281

(Appendix I Cont.)

11.29511.

1

O \0 CD4 O‘Ul WU.) N

...b

12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
2h

ON THE BOARD, AND THEREUPON THE AGGRIEVED PARTY SHALL FILE IN
THE COURT THE RECORD IN THE PROCEEDING, CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD.
UPON THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, THE COURT SHALL PROCEED IN
THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION BY THE BOARD
UNDER SUBSECTION (E), AND SHALL GRANT TO THE BOARD SUCH TEM-
PORARY FELIEF OR RESTRAINmG ORDER AS IT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER,
ENFORGING, MODIFYING, EVFORCING AS SO MODIFIED, 0R SETTING
ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BOARD. THE FINDINGS
OF THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO QUESTIONS OF FACT IF SUPPORTED

BY CEEPETEIT, MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD
CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE.

(C) THE CONNEVCEAENT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SUBSECTIONS
(E) OR (F) SHALL NOT, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED BY THE
COURT, OPERATE AS A STAY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER.

(H) CGIPLAINTS FILED UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE HEARD EX-
PEDITIOUSLY BY THE COURT.

(I) THE BOARD SHALL HAVE POWER, UPON ISSUANCE OF A
COMPLAINT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (B) CHARGING THAT ANY
PERSON HAS ENGAGED IN OR IS ENGAGING IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRAC-
TICE, T0 PETITION ANY CIRCUIT COURT WITHIN ANY CIRCUIT WHERE
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN QUESTION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE
OCCURRED OR WHERE SUCH PERSON RESIDES OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS,
FOR APPROPRIATE TEMPORARY RELIEF OR RESTRAINING ORDER, IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL COURT RULES, AND THE COURT SHALL

~~w

.«W—fir—r

282

(Appendix I Cont.)

H.29Sh

1

O‘sUII-T‘w

s1

11
12
13
111
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
21;

HAVE JURISDICTION T0 GRANT To THE BOARD SUCH TEMPORARY RE-
LIFF OR RESTRAINING ORDER AS IT DEELS JUST AND PROPER.

(J) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALL HEARINGS AND DIVESTIGATIONS,
WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, ARE NECESSARY AND PROPER
FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN IT UNDER THIS SEC-
TION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 SHALL BE APPLICABLE, EX-
CEPT THAT SUBPOENAS MAY ISSUE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 11
WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER MEDIATION SHALL HAVE BEEN UNDER-
TAKEN.

(K) THE LABOR RELATst AND MEDIATION FUNCTIONS OF
THIS ACT SHALL BE SEPARATELY AIDIINISTERBD BY THE BOARD.

SEC. 26. REPRESENTATIVES DmIGNATED OR SELECTED FOR
THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE MAJORITY OF THE
E-IPLOYEES IN A UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES, OR BY
THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEE VOTING IN AN ELECTION CONDUCTED
PURSUANT To THIS ACT, SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESEVTATLVES
OF ALL THE EIPLCYEES IN SUCH UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLEC-
TIVE BARGAINING IN RESPECT To RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF
ERRLONIEVT OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND SHALL BE
so RECOGNIZED BY THE EMPLOYER; BUT ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE
AT ANY TINE MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCES To HIS EMPLOYER AND HAVE
THE GRLEVANCEE ADJUSTED, WITHOUT LNTERVEVTICN OF THE BAR-
GADIING REPRESEVTATIVE, IF THE ADJUSTMENT IS NOT INCONSISTEVT

WITH THE TERMS OF A COILECTIV'E BARGADVING CONTRACT OR AGREE-

283

(Appendix I Cont.)

E2994

1

\O (bx) O‘sUlrb)

10
11
12
13
1h
15
16
17
18
19
2O

21

MENT THEN IN EFFECT, IF THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE HAS
‘11 GIVEV OPPORTUNITY To BE PRESENT AT SUCH ADJUSTMENT .

SEC. 27. WHENEVER A QUESTION ARISE BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER
AND ITS EMPLOYEE OR A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS To WHETHER THE
LABOR ORGANIZATION REPREENTS SUCH EMPLOYEE, A PETITION MAY
BE FILED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULE AND REGULATIONS AS
MAY BE PRECRIBED BY THE BOARD:

(A) BY AN EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEE, OR AN INDle
DUL OR LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTING IN THEIR BEHALF, ALLEGING
THAT 30% OR MORE OF THE EMPLOYEES WITHIN A UNIT CLAIMED TO
BE APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSE WISH To BE REPREENTED FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND THAT THEIR EMPLOYER DECLINE To
RECOGNIZE THEIR REPRESENTATIVE AS THE REPREENTATIVE DEFINED
IN SECTION 26, OR ASSET THAT THE INDIVIDUAL OR LABOR ORGANIZA-
TION, WHICH HAS BEEN CERTIFIED OR IS BEING CURRETLY RECOG-
NIZED BY THEIR EIPIOYER AS THE BARGAINING REPREENTATIVE, IS
NO LONGER A REPREENTATIVE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 26 ; OR

(B) BY AN EMPLOYER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE ALLEGING THAT
1 OR MORE INDIVIDUALS OR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE PREENTED
TO HIM A CLAIM To BE RECOGNIZED AS THE REPREENTATIVE DEFINE
IN SECTION 26.

284

(Appendix I Cont.)

H.29511

1

03 \J GUI-E‘bu

1O

11

THE BOARD SHALL INVESTIGATE THE PETITION AND, IF IT
HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A QUESTION OF REPRESEN-
TATION EICLSTS, SHALL PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE HEARING AFTER
DUE NOTICE. IF THE HEARD FINDS UPON THE RECORD OF THE
HEARING THAT A QUESTION OR REPRESENTATION EXISTS, IT SHALL
DIRECT AN ELECTION BY SECRET BALLOT AND SHALL CELTIFY THE
RESULTS THEREDF. NOTHIN} IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED
TO PROHIBIT THE WAIVING OR HEARINGS BI STIPULATION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF A CONSENT ELECTION IN CONFQN-LITY WITH THE RULES
AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD.

SEC. 28. THE BOARD SHALL DECIDE IN EACH CASE, IN ORDER
TO INSURE EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-
ORQMJIZATION, TO (DILECTIVE BARGAINING AND OTHERWISE TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIE OF 'EIIS ACT, THE UNIT APPROPRIATE
FOR THE PURPOS$ OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 93.

SEC. 29. AN ELECTION SHALL NOT BE DIRECTED IN ANY BAR-
GAINING UNIT OR ANY SUBDIVISION WITHIN WHICH, IN THE PRE-
CEDING 12-I-IONTH PERIOD, A VALID ELECTION HAS BEEN HELD. THE
BOARD SHALL DETHNADVE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE ELEC-
TION AND SHALL ESTABLISH RULES GOVERNII‘IG THE ELECTION. A
REIIUN ELECTION MAY BE CONDUCTED IN THE EVENT OF CONDUCT IN-
PROPHILY AFFECTING A PRIOR ELECTION. IN AN ELECTION INVOLVING

MORE THAN 2 CHOICES, WHERE NONE OF THE CHOICES ON THE BALLOT

 

28 5

(Appendix I Cont .)

H.295h

‘l

CDNCBU'Lt'U)

CW

12
13
1h
15
16
17

:RECEIVES A.MAJORITY VOTE, A RUNOFF ELECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED
BETWEEN THE 2 CHOICES RECEIVING THE 2 LARGEST NUMBERS 0F
VALID VOTES CAST IN THE ELECTION.

SEC. 30. AN EMPLOYER SHALL BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY'WITH
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS DEFINED IN SECTION
26 AND IS AUTHORIZED To MAKE AND ENTER INTO COLLECTIVE BAR-
GAINING AGREEIENTS WITH SUCH REPRESENTATIVES. EOE THE PUR-
POSES OF THIS SECTION, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IS THE:PER-
FORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE ETPIOYEE AND THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES To MEET AT REASONABLE TIMES
AND CONFER IN GOOD FAITH WITH RESPECT TO'WAGES, HOURS AND
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS 0R DEPLOYMENT, OR THE NEGOTIATION
OF AN AGREEMENT, OR ANY QUESTION ARISING UNDER AN AGREEMENT,
AND THE EXECUTION OF A wRITTEN CONTRACT INCORPORATING ANY
AGREEMENT REACHED IF REQUESTED BY EITHER PARTY, BUT SUCH OB-
LIGATION DOES NOT COMPEL EITHER PARTY TO AGREE To A PROPOSAL

OR REQUIRE THE MAKING OF A CONCESSION.

286

APPENDIX J

LETTER: HOWLETT TO LEVIN

LABOR MEDIATION BOARD
(OFFICIAL 1MB STATIONERY)
June 9, 1965

OOPIED FRCIVI
Hon. Sander Levin
State Senate A PHOTOCOPY
The Capital
Lansing, Michigan HELD by the MEA

Re: House Bill No. 2915
Dear Senator Ievin:

This letter supplements our conversation of
Monday, June 7, 1965.

Some teacher grOUps in Michigan have sought to
secure an amendment to the Michigan Labor Mediation Act
or a new statute which would recognize the professional
status of teachers, and remove from the Labor mediation Board
the jurisdiction of disputes involving teachers. As the Board
members previously advised you, we took no position on this
legislation. The bill which passed the House of Representatives
did not provide for separate jurisdiction for teachers, either
‘within the Iabor'Mediation Board or by means of separate agenqy.

You suggested the possibility of amendment to Section
10 of the Labor Mediation Act to carry out this desire of the
teacher groups, Specifically, your suggestion is that the last
sentence of Section 10 be amended to read as follows:

"In carrying out any of its work under
this act, the Board may designate 1 of its meme
bers or an officer of the Board to act in its
behalf and.may delegate to such designee 1 or
more of its duties hereunder, including,_by'way
of illustration and not limitation, the mediation
of specialized categories of disputes, or
grievances, and for such prupose, such designed
shall have all of the powers hereby conferred
Upon the Board in connection with the discharge
of the duty or duties so delegated." (The preposed
new'material is underlined.)

 

 

287
(Appendix J Cont .)

I have conferred with my colleague, Leo Walsh, Phil Weiss
is on vacation in the east. I was unable to contact him today
and decided that this letter should go out right away. I am
certain, however, that he concurs with Leo Walsh and me for we
have discussed this matter generally. Phil Weiss and I are in
agreement that if Section 10 of the Mediation Act is amended by
Board will establish within our staff a mediator or mediators
(depending on the number required) who will be designated to handle
matters pertaining to teachers. These men will receive special
training for this work. If necessary, additional staff members
will be sought through the civil service procedures of the state
of Michigan.

Sincerely yours,

Robert G. Howlett
Chaiman

RGH/gg

 

288

APPENDIX K

ANALYSIS OF HOUSE BILIS NOS. 2951; (SENATE BILL 619) To AMEND
THE MEDIATION ACT AND 2953 (SENATE BILL 621) TO AMEND THE

HUTCHDISON ACT, by MEMBERS OF LABOR MEDIATION m1

We have not prepared an analysis of House Bill
No. 2923 because, after discussion with members of the Senate
and the House Labor Committees last week, it appears that this
bill will probably not be reported out of committee. We
believe there is merit in a statute which would establish a
State Labor Relations Board with powers in the intrastate
commerce similar to those vested in the National Labor Relations
Board in the interstate area.

If an "omnibus" bill should be enacted, it should
include all provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, (herein referred to as MBA), in order that the State
Labor Mediation Board may seek to secure cession of jurisdiction
from the National Labor Relations Board as authorized in
Section 10a of NLRA.

If it appears that enactment of House Bill No. 2923
is a possibility, we will make detailed comments on that bill.
Perhaps one general comment should be made. We doubt the
necessity of separating the labor relations and mediation
functions into separate agencies. We believe that Michigan could,

like Wisconsin operate with a single agency, the labor relations and

 

1. LAER I'IEDIATION BOARD Official Stationery. Undated.

289

(Appendix K Cont.)
mediations functions to be separated into two divisions subject

to the general jurisdiction of the Board.

HOUSE BILL 29Sh

This bill proposes to amend the Michigan Labor
IMediation Act in the following respects:

1. Empowers the Labor Mediation Board to conduct

representation elections in the context of a re-

 

presentation qyestion rather than as a strike vote.
2. Treats hospitals and public utilities for repre-
sentation purposes in the same manner as other
employers.
3. Provides for decertification elections.
h. Eliminates the criminal penalties.
S. Authorizes the Board to order employers to cease
and desist from unfair practices.1
SECTIONS 1 through 12
This bill does not amend these sections.
Comment: ‘No suggest that the statute require that the Board
be bi-partisan. It is a more effective agency with both political
parties represented. The Amendment to the first sentence of
Section 3 would accomplish this. Insert after "forever" the
following: "not more than two of whom shall be members of the
same political party." 'We also suggest that an increase in the
Footnote 1 - The bill goes beyond Senate Bill No. 1111, which

was introduced in the 72nd Legislature (Regular
Session, 196h).

290

(Appendix K Cont.)
compensation of the members of the Board, fixed by Section 5, is
‘warranted. This will be the subject of a letter to the Hon.
Samuel Levin, Chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, and the

Hon. James Bradley, Chairman of the House Labor Committee.

SECTION 9f

This section prohibits certain types of picketing.
The last sentence, which refers to criminal penalties, should be
deleted. ‘We prefer that the activities listed in Section 9f
not be considered as unfair labor practices with enforcement
vested in the Board but that they remain subject to enforcement

by the Circuit Court.

SECTIONS 13 and 13a
Remove representation diSputes from the Governor's
Special Commission procedure established by Sections 13a to 13g.
The present statute treats disputes in hospitals and

public utilities differently than disputes in other enterprises.2

 

Footnote 2 - The Board's power in public utilities disputes
was almost completely eliminated in 1955 when
the United States District Court for western
iMichigan held that jurisdiction over utilities
which affect interstate commerce is exclusively
within the scope of the National.1ebor Relations
Board. Grand Ra ids Cit Coach Lines, Inc. v.
Howlett, 137 F. Supp. 537. The procedure for
utilities is the same as for private hOSpitals;
hence we refer in the text only to hospitals.

 

291

(Appendix K Cont.)

If a dispute does not result in settlement, the
Board is directed to intervene and investigate the dispute to
determine whether the parties have engaged in collective
bargaining as required by the statute. If the Board concludes
that a hospital and its employees may not be able to settle
their dispute by mediation and bargaining, and the parties
refuse to arbitrate, the Board is directed to certify the dispute
to the Governor. The Governor then appoints a special commission
which holds hearings on the dispute and issues written findings
and non-binding recommendations.

The statute does not distinguish between representation
ggestions and issues involving3wages,ghours and other conditions
of employment. When a union claims to represent hOSpital
employees and the hospital employer refuses to recognize the
union, the Board has no choice but to refer the case to the
Governor for appointment of a special commission. These commissions
have cost the State of Michigan an average of over $1,000
each. .And each commission has, in every instance (except one
which involved an unusual situation) recommended that an election
be held to determine whether the employees wished to be represented
by a union. Attached hereto is a list, and cost, of the special
commissions appointed by the Governors during the past six years.

This lengthly'procedure has not only cost the taxpayers
a substantial amount of money, but has served no useful
purpose; because the only recommendations which the commissions

can make in representation disputes is that a secret vote be

held to (ietermine whether the employees wish to be represented

by a union .

292

(Appendix K Cont . )

In addition, and of perhaps greater importance,
emplqyees have been delayed in their right to decide whether
they wish to have a union represent them in collective
bargaining with their employer, a right vested in them by Section 8.
If justice delayed is justice denied, the special commission
procedure (1) breaches the purpose of the law; and (2)
this delay, both at hospitals and in other intrastate business,
can only result in increased friction and a deterioration in
the relationship between employer and employees.

The poliqy of the statute enunciated in Section 1 can

best be served by having the representation issue for hospital

 

employees, as well as for those in other enterprises, be
decided as quickly as administratively possible.
The Special commission procedure for disputes

involving conditions of employment will remain in the statute.

SECTION 1 3b

‘wo suggest the per diem fee of $50.00 for members of
the Governor's Special Commissions be increased to $100.00.
The arbitrator's minimum fee is $100.00 and most charge an
excess of that amount. The $50.00 per day per diem was established
by the Legislature in 19h9, and has not been changed since.
'While members of the Governor's Special Commissions accept
appointments primarily as a public service, they should receive
recompense equal, or nearly equal, to amounts received by them in

private employment. With the elimination of Governor's Special

293

(Appendix K Cont.)
Commissions for representation disputes there will be fewer commissions

appointed.

SECTION 13g

The language providing that violation of an injunction
issued by a court in a hOSpital or public utilities diSputes
shall be punished by fine or imprisonment, has been eliminated.
No favor the amendment. The statute should not provide
criminal penalties. Neither unfair labor practices nor
violation of an injunction is a crime. The NLRA does not
contain criminal penalties.

The section provides that both walkouts and strikes
shall be illegal before the proceedings in Section 13a to 13e
have been completed or where applicable, completion of the
procedure contained in Section 90. Section 90 pertains to
jurisdictional disputes, and with an election under Section 9e
to determine the jurisdictional issue. This raises a question
as to whether a jurisdictional dispute is covered by the
Governor's Special Commission procedure. The text would
seem.to authorize a strike after the election under 90
even though no Governor's Commission had been appointed.

If hOSpitals are to be treated for representational purposes

as other employers, there would seem to be no reason for reference
to the Section 90. Thus a period could be placed after
"completed" and the words "or where the same is applicable,

before the completion of the procedure contained in Section 9." could

be stricken.

29h

(Appendix K Cont.)

SECTION 1h

Section 1h authorizes the closed, as distinguished
from the union, shOp.

There may be merit in following the federal pattern.
This would prohibit the closed shop, and authorize the union
shop with membership in industry generally required on the
basis of dues payment after 30 days, and in the contruction

industry after 7 days.

SECTION 15

This section was apparently placed in the statute
primarily to outlaw sit-down strikes.

The last sentence, which refers to criminal penalties,
should be deleted. we prefer that the activities listed in Section 15
not be conSidered as unfair labor practices with enforcement vested in
the board, but that they remain subject to enforcement by the Circuit

Courts.

SECTION 16

This section defines employer unfair labor practices
which, with some variation in wording, are the unfair labor
jpractices specified.in Section 8(a) of NLRA. The last sentence
of the section providing that violation shall be a misdemeanor
anuld be deleted. The principal difference between the Labor
Mediation Act and NIRA is that violations of Section 16 are

punishable as misdemeanors or through the equity powers of the

295

(Appendix K Cont.)
Circuit Courts, whereas under the NLRA the National Labor
Relations Board issues cease and desist orders, with enforcement
vested in the Courts of Appeals under the power to punish.
If the Board is to have cease and desist powers as
provided in Section 23, we believe it preferabme that the unfair
labor practices specified in Section 8(b) of NLRA be included

and that the language be changed to conform.with the NLRA.

SECTION 17
This section establishes employee unfair labor
practices and antedated the unfair labor practices of Section 8.
As stated in our discussion of Section 16, we believe
there is merit in using thelanguage of the NIRA, The last
sentence, which prbvides for criminal penalties, should be

eliminated.

SECTION 22
The criminal penalties are removed.from.subsections
(a) and (b). The last sentence of’Section 22 (c) which

refers to criminal penalties should also be deleted.

SECTION 23 (A)

This is a new provision which specified that violations
of the Act, except sections 9f, (listed as 9F), 15, and.17 shall
be deemed to be unfair labor practices which may be remedied by
the Board. We have sugg$ ted under Section 16 and 17 that

these sections be revised to follow the language of the NLRA

296

(Appendix K Cont.)
if the Board have power to remedy unfair labor practices of
22§h_employers and unions.

The subsection as written removes from the Board's
jurisdiction the practices Specified in sections 9f (picketing),
1S (sit-down strikes) and 17 (unfair organizing practices).
As:stated above we prefer that the practices specified in 9f and
15 223 be subject to Labor Mediation Board jurisdiction.
Consequently, the reference to Section 17 should be deleted,

exceptions being limited to sections 9f and 15.

SECTION 23 (B)

This section generally follows Section 10(b) of
NRLA. Pa'e 9, line 23 the word "him” should be "such person."
Page 10, line 2. The bill omits two provisions found in NRLA. One
makes both employer and labor organization responsible for
discrimination. The second.provides that labor relations
regulations shall be applicable whether or not a labor organiza-
tion affected is affiliated with national or international
labor organization. The first proviso has merit and should be
included. The second seems unnecessary. Page 10, line b. The

word "he" should read "such person".

SECTION 23(E) and (F)
Decision should be made as to whether appeal should be
to a Circuit Court as provided in the bill, or to the Court of

Appeals, consistent with the Federal practice. Page 11, line 11.

297

(Appendisz Cont.
The words "and of the question determined therein" after the
word "ceeding" are omitted. The phrase is included in NLRA. The
emission may not be important. Page 11, line 19: Page 12, line 8;
Page 13, line 10: NLRA refers to "substantial evidence". The
bill refers to "competent, material and substantial evidence."
Evidently the drafter seeks to give the Circuit Courts power to
determine whether the evidence submitted to the Board is
competent and material, as well as substantial. 'we foresee
difficulties of review if Circuit Courts have the power to determine
both competency and materiality as well as the substantial nature
of evidence. It seems doubtful that members of the Labor
Mediation Board are less qualified, particularly in the labor
relations area, to determine compentenqy and.materiality,

than the circuit judges.

SECTION 23 G)
Page 13, line 12. The word "subsections" should be
singular (subsection) as the reference is to "(e) or (f),

rather than (d) and (f)."

SECTION 23(I)

Page 1h, following line 2. Section 10(k) and 10(1) of
the NLRA are omitted. Section 10(k) and 10(1) and probably 10(m)
are necessary in the event the bill is amended to include unfair

labor practices as defined in NLRA.

SECTION 2 3 (K)

This section provides that the labor relations and

298

(Appendix K Cont.)
mediation functions of the Act shall be separately administered
by the Board.
'we are in accord with the principle but suggest it

be a separate section rather than part of section 23.

SECTION 2h
This section, which provides for criminal penalties,

should be deleted.

SECTION 25

The proviso in this section establishes a method of
mediation and fact finding which mgylbe adopted by public employers.
It has never been used.

we recommend that all the language after the word

"public" be deleted, and that a period replace the colon.

SECTION 26

This paragraph is patterned on Section 9(8) of NLRA.
The section adds two phrases "or by the majority of the employees
voting in an election conducted.pursuant to this Act" and
"and shall be so recognized by the employer". There is also
one elimination - the provision that a "group of employees"
shall have the right to present grievances to an employer.

we suggest that the section be revised to follow the

language of the NLRA. There seems to be no purpose in the changes.

299

(Appendix K Cont.)

COST OF SPECIAL COMMISSIONS FOR HOSPITALS

Year Hospital
Ju13;1, 1959, to June 30, 1960

August, 1959 Oakwood Hospital, Dearborn

January, 1960 Grand Rapids Osteopathic Hospital,
Grand Rapids

March, 1960 Mount Carmel Hospital, Detroit
*.*.* * *.*.* * *'*‘* *

July,1,,1960, to June_30,_1961

October, 1960 Flint Osteopathic Hospital, Flint

November, 1960 Port Huron General Hospital, Port
Huron

December, 1960 Edith Thomas Haynes Hospital and
Linda L. Convalescent Home,

Detroit

June, 1961 Pine Rest Christian Association Hos-
pital, Gran d Rapids

June, 1961 Mt. Carmel Hospital, Detroit

*.*1* * * *.*.*,* *'*-*
July 1, 1961,,to June 30, 1962

July, 1961 Mt. Lebanon Hospital, Detroit
September, 1961 Sidney Sumby Hospital, Detroit
November, 1961 'Wbman's Hospital, Detroit
March and April,
1962 Sparrow Hospital, Lansing
* *‘r * *'*1* * *’*-*‘*

July 1, 1262, to June 30, 1963

August, 1962 Mt. Carmel Hospital, Detroit
November, 1962 Bloomfield Hospital and Hospital
and Sanatorium.Guild
January, 1963 St. Joseph Hospital, Flint
February, 1963 St. Mary's Hospital, Livonia
lbw, 1963 Children's Hospital, Detroit

Carried Forward

Amount Total

$1,2A7.AB

573.u8
966.70 $2,787.66

1,311.93

936.7h

1,296.28
M 5,527.50

1,22u.65
710.35
616.59

2,591.01 5,1u2.6o

809.00

356.26
1.u71.30
1,053.17
2,§85.A3 6,375.16

$19,832.92

300

(Appendix K Cont.)

Cost of Special Commissions for Hospitals

 

IZZr Hospital Amount
Brought Forward

July, 1961 to May, 1965

September, 1963 woman's Hospital, Detroit 90h.73
October, 1963 Flint Osteopathic Hospital, Flint 315.12

October and
November, 1963Detroit Osteopathic Hospital, Detroit 1,06h.55

October and Henry Ford (Local 79) HOSpital, 1,512.75
November, 1963 Detroit
November, 1963 Grace Hospital, Detroit 1,h16.05
February, 1961:, Henry Ford (Local 299) Hospital, 1458.75
Detroit
October, 196R Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital, 1,52h.85
Pontiac
December, 196h Saratoga Hospital and 700.00
St. John's Hospital
December, 196R Park Community Hospital 955.25
March, 1965 bebury—Grand Hospital 1,322.25
May, 1965 Grace Hospital 960.00
Total
SUMMARY
1959 - 1960 S 2,787.66
1960 - 1961 5,527.50
1961 - 1962 5,1h2.60
1962 - 1963 6,375.16
1963 - 196h 5,671.95
196A - 1965 ,5,L62.35 (to be-196N)

 

Total $30,967.22

Total

$19,832.92

11 13A.30
$30,967522

I.

301

APPENDIX L-

RESOLUTIONS OF THE MEA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MEA PROCEDURE FOR NEGOTIATION

9.

10.

11.

Adopted by Board of Directors, March 28, 1963.

tructure - each district should have a Professional
Negotiation Committee

Responsibility of Local Association - negotiate with the
board on working conditions, contracts, salaries, and
dismissals. Make every effort to settle all problems.
If fail - use this procedure:

The committee submits in writing to the Board a request for
a.meeting.

‘Within some time limit, the parties agree on time and place.

Party'requesting the meeting will submit written prOposals and
provide all important information.

Parties agree.

Parties disagree - a mediation board should be established -
one member selected by the board, one by the association, the
third by these two.

Mediation Board procedures - have 1h days to settle. If no
agreement is reached, the board prepares written recommenda-
tions and the parties vote on these.

Referral to state level - to joint'MEAéMASB committee.

Sanctions against local association - if it does not accept
recommendations of joint committee, the MEA may:

a. withdraw services to the local association

b. inform local Boavd of Education that it may withdraw
from.any'further negotiation with local association
for the balance of the school year

c. offer Placement Bureau and other services to Board to
help fill any vacancies that arise from this situation

Sanctions against Board of Education - if Board refuses joint
recommendations or refuses to negotiate in any step:

a. IMEA may notify Board that issues and facts of the case
will be publicized locally and state wide

b. Advise MEA members of the situation

c. Notify all Placement Bureaus and request non-placement
in schools

II.

12.

302

(Appendix L Cont.)

d. Notify Michigan Committee of North Central Association
e. Netify Secretary School Accrediting Agency

f. Notify MASP

g. Request investigation by NEA

Records of activities and recommendations - filed with
Executive Secretaries, MASB and MEA.

MEA PRINCIPLES FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION

1.

8.

Ad0pted by Board of Directors, February 1, 196b.

Members of the teaching profession must have the legal
right to negotiate on salaries and conditions of employ-
ment.

Boards of Education and representatives of the teaching
profession shall negotiate in good faith.

The right to voluntary agreement between local associations
and boards of education shall be preserved.

The right of appeal shall be provided.where impasses are
reached.

Procedures shall be provided to select negotiating repre-
sentatives.

‘Where negotiations break down at an appeal level, fact-
finding shall be provided.

Negotiations and fact-finding shall remain on an advisory
level.

Provision should be included which shall deny the right to
strike.

303

(Appendix L Cont.)

III. BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTImT
Adopted by Board at meeting March h-S, 1966.

The Board of Directors of the Michigan Education Association
adopted a resolution which:
1. Opposed the issuance of individual teachers' contracts until
group negotiations have been completed.

2. Provided for the imposition of local and state sanctions,
with a request for national sanctions, against any school
district not completing negotiations before the start of
school next fall, upon the request of the local association
and upon approval of the MEA Board.

3. Supported.any local MEA affiliate which, in the absence of a
master contract agreement, chooses to withhold teacher
services.

,9

10.

11.

12.

13.

1h.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

301+

APPENDIX M
TEACHER ORGANIZATION ACTIVISTS' QUESTIONNAIRE
Age: 21-30______ 31 -h0____ 1.11 -50_____ Over 50_______
Sex: Male______ Female—
Marital Status: Married___ Single____ Widowed or diverced____

Number of children: One Two Three Four Five or more
(where applicable)
Educational achievement: Bachelor's Master's M.A.+30 Doctorate .

What portion of your college (undergraduate) expenses did you earn yourself?
Nil 0-10% 10-25% 25-50% 70-75% 75-100%

Are you a veteran of the armed forces: Yes No.

Number of years of teaching experience: Nil 1—5 6-10 11-15
16-20 20-30 Over 30

Number of years of administrative (above level of classroom teacher) experience:
Nil 1-5 6—10 11-15 16-20 20-30 Over 30

 

Your teaching field: Elementary Secondary' College
Area of specialization

 

Are you currently teaching (in addition to your organization duties):
(Please disregard summer errployment.) Yes No

Were you born in the United States: Yes No.

 

Were your parents born in the U.S.: Yes No One parent only

 

In how large a town or city were you raised: Under 500 SOD-1,000
1,000-5,000 5,000~10,000 10,000-50,000 '“58,000-250,006"'
Over 250,000 "'

 

How would you classify your wage-earning parent: White-collar
Blu e-collar Professional

Please indicate with (M) and (F) both parents' educational achievement:
Less than 8 years Completed 8 years Completed high school
Attended college Graduated college Post-graduate degrees

How many children did your parents have, including yourself:
One Two Three Four Five or more

How many of'these (see #17), including yourself, attended college:
One We Three Four Five or more

Church affiliation: Catholic Protestant Other

Approximately how many professional organizations do you belong to:
One Two Three Four Five or more

 

 

305

(Appendix M Cont.)

21. Approximately how many social organizations do you belong to:
One Two Three Four Five or more

22. Please list your'three favorite hobbies: A

B

23. Please list your three favorite sports: A
B

C

2h. Approximately how many professional books do you have in your personal
library:

 

25. Approximately how many professional magazines and/or journals do you
subscribe to:

 

26. Please write a very brief statement telling how you became interested
in becoming involved in your present organization:

Again, a sincere "thank you" for your help.

Collecting
Wbodcarving
PhilateLy
Dramatics
Home‘workshop
Photography
Tropical Fish
Debating
Yard Nbrk
Listening to others
music

Writing
Ceramics
Lapidary
Cooking

‘Work
Negotiations
Camping

No Time
Remodeling
Ponw'Training
Art - Painting
IMonew'
Farming

Reading

MEA
No.

35

1b

306

APPENDIX N
HOBBIES
MFT
%. No.
10.9 0
2.2 0
2.2 0
2.2 0
8.7 1
2.2 1
2.2 0
2.2 0
8.7 0
2.2 0
19.0 1
2.2 1
2.2 0
2.2 0
2.2 0
L3 1
2.2 0
8.7 1
2.2 0
2.2 0
2.2 O
h.3 2
2.2 O
2.2 O
30-h 7

BR

7.1
7.1

7.1
7.1

7.1

7.1

1h.2

50.0

TOTAL

No.

35

21

58.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
8.3
3.3
1.6
1.6
6.6
1.6

16.6
3.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
5.0
1.6
8.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
6.6
1.6
1.6

35.0

307

(Appendix N Cont.)

MBA I-IF'I‘ Total
No. % No. % No. %
Knitting 1 2.2 o 1 1.6
Bridge 3 6.5 O 3 5-0
Jazz Records 1 2.2 0 1 1.6
Travel 5 10.9 2 111.2 7 11.6
Cards 1 2.2 1 7.1 2 3.3
Stock Market 1 2.2 O 1 1 .6
Educational Affairs 2 1.1.3 0 2 3.3
Sewing 2 11.3 0 2 3-3
Theater 1 2.2 0 1 1 .6
Politics 1 2.2 1 7.1 2 3.3
Watch Horse-Racing 1 2.2 0 1 1.6
Barbershop Quartet 1 2.2 O 1 1.6
Model Building 2 14.3 1 7.1 3 5.0
Pottery 1 2.2 0 1 1.6
Sculpture 1 2.2 0 1 1 .6
Shooting 1 2 . 2 0 1 1 .6
Nature Study 1 2.2 o 1 1.6
Tape Recording 1 2.2 0 1 1.6
Walking 0 1 7.1 1 1 .6
Family 0 1 g 7.1 1 1.6

Television 0 1 7 .1 1 1 . 6

Football
Hockey
Basketball
Baseball
Golf
Bowling
Swimming
Softball
Riding Horseback
Soccer
Sailing
Boating
.Dancing
Hunting
(Archery
'Volleyball
Skiing
Tennis
Horseshoes
Fishing
Bicycling
Table Tennis
Skating

All Sports
Fly Model Airplanes

308

APPENDIX 0

FAVORITE SPORTS

MEA
No.
25
9
13
1 S
17
13
8

10

www

Sh.3
19.6
28.11
32.6
37.0
28.h
17.11
13.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
11.3
2.2
21.7
2.2
6.5
6.5
11.3
2.2
15.2
2.2
6.5
2.2

10.9
2.2

EFT
No .
6

N :‘UJ U1 5" O

%
h2.8

28.6
35.7
21.11
28.6

1h.2

7.1

7.1

7.1

7.1

7.1

Total

No.

31

17
20
2O
17
1O

10

www

51.?
15.0
28.3
33.3
33.3
28.3
16.6
11.6
1.6
1.6
3.3
3.3
1.6
16.6
1.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.6
13.3
1.6
5.0
1.6

10.0
1.6

309

(Appendix 0 Cont.)

”EA PM Total

No. % No. z No.
30mg 0 1 7.1 1
Ice Boating o 1 7.1 1

1.6
1.6

310

APPENDIX P

TEACHER STATEMENTS SUGGEBTING REASONS WHY THEY BECAME INTERESTED IN
ACTIVE." LEADERSHIP IN TEACHER ORGANIZATIONS

The respondents replied to the questionnaire request as follows:

"For years, membership in the MEA was more or less expected.
Later, after Blue Cross dropped the group in this school system,
the MEA insurance became the main reason, other than the fact
that it was considered the 'professional' organization. When
the new law allowing teachers to negotiate for a master contract
went through, several of the MEA members, including the presi-
dent, and several important committee chairmen started pushing
for the local teachers' club to drop the affiliation with the
MEA and go with the EFT instead. It was agreed to meet with
representatives of both youps to hear what each had to offer.
I volunteered to arrange for the MEA speaker, the second to be
heard. When the dissident I-IEA members passed out MFR membership
forms and related material at the first meeting and didn't even
bother to attend the second meeting, my temper began to boil.
When the letter of resignation from these members came out the
morning after the second meeting, I hit the roof. It was probably
one of the quickest conversions from an also-ran MEA member into
an active one. By appointment of the new MEA.president (the former
vice president) I became vice president and chairman of the negotia-
ting committee. ter winning the election to determine which grouP
was to represent the teachers in negotiating, we spent the rest of
the spring and summer working out the new master agreement with the
board of education. I was elected president of the local MEA chapter
for the past year and amalso still serving as chairman of the nego-
tiating committee."

"Dignity, self-reSpect and justice. To achieve them, the
school system needed a program and the program merited my sup-
port."

"Saw that it was doing the job of correcting the teachers'
image and financial status so I took the lead."

"Cousin in teaching belonged. Teachers at first assignment
who were involved."

"Served as a building representative for one year. Also a
member of negotiating team. No one wanted to be president so I
took it for one year. Today, with collective bargaining, each
office of any organization (teachers) is a full time job. How-
ever, it has been a wonderful experience and this past year was
just the beginning for teacher advancement."

"There was a job that had to be done and no one was doing it
the way I thought it should be cone. So I started doing it on a
local level then got interested in a wider area."

3L1

(Appendix.P Cont.)

"Our organization lacked a movement forward just befbre the
new laW'went into effect. I couln't sit back and do nothing and
let it sink. My‘ involvement took more time than I was really
willing to give, but I gave it anywas. An understanding family
made it all possible. At the present time I am not activeky in-
volved. Teachers as professionals today cannot afford to let
'John' or 'Mary' do it. Everyone has to help. I will become
'active' again as the need presents itself."

"Every teachers has an obligation."

"Being one of the older teachers and good at organization
I was the reason for conflict over MEA or AFT was the lack
of leadership.

The small town of ..... would not accept the word 'Union'
so I went to work and promoted MEA."

"The organization was at a standstill and everyone had the
'let John do it' attitude. I became involved and got a lot of
'Johns' doing things."

"Started out bound for school administration__became active
in organization work. Saw great opportunities for advancement__
became very disenchanted with school administration and adminis-
trators in general__became dedicated to teachers and their prob-
lems."

"I felt an urgent need to cooperatively initiate a change
in existing educational policies so that the traditional lag in
education could be brought into focus with the current needs of
all educators."

"I started by helping out on salary committee work. The more
involved I got, the greater I saw what the needs were. I ended up
by becoming president of the local MEA and head of the negotiating
team"

"I feel there are changes taking place in education and the
direction it is taking. I cannot complain with constructive
criticism unless I am willing to work in the realm of my profes-
sional beliefs. Naturally this means working through the channels
of an organization.

"I believe that education and the children in particular are
being hurt in the attitudes taken by those persons having the con-
trolling power to make change and opportunities available to the
Inass. 'we are not meeting the needs. Educators and the 'right'
jpeople do not care. I feel there are answers, but I find myself
fighting within myself about how involved I should become."

. "I have been interested for some time in collective bargain-
ing and especially for teachers."

312

(Appendix'P.Cont.)

"I guess I am that kind of person. When you belong to an
organization you have obligations to it."

"About my third year of teaching I became aware that I
must quit teaching or change the job into a profession.

"I then could not afford to stay in teaching both from
the standpoint of salary and what I had to work with, over-
crowded classes, insufficient materials, etc.

"I then began active work in my professional organiza-
tion, which is the vehicle I use to change conditions. The
job is about one-fourth done!"

"Interest was lagging and no one was willing to do the work
involved in making the organization work effectively, so I de-
cided to try."

"I could not stand being in the Federation (which I was for
a year). Their philosophy concerning administration is bad."

"There was a job that needed doing and I inquired as to how
it might get done. I found out quickly that the best way to get
something done was to do it myself. I've been doing so ever since
and in the field of education it is clear that we‘re never going
to run out of jobs that need to be done."

"I have always felt an obligation to the profession
to do whatever I could to enhance it."

"I felt it ‘was my duty to serve when asked and have tried
to raise our professional standards."

"When there is a job to be done, let's get out and do it.
First I was elected building representative, then vice President
(automatic) president, then region delegate, region treasurer.
Knowing what goes on outside and bgygnd your own little community
helps to know what should be done at your own local."

"There was and is a need to improve the provession for a better
society, as well as the immediate needs of children and teachers. I
felt a duty to do whatever I could to help, especially since so few
others seemed concerned about the problems."

"While attending college I felt that if a person is going to
be in a profession that he should be willing to put forth some
effort in order to see that the organization keeps going. There-
fore, I became active while I was attending college.

. "At the end of my'first year of teaching, the present organi-
zation which I'm now involved with, needed a publicity person so
‘when I was asked, I accepted."

313

(Appendix P Cont.)

"I became interested in MEA during college. Upon leaving I
was very active in ..... county for four years. Upon entering
nw' present system I found the teachers to be a very close knit
unit interested in the advancement of the teaching profession.

I became very active at the outset of my present employment.
PA 379 gave us (teachers) a chance to be on an equal level with
administration and the board of education GOOD about time.
I have been president for theee years and negotiating team for
two. I will continue."

"I enjoyed the leadership possibilities that involvement in
this organization presented. I support the causes of this or-
ganization and others like it throughout the state."

"After working in an advisory capacity with my superintendent,
I became convinced that the betterment of the position of the
teacher would have to come from the teachers themselves. The ad-
ministration is too concerned with maintaining the "status quo"
in education. Therefore, only a strong, grass-roots movement of
the teachers will result in the improvement of the teaching pro-
fession."

"Through a mutual friend."

"Self-preservation! Our unit was slowly sinking in the sun-
set, facing our first S.L;M. election. I could no longer sit
back and watch the AFT take over."

"After working in industry for several years and assisting
in industrial organization it was only natural to become involved
in teacher organization. I would need to write a book to explain
the many fallacies and traditions that have become unbearable in
teaching under the recent and present administration policies."

"I was interested in raising teaching standards and improv-
ing teacher salaries."

"I wanted to do my part in making education a decent occupa-
tion for men."

"Just being a part of it accepting small jobs first and
then more responsibility2"

"Salary and lack of adequate teaching conditions."

"I became interested in the ..... because the ..... was doing
nothing in our system to improve the quality of education or the
benefits of the teachers.

"No one ‘was willing to challenge the board of education and
the suPerintendent. The ..... was controlled almost completely
by" older teachers who were members of two income families, and in
many cases did not have a Bachelor's degree

"The year the ..... came into power, a large number of young
teachers came into the system. They gave me much support."

_._ “Wm—...

314

(Appendix:P Cont.)
"I was elected president of our employee organization."

"I have been active in my organization since 1950. First
as a delegate then chairman of ethics committee."

"Began working on Teps committee and decided I would like
to offer my help in achieving the goals of the organization."

"Was elected by membership. 'Friends' persuaded me to get
involved when I would voice opinions contrary to what was happen-
ing in the organization."

"More or less because, in everything I participate in, I am
sooner or later chosen the leader."

"Concern for improvements in monetary and non-monetary con-
ditions of employment. Also concerned that teacher image was
becoming more blue-collared instead of the other direction."

"I was not pleased with what the teachers were doing and how
they were doing it. I felt I could contribute with logic and
creative ideas which others did not possess or exhibit. I have
great organizational abilities and thought that I should use them
to better my position and that of other teachers."

"I belonged to the organization since college. I was on
several committees through the years as a matter of profes-
sional responsibility. At the time of PA 379 I was salary com-
mittee chairman and chief negotiator. I then progressed through
vice president and president and kept my job as chief negotiator."

"It was a rare opportunity to actually contribute something
positive."

"I detested female teachers who were so happy to work for
next to nothing. I was forced to tend.bar for nine years. I
believe the only hope of the teaching profession is through or-
ganization."

"After several of us failed in getting approval for several
curricular changes and supplies, I became active as a building
representative and later as salary chairman."

"I had been active in my organization holding offices and
attending conferences. Being a member of the negotiating team
came as a result of that plus being a long-time faculty member in
the same school. Probably it was also a result of the process of
elimination. Not too many are willing to serve from our small
faculty'and.I never did know how to say 'no' firmly."

"Concern with working conditions and desire for rabble-
rousing."

315

(Appendix P Cont.)

"I became interested in the teachers' union as soon as I
heard it existed, in the early’ thirties which were my early
years as a teacher in the ..... schools."

"I have a major in political science and have always had a
great interest in organizational work, politics, and people. The
ineffectiveness of my local professional organization prompted me
to run for an office after serving on several committees."

"First, I was elected to the negotiations team a year ago.
Last year I was elected president of our organization and became
very involved as my interest grew. I was re-elected to the presi-
dency for the next year and I accepted because anything I can do to
help my" profession become more professional means that the children
of my'community cannot help but profit from.it."

"I have been a member of the united profession since beginning
teaching. I like to think because I feel a moral responsibility to
my profession__and.prior to accepting my present position had always
been willing to serve in any' capacity asked."

"The first year of teaching, more experienced teachers impressed
upon first year teachers the responsibility of taking an active role
in our teacher organization. In three years I was the organization's
representative. In four years I was finance chairman. In six.presi-
dent and chairman of the negotiation team.

"As an individual I was dissatisfied with what was happening
and felt I should try to make a contribution."

"A combination of interest and circumstance. Building level
activity which eventually led to union activity at the local lead-
ership level. Exposure to activities created more interest etc.
etc. As simple as that no great design or plan on my part."

"I saw the need for greater unity among teachers insofar to
raise our'wages. The caliber of teachers that have been coming
into our profession is a disgrace. Bath. greater professional unity,
I am.hopeful we will be able to be appealing to the future genera-
tion."

"I have always been interested in organization activities since
becoming an educator. My interest is primarily motivated by politi-
cal interest. I would like very much to run for some public office."

316

APP E1 DIX Q

GREA BRIEF*
ARGUMENT

(1.) The Michigan Public Employment Relations Act guarantees the

 

right of public employees, includingisupervisors, to join labor organiza-
tions....

(a) The Michigan Statute: Supervisors are within the terms
of "public employees" as defined in the Act. Section 2 of the Act(1) defines
a "public employee" as any:

person holding a position by appointment or eme (2)
ployment . . . in the public school service . . .

Since a supervisor is a "public employee", it must follow that
supervisors are entitled to all of the rights established by Section 9

of the Act. Packard Motor Car Company v. NLRB, 350 U.S. h85 (19h6).

 

Section 9 of the Act states that:

It shall be lawful for public employees to organize
together or to form, join or assist in labor organi-
zations, to engage in lawful concerted activities

for the purpose of collective negotiation of bargain-
ing or other mutual aid and protection, or to negotiate
or bargain collectively with their public employers
through representatives of their own free choice.

 

(1) Act 335 of the Public Acts of 191.7, as amended by Act 379, Public
Acts of 1965, (Section 17, hSS (2), M. S. A.).

(2) This section of the Act defines those persons who shall not strike,
but it is clear that the definition is to be used throughout the Act.
Following the above quote, the section state - "hereinafter referred
to as public employees". See generally, Garden City School v.
ggebor Board, 385 Michigan 258, 262 (1959)

 

* Source: Edited Abstract of, Brief of Grand Rapids Education Associa-
tion, State of Michigan, labor Mediation Board, Case
Nu"nb' er 0651,37. (Undated)

 

317

(Appendix Q Cont.)

The foregoing sections establish that a supervisor, as a public
employee, may become a member of a labor organization since all public
employees are given the right to join together for the purposes Specified
in the Act. California Packing Co., 59 NLRB 9&1); Tennessee Copper,

9 NLRB 117 (1938); Climax Engineering 00., 66 NLRB 1360 (19h6);‘W§£d
Bakinngompamy, 8 NLRB 558 (1938)(3), The supervisors, we submit, have
more than a privilege of joining an employee labor organization - but
rather an affirmative right. .2212! Mere membership in the labor organ-
ization by supervisors cannot, therefore, amount to domination, inter-
ference, support or contribution of that labor organization by the em,
ployer(h). The right of a SUpervisor to become a member of the rank
and file organization would be meaningless if it could be held that the

granting of the right would automatically constitute employer domination.

It is inconceivable that the Michigan Legislature intended such a result.

 

(3) When the NLRA was amended in 19h? to exclude supervisors from.the
definition of "employees", Congress continued to recognize the
advisability of allowing supervisors to join a labor organization
and specifically granted this right in Section 1h (a) of the NLRA
(Labor-Management-Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.c.§§ 152,
16h (19h7). The purpose of the amendment was not to prohibit
domination of the union by the employer, but to prevent domination
of the supervisors by the rank and file of the union to which the
supervisor belonged. H. Rep. No. 2&5, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.

114 (19117); 93 Cong- Rec. 3553 (1911?)

(h) See Southshore Packing Corp., 73 NLRB 1116, 113k (19h?) where the
NLRB decided that there can be no inference of employer domination
or interference drawn from the fact that supervisors were members
of the union because the supervisors, as employees, were entitled
to join the union of their choice.

318

(Appendix Q Cont.)

(b) If it is held that supervisors may not be included in the
bargaining unit, it does not follow that they must be excluded from the
employee labor organization. It is important to note that we are not
claiming that a supervisor should be included in the bargaining unit - -
we are only stating that the supervisor has a right to belong to the
labor organization designated to represent the unit. ‘§;_§,,‘Qlim§§

Engineering Co., 66 NLRB 1359 (19h6). we are not addressing ourselves

 

to the question of whether or not sopervisors should be in the unit - -
'we are only stating that they have a right to be in the labor organization
irrespective of the make-up of the bargaining unit. This position
obviously assumes that there are certain purposes for belonging to a
labor organization other than the right to bargain collectively; This
concept, we submit, is recognized by the Act itself.

Section 9 illustrates that the Act recognizes rights other than the
rights to collective negotiation. Public employees are allowed to organ-
ize together or to form, join or assist in labor organizations for the
purpose of either:

1) Engaging in lawful concerted acti-
ties for

a. the purpose of collective
negotiation or bargaining;
23_

2) To negotiate or bargain collectively
with their public employers through
representatives of their own free
choice.

Thus, supervisors and other employees are granted the right to

organizexor to form, join, or assist in a labor organization in order

319

(Appendix Q Cont.)
to engage in lawful concerted activities for mutual aid and protection
other than for collective bargaining...(5).

The purpose of the state and federal labor legislation in regard to
domination and sopport is to protect the employees' bargaining rights
from impairment by the employer through control of the bargaining
representative. (e.g., NLRB v; Griswold.Mfg. Co., 106 F2d 713 (3rd
Cir. 1939).) If a labor organization permits supervisors to be active
participants in the labor organization and the supervisors do not part-
icipate in the negotiation process, no claim.can be asserted that the
inclusion of supervisors with other employees violates even the spirit
of the law...

As stated by the NLRB in Climax Engineering7Co., 66 NLRB, 1359,
1360 (19h6)=

Section 7 of the Act protects the right of supervisory
employees as well as of rank and file employees to
become and ramain members of and to bargain col-
lectively with their employer through any'labor

organization of their own free choice. Because,
under given circumstances, organizational activity

 

(5) See Climax Engineering 09., 66 NLRB, 1359 where it was stated at
p. 13608that: "Meyer & Engstrom.maintained their membership in
the union after becoming supervisory employees because of their
desire to enjoy certain legitimate union benefits and to qualify
for work in other plants should the occasion arise. This they
had a right to do." and further at 1361-62 "The supervisors here
became and remained.members of the union, not necessarily to secure
collective bargaining rights, but rather to retain benefits built
up as rank and.file workers or to protect their Opportunity to
semure work should they, at some future date, return to the rank
and file.

320

(Appendix Q Cont.)

by supervisors may unduly influence the rank and

file by reason of the supervisor's economic power

over subordinates, we are often required to balance
the needs and interest of supervisory employees in
self-organization and collective bargaining against
the needs of the rank and file for unfettered freedom
in their self-organizational endeavors, and to arrive
at an accommodation between them. But that problem/
is not present where sppervisors do no more than

join a labor organization or authorize it to represent
them for collective bargaining purposes. But we do
not believe that normally rank and file employees
could justifiably conclude from.the:mere fact that a
supervisor is a member of a labor organization, that
his allegiance to the organization might effect his judg-
ment concerning subordinates who favor or oppose that
organization. (Emphasis added)

 

Also see Administrative Decision of General Counsel, 1960, CCH NLRB
Paragraph 9281, Case #SR-860.

The fact that mere membership of a supervisor in a local does not
violate the spirit of the law has received even more general recogni-
tion when the union covers more than a single establishment, possesses
economic strength, and is affiliated with an independent state and
local organization. 2g” NLRB v. Griswold. m, Cappenter Steel
29., 76 NIRB 670 (19118)...

(c) 'Wisconsin has ruled that the inclusion of supervisors
in the union does not constitute an unfair labor practice.

The'Wisconsin Ehployment.Relation Board in westhilwaukeeewest Allis
‘Federation of Teachers v. Joint City School District #1, Wisconsin
Employment Relation Board, No. 65th (1963), was faced with exactly the
same issue as is posed by this case. The Complaining Party charged
domination of a local labor organization (and its state's parent organ-

ization ) because of the inclusion of supervisors in the respective

 

 

321

(Appendix Q Cont.)
organizations. The Superintendent of Schools, along with other super-
visors, was a member of the local Association. In deciding that
neither the state nor the local organization was employer dominated, the
Board stated:
There is nothing in Section 111, 70 (similar to the Michigan
Act) which provides that mere membership of supervisors
in a labor organization contaminates that organization
for purposes under the statute. The fact that supervisory
personnel are members of, or may hold office in, any
labor organization subject to the provisions of Section 111, 70
may raise a suspicion but does not in itself establish
domination or interference with the organization by the
municipal employer employing such supervisory personnel...

(0.) Interppetation of Public Employment Relations Act in light
of NLRA and Michigan Labor Mediation Act:

The Michigan Legislature, in enacting the Public Employment
Relations Act, had both the NIRA and the Michigan Labor Mediation Act to
use as guides. Both these Acts Specifically exclude supervisors from the
definition of "employees". The ultimate exclusion of supervisors from
the definition of employees in the NIRA took place in 19117, the NLRA
was similar to the present Michigan Act in that supervisors were included
within the definition of public employees.

Since the present MIRA and the Michigan Labor Mediation Act exclude
supervisors from the definition of employees, the legislature, in the
enactment of the Public Employment Relations Act, mmst have meant to
allow supervisors the same rights as granted to all other "public employees."
Had the legislature intended to exclude supervisors from the irovisions

of. the Act, it would have been a simple matter to follow the guidelines

established by the NIRA and the Labor Mediation Act. The exclusionary

 

322

(Appendix Q Cont.)
language was there to be adopted, but it was not followed. The obvious
import of this action is that the legislature intended to grant super-

visory employees the right to join employee organizations. See West-Allis

 

Federation of Teachers v. Joint City School District #1, sppra.

 

 

(2.) ThedRights of Supervisors to Join Emplgyee Organizations Has

Been Established by Past History and Custom:

 

(a) The NLRB's recognition of differences in certain in-
dustries:
It has long been a practice in certain industries for the supervisory
and rank and file employees to be in the same unit for bargaining purposes.

(See Union Membership and Collective Bargaining by Foremen, U.S. Department

 

of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin #7u5, (19h3).) The NLRB
has repeatedly approved such action. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation,
66 NLRB too-u01 386 (19h6). For practices in the printing industry, see

IMastercraft Corp., 60 NLRB 56, 58 (19h5): Service Printers, Inc., St

 

NLRB 1082 (19th): A.S. Abell Company, St NLRB 62, (19th): R. R. Donnelley
and Sons Company; 60 NLRB, 635 (19h5). For practices in the maritime
industry, see Ohio Barge Line, Inc., 59 NLRB, 15h, 156 (19hh): Also see
Constitution of American Federation of Technical Engineers.

The unionization of foremen with the rank and file has deveIOped in
a satisfactory fashion. As stated by the NLRB in Jones and Laughlin Steel

Corporation, 65 NLRB 286, hOO-h01 (19h6):

 

The unionization of fbremen, particularly by affiliates
of rank and file unions, raise a number of difficult
problems in the field of labor relations. These pro-
blems are not, however, infallible, this is attested
by the experience of several industries where collective

 

'11

Ill

 

 

 

 

 

323

(Appendix Q Cont.)

bargaining for foremen by the same union that represents

rank and file employees has existed for many years,

in Great Britian as well as in the Unites States. There

is no reason to believe that similar satisfacotory solutions

cannot be reached in other industries.
At note 27 of the Jones and Lapghlin decision cited above, a quotation from
"How Collective Bargaining works", New York, 20th Century'Fund, (edited by
Harry'Am Miller) (19&2, pages 67, 68, 1&7, describes the successful col-
lective bargaining process in the printing industry where both supervisors
and the rank anf file are allowed in the same bargaining unit.

One reason why the industries described above have been allowed to
combine supervisors and the rank and file in the same collective bargaining
unit is because this had been the historical practice of the respective
industries prior to the adoption of the Act. A similar historical precedent
exists in the teaching profession. It is important to note that for purposes
of resolving the present posture of this case, a determination need only be
made that certain SUpervisors can be members of, and participate in, the general
activities of the labor organization. 'we are not seeking, at this juncture,
to establish another profession or trade which would fall into the category
of the printing or maritime industries. 'We are using the logic of the print-
ing and maritime industry cases merely to strengthen our assertion that
supervisors must be assertion that supervisors must be allowed to join local
labor organizations. The statue itself, and the cases herein cited, demon-
strate clearly that supervisors are endowed with such a right. 'we need not

reach...nor do we here allege, that the right extends to inclusion within the

bargaining unit.

 

 

 

324

(Appendix Q Cont.)
(b) The history of public employment demonstrates that
sgpervisors mgy_belong to employee labor organizations:

In the federal service, supervisory employees are specifically
guaranteed the right to join any employee organization. Section 1(a)
of Executive Order 10988, dated January 17, 1962, outlines the program
for employee-management relations in the federal service. The section
provides, in part, that:

Employees of the federal government shall have
and shall be protected in the exercise of, the right,
freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, to
form, join and assist any labor organization or to
refrain from such activity.
(ERec. order No. 10988, 27 Fed. Red. 551 (1962) )
An analysis of the Executive Order prepared by the United States Civil
Service Commission offers the following comment on this section:
Question:
Should an agency prohibit supervisors and other
management officials from joining an employee or-
ganization which includes rank and file employees?
Answer: No. Section 1(a) makes it clear that all
employees shall have a right to join an employee

organization without any restraint whatsoever by
management.

(LRX at &&37)
The right of supervisory public employees to such membership on the

state and local levels has not been seriously questioned. Thus, the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFLPCIO,
one of the nation's largest public employee organizations, permits
SuPervrisors to join the local which includes the men whom they supervise.
The fact that labor relations in public employment as opposed to
private employment, must be treated differently is clearly articulated

in the report of the President's Task Force on Ehployee management

 

 

 

 

325

(Appendix Q Cont.)
Relations in the Federal Service, upon which the aforementioned
Executive Order was based. The report stated:

Despite the obvious similarities in many aspects
between the conditions of public and private employ-
ment, the task force feels that the equally obvious
dissimilarities are such that it would be neither
desirable nor possible to fashion a federal system
of employee management relations directly upon

the System that has grown Up in the private economy,
nor is it necessary.

(President's Task Force on Employee-Management
Relations in the Federal Service, A Policy for Employ-
ee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Service,

at 7(1961).)
President Franklin D. Roosevelt made essentially the same point
a quarter of a century earlier, when he wrote:

All government employees should realize that the
process of collective bargainingi’ausually understood,
cannot be transplanted into the public service.

(Letter from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Iuther C.
Stewart, President, National Federation of Fed-
eral Employees, August 16, 1937.)

Similarly, a special committee of the American Bar Association
appointed to study employment relations in the public service noted that:
Whatever practicable, the privileges accorded to
employees in private industry should be extended

to public employees, modified to meet the unique
needs of the public service . . .

 

(Erphasis Added) (ABA, 2nd Report of the Com-
mittee on Labor Relations of Government Employees,
at 1 (1955).)
The foregoing authorities all seem to recognize the facts...that

rigid labor principles gleaned from the industrial pattern do not

readily dovetail with the unique problems of public employment; that

- “tut?

326

(Appendix Q Cont.)
the divisive separation of supervisors from employee organizations is
not applicable to public employment, and that the feregoing axioms
have been long recognized at every level of public employment.

(0) A,pattern of allowing supervisors to belong to employee

 

organizations has been established in the teaching profession:

Both the NEAAMEA and the AFTAMFT have included supervisors within
their organizations. The record in this case proves the availability
of membership in the NBA-MEA. The recent DMB decision in School
District of the City of East Detroit, Number R651-&9, likewise indicates
that supervisors may join local units of the AFT-MFT.

Although we do not here claim that supervisors must be included
in the appropriate bargaining unit, there is evidence that this has been
done and is being done throughout the teaching profession. Mr. Michael
Maskow stated in December of 196& in an article entitled "Collective
Bargaining for Public School Teachers", 15 Labor Law Journal, 787, 791
(196A) that:

In some cases bargaining units have been limited

to classroom teachers, but other groups such as
guidance counsellors, nurses, attendance teachers,
department heads, and principals have been come
bined.with the teachers in many different combina-
tions. At times even the superintendent of schools

and assistant superintendent have been included in

a unit. Thus the principle established by the National
Labor Relations Board of excluding supervisors from
bargaining units has not been followed.

The case of West Milwaukee—West Allis Federation of Teachers v.

Joint City School District #1, supra, is further evidence of this

 

a?!

t . . . r
159a1rl1c'V.i

 

 

327

(Appendix Q Cont.
this trend in the teaching profession. At p. 21 of the decision, the
following language is noted:
It is true that various individuals employed as super-
visory personnel by various school districts through-
out the State of Wisconsin, who are not named as
parties herein, hold prominent and important offices
in Respondent WEA. we recognize that many organi-
zations, which represent municipal employees on
matters of wages, bonus and working conditions
with their municipal employers existed.long before
the enactment of Section 111, 70. Prior thereto such
organizations not only represented rank and file em-
ployees, but also employees who occupied administrative
and supervisory positions...

It may well come to pass, under the dictates of the statute, that
determinations will continue to be made, as in East Detroit, su ra,
that supervisors must be excluded from.the unit. Such a recognition
does not, however, command exclusion from the employee organization.
If the long history of vertical organizations is to be recognized, and
if mutual confidence is to continue as the integrative force in public

education, supervisors must be allowed, at a minimmm, to join together

with their teaching colleagues in the organization of their choice.

 

 

ammflaepoaoomv

hpomfi>nompm
HhoH0\HmHhmaonoom

enemas: .mpmwmoaoeo

mangowopv Henson
neon .

pofimfiphoo .P

soapmosom BHZD OZHZHdGMdm
mo venom he hfifloommvup Ema 2H mZOHmDHOZH

chasm
acoaessaese ace.

ca
.HO

 

«mo poahpmwn Hoonom

MNHdzchammbo BHZD uZHZHdwmdm

m NHQZHmm<

 

 

329

canvas momhoagso omosp Ham mm ooeawop on are even: weweflmweonz w amomoeasm nso aom# .oobflooaom.op has mmoohw meaeflmwewn opp
.moowaomuhmoh obese one“ oooflbfio ma :anoo Hm

segues momemno oHnHmmom_hem pomp whence Op mooeaog moans Haw cw HHHM mmmoam
.xeman op panamam neon obmoH.pem pm 309 oponEoo padoz ooh «weakened Hooeom mach ea pee: mcflcfimwhmn moo ea

uncapmeaomea norm
ooosaocfi one Homeomnom mayopommo pew anowaoHo\Hwflampoaomm «whopflcmw ameo>flho man we «oonpmGw pom .pfle: meweflwmamn one wee
1andEOo anomopwo o>amsaocfl pmos opp voodoo onto mane cw manomopwo moo can» once ea venom meshes moohoHQEo wo woman one use
ambfimsaoxo haaospzs ma huomopmo room .mzoa camouflaged one ea eompmenomew we» pso HHHM apoflapmflp Hooeom pooh :Hepfl3_pe:pm
Amvoahp one weapooaom amped .mEmpmaw Hoonom carve: venom on has powe3.*mpwep wefleflmmnmp mo hoax; oHpHmmom mo pmflfl m we obese

.poanpmflp Hoonom opp spa: peoEooamm pememoHQEo obwpooHHoo mammoMom m ohms 0:3 pew haobflpooaaoo commute om: moonw m

 

A.peoo m Newcomm<v

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agger, Carol. "The Government and Its Erployees." Yale Law Journal,
XLII (May, 1938), pp. 1109-1135.

Alaska Railroad, Board of Arbitration. "A Wage Award on the Alaska
Railroad." Monthly Labor Review, LXXXI (September, 1958),

pp . 965-9730

Allen, Roy B., and Schmid, John (eds.). Collective Negotiations and
Educational Achninistratigp. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University
of Arkansas, College of Education, and the University Council of

Educational Administration, 1966.

American Federation of Teachers. Collective Bargaining Contracts.
Chicago: American Federation of Teachers, 1962.

. A __S_ample Study of Coercion by School Administrators in
America. _Chicago: American Federation OFT eachers, no date.

 

Annot., 31 A.L.R. 1133-1180 (1953).

Amtidon, Beulah. "Strikes in Public Employment." Survgy Graphic,
now (May, 191.6), pp. 153-155, 182-181;.

Anderson Arvid. "The DeveIOping State of Collective Bargaining for
Public Employees." Address presented at the Conference on
Public Erployment and Collective Bargaining, University of
Chicago, February 5, 1965.

. "Disputes Affectin Government Employees." Labor Law
Journal, I (October, 1959?: pp. 701-711.

. "Evolving Patterns of Labor Relations in Public Employment.
Ebor Law Developments." Proceedin s of the 11th Annual Institute
of Labor Law Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1965,
pp. 209-225.

__ _. "Labor Relations in the Public Service." Wisconsin Law
Review, IV (July, 1961), pp. 601-635.

"Anti-Strike Legislation in Operation." Civil Service Law Reporter, I
(August, 1951), pp. 36-39.

331

332

Anrod, Charles W. "Postwar Labor Relations." A discussion of
"Collective Bargaining in the Public Service" by Joseph Mire.
American Economic Review, XXXVI (May, 19116), pp. 375-378.

Baldwin, Roger N. "Have Public Euployees the Right to Strike?
-- Yes." National Municipal Review, m (September, 19141),
pp- 515-517?

Bambrick, James J. , Jr., and Blum, Albert A. Labor Relations in the
Atomic Energz Field. ("Studies in Personna Policy, " No. 153.)
New York City: National Industrial Conference Board, 1957.

Barbash, Jack. "Bargaining for Professionals and Public Employees."
American Teacher Magazine, x1111 (April, 1959). pp. 7-8.

Baughman, J. D. "Bargaining with Employee Groups." Public Management,
XXIVIII (January, 1955), PP- 11.-5.

Bean, George E. "Organized Labor and the Council-Manager Plan: I.
Views of a City Manager." Public Managanent, XXIII (June, 1957),
pp. 122-125.

Becker, Harry A. "Role of School Administrators in Professional
Negotiations." American School Board Journal, CL (May, 1965),
pp. 9'10.

Belasco, James A. American Association of University Professors: A
Private Dispute Agerfl. (Reprint Series No. 17 . Ithaca:
Cornell University, New York State School of Industrial and Labor
Relations, pp. 535-553.

. Public Employee Dispute Settlement: The Wisconsin

erience: Collective Bargaining in 01L. (Reprint Series
No. 1 . Ithaca: Cornell University, New York State School
of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1966.

 

. "Resolving Disputes Over Contract Terms in the State
Public Service: An Analysis." Labor Law Journal, XVI

(September, 1965), pp. 533-5141;.

Belinker, Jerry. "Binding Arbitration for Government Employees."
Labor Law Journal, XVI (April, 1965), pp. 2311-236.

Betchkal, J. "N.E.A. and Teacher Unions Bicker and Battle for Recog-
nition." Nation's Schools, m (August, 19611): PP- 35-111.

Beyer, Otto S. "Bonneville Power and Labor." Survey Graphic, HIV
(October, 19,-l6), Pp. M‘Bha, 373-3714».

 

333

. "Entployee Relations in the Public Service - Present and
Future." Public Personnel Review, VII (January, 19116), p. 20.

Bilik, A. "Problems and Prospects for Organizing and Representing
Public Enployees." Address presented at the Conference on
Public Buployment and Collective Bargaining, University of
Chicago, February 5, 1965.

Birnbaum, Elliot. "Who Speaks for Teachers?" I.U.D. Digest, VII
(Summer, 1962), pp. 112-147.

BishOp, Edward. "Present Position of Collective Bargaining in the
Local Govermnent Services." Public Administration, XI

(January, 1933), PP- 79-85.

Blaine, Harry R., et. al. "Discipline and Discharge in the United
States Postal Service: Adverse Action and Appeal." Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, XVII (October, 1965), pp. 95-93.

. "The Grievance Procedure and Its Application in the
United States Postal Service." Labor Law Journal, XV (November,
196h), pp. 725-73h.

 

Blankenship, A. H. "Role of the Superintendent in Teacher Negotiations."
TheorLinto Practice, IV (April, 1965), pp. 70-711.

Block, Joseph W. "The Collection and Analysis of Collective Bargaining
Agreements." Montgy Labor Review, LEVEI (June, 1955), PP.
673-6780

Blum, Albert A. Nana ement and the White-Collar Union. (Research
Study No. 63., New York: American Managementissociation, 19614.

Bradley, Phillips. "Local Government Is News: XX; City Hall, Strikes,
and Collective Bargaining: Front Page Stuff." American City,
LVII (Decanber, 19112), pp. 73, 75.

. "Local Government Is News: XXV; City Hall, Strikes, and
Collective Bargaining: 2." American Gig, LVIII (January,
19h3). pp. 73, 75.

. "Local Government Is News: XXVI; City Hall, Strikes, and
fifiective Bargaining: 3." American City, LVIII (February,
19,-1.3).: PP- 611965.

. "The Human Side of City Hall: Collective Bargaining Again."
American City, LIX (March, 191111). Pp. 67, 69.

 

Brinker, Paul A. "Recent Trends of Labor Unions in Government."
Labor Law Journal, XII (January, 1961), pp. 12-22. 77-88.

334

Brooks, George. "A Case for Teachers Unions." Industrial and Labor
Relations Rgort Card for Social Science Teachers, XII (November,
1963), PP- ‘70

. Report and Findin s of the Conference on Enables-Management
Relations in the $5113 Service with Emphasis on New Yogk State and
Municipfi fllgyees. Ithaca: Cornell University, New York State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, October, 1961;.

Buder, L. "Teachers Revolt." Phi Delta Kappan, ILIII (June, 1962),
PP. 370'3760

Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Iabor-Managanent Relations in TVA."
Monthly Labor Review, LXIX (July, 19119), pp. h1-h2.

. Division of Wages and Industrial Relations. "Strike-Control
Provisions in Union Constitutions." Monthly Labor Review, LXXVII

(HEY, 195h)’ PP. h97'500.

Bureau of National Affairs. "Bar Association Report on Bargaining by
Teachers." Government Employee Relations Report, August 15, 1966,
pp. D‘1 " D-1Eo

. Government Emloyee Relations Report. Washington, D. 6.:
m, July 13, 19611, p. 2.

Burns, John E. "The Professional Employee Dilemma and the ropriate
Bargaining Unit." Labor Law Journal, XII (April, 1961 ,
PP- 303-307.

Burton, Donald B. Personnel Welfare Provisions for Public School
Teachers. Chicago: American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO),
March, 1966.

Caliguri, Joseph. "The Relationships of Teachers Organizations to the
Superintendent and the School Board." Unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1962.

Campfield, William L. "Motivating the Professional Employee: A
Reconciliation of Organizational Constraints and Incentives."
Personnel Journal, XLIV (September, 1965), pp. h25-h28.

Carpenter, Richard. "Collective Bargaining in Public Enployment."
Local Government Iaw Service Ietter, XII (October, 1962), pp. 1-5.

. "Organizing the Municipal Emloyee." Western City, XXXVI
(Jmuary, 1960), Pp. 21-22, 260

Case, Harry L. "Cornerstones of Personnel Administration." Personnel
Administration, 2: (January, 19119), pp. 10-12. """"""'""’

335

. "Past, Present, and Future Studies of Federal Personnel
Administration." Public Administration Review, XV (Spring,
1955). pp. 96-101.

 

. "Wage Negotiation in the Tennessee Valley Authority."
PuElic Personnel Review, VIII (July, 19,47): PP. 132-138.

Caskey, Clark C. "White Collar Employees -- A Union Dilemma and a
Management Challenge." Management of Personnel Quarterly, 1
(Spring, 1962), pp. 10-13.

Centner, James L. "Hospitals and. Collective Bargaining." Personnel
Journal, XXXVIII (November, 1959), pp. 203-205. """“"

Cherry, Howard L. "Negotiations between Boards and Teacher Organiza-
tions." American School Board Journal, CXI.VI (March, 1963),
pp. 7-9-

Christ0ph, James B. "Political Rights and Administrative Impartiality
in the British Civil Service." American Political Science
Review, LI (March, 1957), pp. 67-87.

 

Civil Swvice Assembly of the United States and Canada. "Appendix 9
-- Progress Report of the Technical Committee on the Part of
Organized and Unorganized Employees in Administering a Wall-
Rounded Personnel System Submitted by the Chairman, Mr. Oliver
C. Short." Public Personnel Studies, VIII (October-November,
1930), pp. 1117-1113.

Clapp, Gordon R. "Problems of Union Relations in Public Agencies."
American Ebonomdc Review3'XXXIII (March, 19h3). pp. 18u-196.

Clemens, Eli W. "The Interdependence of Wages and Price Determination
in the Regulated Industries." American Economic Review, XLII
(may, 1952), pp. 67h-685.

Citizens' League of Cleveland. "Public Employees and the Right to
Segrikzfi." Public Personnel Studies, X (February, 19112), pp.
2' So

Cogen, Charles. "Collective Bargaining: The AFT Way." Address given
at the National Institute on Collective Negotiations in Public
Education, Rhode Island College, July 8, 1965. Chicago:
American Federation of Teachers, 1965 (mimeographed).

. "Teachers on the March." I.U.D. Digest, VII (Winter, 1962),
pp. h5‘600

Cohany, Harry P. "Trends and Changes in Union Membership." Monthly
Labor Review, LXIXIX (May, 1966), pp. 510-513.

            

    

«153-

”'4' .:f

               

in

      

 

      

          

       

     

I. .. . .... .... . .a .,
I a ... ., W .1 ,. ,.
.-- . 1 can 1. . nu ..
I I or.“ c b I . .
1. .fl . . ...x 1 ., .w 9 a m. o d 4 , . .
1 two} . o. n. "a .1. Lid n . . ... a. m .W -_ .
L...“ .. d .m. ":0... ....OMWH .1. Hum. In... F. . . .
he J... Mn N. .... .. ... n . 2. U ..r. ., H. ..x. . .3 T... . ,. ...
.. .1. o . . ., . Tar}... . 1 . .. Y . . «on . .. I,
mm in m1 1. .... a - ,C ... m u l a s
I ”w r. H 11..\ n . .. My .M . T. M... .(n .7. H.“ - “My m
o ‘1 ..u a. w “um 1 ,g p; [1. ergo .
. . 1 ...: a. n . r l, A
P: 0‘ q. . c. ...L. I .1. .. o n. . .L . .Ir...
4... . a.” - . . O o o. O
,. .. .... : a . .. .. 5 w.
in , - .1. - . .... . ...u .m 3..1
H . .... "....” . . (Cir c “2.,“
fig. . . o i. ’i r ' 8%.
, . ,. i... Q
I. u ’1 I c,
I . x4. ..1. .l1 .—..
_ _ .a ,C o
a. . . ma”.
5“
O.
E
I

.
.

. ..‘( ,

.... f-(

...‘2...’.;. -1... ---
r

- s
V
T

a

Q
" .nide'zsc’rm;

..
int...

 

 

 

336

, and Neary, H. James. "Collective Bargaining Agreements in
the Federal Service." Monthly Labor Review, LXXXVIII (August,
1965). pp. 91111-950.

Cohen, Fredrick. "Legal Aspects of Unionization Among Public Enployees."
Temple Law Quarterlz, xxx (Winter, 1957), pp. 187-198.

 

Cole, G. D. H. "Labor and Staff Problems under Nationalization."
Political Quartezgz, XXI (April-June, 1950), pp. 160-170.

Cole, Taylor. "Reform of the Italian Bureaucracy." Public Administration
Review, XIII (Autumn, 1953), pp. 2117-256.

. "Wartime Trends in the Dominion Civil Service in Canada."
Public Administration Review, VI (Spring, 19116), pp. 157-167.

"Collective Bargaining and the Closed Sh0p in Cities." Public
Management, KEV (September, 19112), pp. 277-278.

Collective Bargaining for Professional and Technical Eloyees. Urbana:
University of Illinois, Institute of labor and Industrial Relations,

1965, pp. 22415.

"Collective Bargaining in the Public Service: A Symposium." Public
Administration Review, XXII (Winter, 1962), pp. 1-23.

Collett, Merrill J. "Personnel Management in the Bonnevile Power
Administration." Personnel Administration, XI (Septanber, 19118),

pp. 5-100

Colter, E. Royden. "Effects of Industrial Wage Contracts." Public
Management, XXXVIII (January, 1956), pp. 3-14.

Conlon, Alice Y. "Bargaining Rights for Nurses: Convincing the
Legislature." American Journal of Nursing. LXVI (March, 1966),

pp - 51111-5118.

Cook, Alice H. "Adaptations of Union Structure for Municipal Collective
Bargaining." Proceedings of the Annual Spring Meeting,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Industrial Relations Research Association,
1966, pp. 81-90.

. "Union Structure in Municipal Collective Bargaining."
Monto Labor Review, Lm (June, 1966), pp. 606-608.

 

Cooper, Alfred M. "Does Labor Favor Goverr(1ment as an Employ?”
Public Utilities Fortnigptlz, m1 November 25, 19112 ,
pp. 671376.

CooPer, Leon. "Municipal Government Labor Unions: I. Collective

Bargaining." Michigan Municipal Review, XXII (May, 1911.9).
pp. 72-73, 78.

 

1 . . . .. . . ‘ H1.
1 .. c
. . r. .1 1
.r _ 1.. H... :
11 C . l .3. H
1 v I g 1.1. ... o
.1 m 3. L7. N - . mm a. H
. . I. . r. I.
-1 Mm cm ._ 1U A ,__ : U
DO. 11... _ .1 T. .1.....
. I” u 1 . . .... a
c n .11.. u... . . , _.._. .
1 .o 1 . . ..
.rm .. . U 1....
. . . . a
1 . H u. 1. . a
_ o. .
.. a H
D u
l
_ — I —
< o
. .
I
u .

.9 rr,_‘-'

 

 

to]! .11.! 'II'

.‘1‘1-rfi” 1.43711 . 1

 

, I

1;.

‘1‘,” I

‘06.;

L‘
,_
o
.1.
f.
l
10.
97.
.
.
.
u
.
.
.
.
.
.
u.

1:. ,

. 1”}?

..d

MM'.W

.r.

2‘ :11 9':
.-?;.::r"~} X1... 1*.

‘.i-.'.. AIJ

 

12.1. n
u‘. fr.

LLYXX (.9471

,-
n

'11 Tab '1 ova ..

‘l’
M...
u \

r. dry-.1705,

{I .2‘
-.A ’
.

1‘97 "3_ '

:‘w

,

17.9130 and
’ .

::‘I
o

#3
-J» .-

> .1;._

   

ovl.‘ cello!)

A .

... J."

#0"!st Leafs kmfl .

: 31m MU

.3.

Jam mu) m .

   
 

.\ D
9.1..
.5.

a .H. .. .

. an”
... .... 1

. , ., ...
: 90.11““); ....
.. .1; .1.
\ .

 

337

. "Municipal Government Labor Unions: II. Some Union
Security Measures.” Michigan Municipal Review, XXII (July,
19h9), pp. 105-106, 108:109.

Cornell, Herbert W. "Civil Service Benchmark Decisions." Public
Personnel Review, XVII (October, 1956), Pp. 215-221;.

 

. "Collective Bargaining by Public Euployee Groups."
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, CVII (November, 1958),
pp. h3-6h.

Corson, John J ., and Smith, Ilse M. "Federal Policies on Employee
Relations." Personnel Journal, XVIII (October, 1939), pp. 151-159.

Corwin, Donald G. "Militant Professionalism, Initiative and Compliance
in Public Education." Sociolog of Education, 38 (Summer, 1965),
pp. 310-330.

Crawford, Robert C. "Government Intervention in Energency Labor
Di3putes in Atomic Energy.” Labor Law Journal, X (June, 1959),
PP- MIL-M9.

(h'iSpo, John H. G. (ed.). Collective Bar ainin and the Professional
Explozee. Toronto: Centre for Industrifi Relations, University
of Toronto, 1966.

Cron, Theodore 0. "Inside the Teachers' Union.“ American School and
University, 38 (November, 1965), pp. h2-h6.

Cross, Elmer. "bcperience with the Union Shop." Public Managenaat,
XXXVIII (Janual'y, 1956), p. 70

Crowley, John G. "How Practical Are Cost-of-Iiving Salary Plans for
Cities?" ‘Western City, xxv (April, 19h9), pp. 22-2h.

Cullerton, John. "Public Policy for Public Enployees.” Address
presented at the Conference on Public Employment and Collective
Bargaining, University of Chicago, February 6, 1965.

Cunningham, Robert J. "Legal Notes: Limitation on Labor Contracts by
municipalities." Municipality, XLV (May, 1950), pp. 102, 101;.

Dahl, Robert A. "Workers' Control of Industry and the British Labor
Par ." American Political Science Review, XLI (October,

19147 , pp. 873-900-

Daly, Ronald 0. "New Directions for Professional Negotiation."
National Education Association Journal, LV (October, 1966),

pp- §?-§9.

338

David, Paul T. "Training for Work in Federal Euployee Relations."
Personnel Administration, VI (April, 19111:), PP- 6-9.

Davies, Audrey M. "History and Legality of Police Unions." gig
R orter, V (July-August, 1953), pp. hO-h2, h6-h7.

Davis, Jerome. "The Teacher's Struggle for Democracy." New Rwublic,
XCVII (March 15, 1939), pp- 161-163-

Davis, Richard G. "Governmental Elnployees and the Right to Strike."
Social Forces, XXVIII (March, 1950), pp. 322-329.

Dawson, G. G. 'EDoctoral Studies on the Relationship Between the Labor
Movement and Public Education.” Journal of Educational Socioloq,
xmv (February, 1961), pp. 260-269.

Dewey, Allen C. "Right or Power of Municipalities to anage in
Collective Bargaining." Michigan Law Review, LVI, (February, 1958),
pp. 6h5-6h80

Diggin, Thomas E. "Executive Order 10988: A New Concept in Federal
Labor-Management Relations." Personnel Journal, ILII (September,

1963), pp- 383-388.

Dishman, Robert B. "The Public Interest in Energency Labor Disputes."
American Political Science Review, XLV (December, 1951),
pp. 1100-11114.

"Dismissal for Union Participation." Civil Service Law Reporter, I

"Disputes between Local Authorities and Their Employees in the United
States.“ International Labour Review, mu (March, 191:3),
pp. 370'3710

Doherty, Robert E. Attitudes Toward Labor When Blue-Collar Children
Become Teachers. (Reprint—Series No. 153.) Ithaca: CorneII
University, New York State School of Industrial and Labor
Relations, 1963.

. "Determination of Bargaining Units and Election Procedures
in Public School Teachers Representation Election." Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, In (July, 1966), pp. 573-576.

. et a1. "Collective Bargaining vs. Professional Negotia-
tions." School Management, IX (November, 1965), pp. 68-75.

 

Doherty, William 0. "Government Workers and Organizations." American
Federationist, LXIII (June, 1956), pp. 9-10, 30-31. _""""

      
   

., main-wry:

._ W». “777‘ 'A A'-
A ‘ ‘ fin —

a 73277:; '

,_. ....

‘_:£.,&"¢J£‘.-as\'n V' ‘ ' " 7 < A'
211? ;;a"";r._' ' j a

"7;-

v

   
   

.- ,_ _-A--

__ ,I_.ra

 

 

v—no ‘-
u .

 

....

 

 

\
I - O
, ..
.
.
I
.‘ i
, . . --
v: .
.
J
'J V
V ,.
. . .
-..-.- cum“..-
a
. | _ I
‘.l- . ’
- - J, . '. )..
a... I ‘
.-4

use New
mus:

' .c:.- 3 PM! £21.“; ',f

I (F351,:

   
 
  
    

" II. I” '

u '- a 1 ' vamp}? ‘ may“ 'I I,
_ . ...... .FL .5 ”OM“
i--.'.::' .;.(‘_ “35?, a!
4 #1:: (:w‘mvw‘ ’ ,'
> J. .1" "A

mm ; ft?

.-'\

v 2‘ ~
_ ..o :;::.."*::‘8 Walan
, run

‘ v
r, L—..,. .

u ..L..

. . .1. ' -r .v
‘ u ifffiifi“ '
. T p.l-.i‘ u a.'
— . $1 * ‘ ‘ ’—
. r 7" if")?! 1101

. .— r: “in ,(rfser .
" :‘.LT.')‘ L‘COI "

! ‘ . :- _: '..,. .’ $3.5. .30 L“,

1 C

c 253’ :1". ":8? Iowa
. :i'ff.’ .5811"?! a ‘-

,-
4

’.
p

. L . ' " '12::‘1': E {-Vf'fiimw'
I '4 ‘ i

u _‘..~'!"{!‘;'vn u.‘~u

..rz'. a'zogiw" datum? '
{mas .193; “0331' .aaut) 11:11.1 .4 “

339

Donovan, B. E., et al. "Collective Bargaining vs. Professional
Negotiations." School Management, IX (November 1965), pp. 68-75.

Doolan, Richard J. Attitudes of White Collar Workers Toward Unioniza-
tion. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Bureau of Industrial
Relations, Bulletin 27, 1959.

Dorros, Sidney. "The Case for Independent Professional Teachers'
Associations."Mon1_zQ Labor Review, LXXXVIII (May, 1961:), P. 5113.

Dotson, Arch. "The Fmbeging Doctrine of Privilege in Public Employ-
ment." Public Administration Review, XV (Spring, 1955), pp. 77-78-

. "A General Theory of Public Erployment.” Public Admini-
stration Review, XVI (Summer, 1956), pp. 197-211.

 

Dufty, N. F. "The White Collar Unionist." The Journal of Industrial
Relations, III (October, 1961), pp. 151"1'5‘ .

Douty, H. M. "New Agreement for Review of Salaries of White-Collar
Civil Servants in Great Britain." Month_lz Labor Review, LXX'XIV
(May, 1961), pp. h87-h88.

. "Salary Determination for White-Collar Civil Servants in
Great Britain." Monthly Labor Review, LXXXIII (November, 1960),
pp. 1158-1165.

Eastman, George D. "Seattle Policemen Paid Less than Laborers."
American City, LIV (April, 1950), p. 83.

Eby, Kermit. "Unionization of Government Vbrkers." Public Admini-
stration Review, IX (Spring, 191:9), PP. 132-1311.-

Edenfield, Newell. "Strikes Against the State." Law Notes, XLV
(September, 19,-(v1), pp. 9‘13.

Educational Policies Commission. "The Public Interest in How Teachers
Organize.“ Washington, D. 0.: National Education Association, 19611,.

Elam, Stanley. "Teachers' Unions: Rift without Differences." Nation,
CCI, (October 18, 1965), pp. 2117-2119.

Epstein, Benjamin. The Principal's Role in Collective Negotiations
Between Teachers and School Boards. Washington, D. 0.:
National. Association of Secondary School Principals, 1965.

. "What Status and Voice for Principals in Collective Bar-
gaining and Professional Negotiations by Teacher Organizations.”
The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School
Principals, XLIX (March, 196?), pp. 226-259.

 

3140

Epstein, Leon D. "Political Sterilization of Civil Servants: The
United States and Great Britain." Public Administration Review,
X (Au-bum, 1950), pp. 281'2900

Errant, James W., et al. "Labor Unions and Collective Bargaining in
Government Agencies: A Panel Discussion." Public Administration

Review, V (Autumn, 1915), Pp- 373-379.

Exton, Elaine. "NSBA Opposes Teachers' Strikes and Sanctions." The
American School Board Journal, CXLVI (June, 1963), pp. 111, III-[316.

. "Teacher Groups Challenge Lay School Board Control."
"""""'n1""e American School Board Journal, CXLVII (August, 1961:), pp. 28-29.

Faricy, John J. "Use of Cost of Living Index in a Municipal Salary
Plan." Municipal Finance, DEV (August, 1951), pp. 143-194.

Fitch, Edwin M. "The Government and Bargaining on the Alaska Railroad."
Monthly Labor Review, mew (May, 1961), pp. 1459-1162.

Flaxer, Abram. "Collective Bargaining in the Civil Service." Survey
Midmonthly, LmnI (April, 19h2), pp. 111-113.

. "Government's Major Personnel Problems Today." Personnel
Administration, I (March, 19148), pp. 19-23.

 

. "Public Employee Unions: State, County and Municipal
Workers of America." Public Management, XIX (September, 1937),
pp. 262-26h.

 

Flexner, Jean A. "British Labor under the Labor Government: Part II:
Position and Role of Trade-Unions." Monthly Labor Review, IXVII
(October, 19118), pp. 366-372.

. "Great Britain: Coal Mining Since Nationalization."
Monthly Labor Review, LIX (January, 1950), pp. 19-25.

 

Frankel, Saul J. A Model for Negotiation and Arbitration Between the
gmadian Gozermnent and Its Civil Servants. Montreal: McGill
University Press, 19612.

. "Exployee Organization in the Public Service of Canada."
""'"'"""'Publio Personnel Review, m1 (October, 1956), pp. 2116-252.

French, Wendell L. and Robinson, Richard. "Collective Bargaining by
Nurses and Other Professionals: Anomaly or Trend?" Labor Law
Journal II (October, 1960), pp. 903-910.

..u- v t
«as
. . Infra
d I ‘19
w. ....
...n

r d

r P.
I

.-

a

._

.—

. (I! Wt
. .n
on...“ a v.
v 0
fl 0 a.“
a £ . .
.,r.m .u
.... -. n a
... U _

1.

4p.

4
I

 

 

 

 

 

. . LW‘I‘VJ!‘ (3.1

.... wJM... ......SK .6?

II. .(.\.Ie1.1l”’r\.l..‘.”,

.NIV.

‘1

I
"
...

u.
....
,m
_

I
...
.7.
.H
_.
v

.

.
..
..
.

 

 

0 fr.
nu 2 .-
d \0
I f.» A
rJr\

I‘ D
r.,
on -
... ... . J.
'1. -
.

nu U
....f u . ...
w _ .
... ,.
... l

31+].

Friedman, Clara H. "Education of New York City Public School Teachers:
An Economic Analysis." Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
XVII (october, 1962.), pp. 20-31.

Frischknecht, Reed L. "Federal Employee Unions and the First Session,
Eightieth Congress." Western Political Quarterly, I (June, 19118),
pp. 183-185.

Gabel, George H. "Legal Problems Involved in Municipal Labor Relations."
Municipality, XL (February, 191.5), pp. 23-21., 36.

Gagliardo, Domenico. "Strikes in a Democracy." American Economic
Review, XIII (March, 191.1), pp. 1.7-55.

Gambs, John S. "Hospitals and the Unions." Surv Gra hic, XXVI;
(August, 1937): PP- (435-1439.

. "Relief Workers' Unions." Survfl, LXIEI (January, 1936),
pp. 11-13.

 

Garber, L. 0. "When Your Teachers Want to Elect a Bargaining Agent."
Nation's Schools, LIX (July, 1962), pp. 62-63.

. "These Ten Legal Principles Control Collective Bargaining."
Nation's Schools, LXXVI (September, 1965), p. 67.

 

Gardner, Howard. "Two Years' Pay Experience in 1.3 @alifornig] Cities."
Western Gig, XIX (June, 19113), PP. 23-224.

Gendron, U. J. "Labor Management CooPeration in Government." Public
Personnel Review, XVIII (January, 1957), PP. 145-117.

 

Gibbons, Harold J ., et a1. Develo nts in White Collar Unionism.
(Occasional Papers No. 21:.) Chicago: University of Chicago,
Industrial Relations Center, 1962.

Giorgi, Andrew V., and Tufts, Donald John. "Unionization of Municipal
Police Forces." Notre Dame Lawyer, XXVII (Fall, 1951), pp. 88-97.

Godine, Morton R. §Collective Negotiations and Public Policy in Public
Education." Paper presented at the National Institute on Col-
lective Negotiations in Public Edlcation, Rhode Island College,
JUly 9, 1965.

Goldberg, Joseph P. "Constructive Elployee Relations in Government."
Labor Law Journal, VIII (August, 1957), pp. 551-556.

. "Extent of Exployment, Status, Organization." Monthly
Labor ReviewJ LXIVII (January, 19511.), PP. 1-6.

3’42

. "Consultation, Bargaining, and Wage Determination."
Monthly Labor Review, LXXVII (March, 1951.), pp. 219-256.

 

Golden, Clinton 8. "Fmployee-Managmnent Cooperation in Public Work."
Advanced Management, VII (October-December, 191.2), pp. 161 461;.

Goldstein, Bernard. 'L'ne Per ective of Unionized_Professionals.
(Reprint No. 7.) New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University,
Institute of Management and Labor Relations, 1959.

Goode, Cecil E. "Personnel Opinions: that Do You Think Is a Reasonable,
Ehforceable Policy Regarding Restrictions on Political Activities
by Civil Service Employees?" Public Personnel Review, XXI
(January, 1960), pp. 65-71.

"Government Employees and Unionism." Harvard Law Review, LIV (June,

Green, Sedgwick. "The Effect of a Labor DiSpute on the Administration
of a Government Contract." Harvard Law Review, Ln (March 1957),
pp. 793-8110

 

Greene, Lee S. "Personnel Administration in the Tennessee Valley
Authority." Journal of Politics, I (May, 1939), Pp. 171-191..

Gross, Calvin. "Ways to Deal with the New Teacher Militancy." 1h;
Delta Kappan, XLVI (December, 1961.), pp. 11.7-151.

Guidelines for Professional Negotiation. rev. ed. New York: National
Education Association, Office of Professional DeveIOpment and
Welfare, July 2, 1965.

Hagburg, Eugene C. (ed.). Problems Confront Union Organizations in

Public Employment. Cqumbus: Ohio State University, Labor Pau-
cation and Research Service, 1966.

Hall, Edith Dee. "Negotiations End and Nurses Accept New Contract."
Hospital Mana ement, CII (July, 1966), p. 90.

Haller, George D. "Policemen in Politics." American City, LXXIII
(August, 1958), p. 100.

Hamilton, David. "Will the College Teacher Organize?" I.U.D. Di est,
VII (Spring, 1962), pp. 121-128.

"Harmonious Labor Relations with Municipal Employees. A Legal Method
of Dealing with Municipal Labor Problems." Municipality, L
(January, 1955), pp. 5-6.

 

     

3‘
.' 9'
(3‘

   

p.
i. \
v

a

1.4.4 , _
r

.‘ ..”

'I

. "£0 '11: Irqisrgflxfi

-n ’
5.2. -

   

me

u .

   

‘m‘m ...-g...

3' rrrz-uu'm‘r‘.
J at". an!

...s.-..;-.—..
-
~ I‘
»‘ n

V

1'. o J'mwn
f
’f

 

' r.

H

‘v

v!

1
.L-Ol .a

’-I :.Y.+-'J‘:}ogefi" '-
.8
.5

It‘r .cgq ,(SM? 1

'z
Al.
,I
': Ewan“:
'. (2.“. 51352991109 fl . H
- 1
M‘I'o: mi? HEMP

I
|
an
1qu
I’)
\7

" Lot‘s." "1’ rI’rF‘w amt

_
va 1 . u _ ,.
r I - J . r
' . O . . I . t
.. .. ) , . . .
N. v. I. v - .- v. r
v I. . . o
.. .u _\ .. .. F.
a ., . a .A..
L :3 O .
_ v . ,,. .C
n.“ I v .v... r. l
..I 4.
. t ... a. m
. e. .

 

ll..fll'h".l...u.‘|1 .
. -l.-.’ vouatvv‘L
.-.l’h‘l 1'! .

 

 

 

 

 

343

Harper, Dean. "Labor Relations in the Postal Service." Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, XVII (April, 1961:), PP- 11113-14511-

Harris, Herbert. "Collective Bargaining in the Local Public Service."
American Ciq, LXI (January, 19116), pp. 89-90, 127.

Hart, Wilson R. Collective Bargaining in the Federal Civil Service.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961.

. "The Impasse in Labor Relations in the Federal Civil Service."
Industrial and labor Relations Review, XIX (January, 1966),
pp. 173-189.

. "The U. S. Civil Service Learns to Live with Executive
Order 10988: An Interim Appraisal." Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, XVII (January, 1961. , pp. 203-221.

 

Heady, Ferrel. "American Government and Politics: The Hatch Act
Decisions." American Political Science Review, XLI (August, 19147),

pp . 687-699 .

Hedges, Marion H. "Labor Problems." American Economic Review,L 31111,
(no. 1 (Supplement) Part _2_7(March, 191137, pp. 202-201..

Heisel, W. D., and Santa-Elma, J. P. "Unions in City Government:
The Cincinnati Story." Public Personnel Reviej, XXII (January,

1961), pp. 35-38.

Hepbron, James M. "Police Unionization Means Insorganization." American
City, LXXIII (Novanber, 1958), pp. 131-132.

Herrick, Elinore M. "Unions: Partners or Adversaries?" Good
Government, LXXI (July-August, 1951-1): PP. 110-113.

 

Herrick, H. T. "Unions for Government Euployees: Their Implications."
Proceedings of the Conference on Labor, New York University
Press, 1962, pp. 129-136.

Hetter, Frederick L. "A University Local." I.U.D. Digest, VII (Winter,
1962), pp. 101-109.

Hewes, George R. "How Toledo's Municipal Job Classification System
Works," American Gig, LXII (Novenber, 19117), p. 85.

Holland, Ann. Unions Are Here to Stay: A Guide for Empl ee-Man e-
ment Relations in the Federal Service. (Pamphlet No. 17.)
Washington, D.C.: Society for Personnel Administration, 1962.

 

Holt, John Fox. "Labor Rights of Public Emloyees." Southwestern
Journal, 11 (Spring, 19148), pp. 226-237.

. " ‘LJ
. . .7
. ‘ n . . . ‘01.
o 1
I Q o ' p , d

 

j . . ...... "
'f ‘ . t -
l' A I ‘11

1!“, l‘ 1 ~
,1. F' . . ..
v".

Len“.

 

. .. Ly’C AJI,

page:

o'Vj-M
11“?"“1’. ‘
.-.- .9
.A a‘
"
I
v
0
I
n
o

,3'l i :V
31‘. ' - " - -. ' t -‘ . 'C‘ ”THIN.“ ‘ .'

1
‘ ‘ :4; ‘ .1 3 >‘ . . _ t .f ~l- v‘V-b I)”’ .Q I
E 1 ":1 . , . ._ ... . ~ ‘ . 7;“ t‘.~" 018 133mg”-
‘rrh'Il‘ .Fpl‘le .Il

 

   
   

.-q.-'»W""“

. .- ,. ._ '. .uUI‘I’IOK) II!"

_,»__'- ' ‘- :or‘r'117” .H.

 

 

 

_.1 M
. ~' ‘I
‘v
0
..

»

39-“. 52:.1- . A

...

~; UK) mm

.,_.

.. ')_-’ . . , 7 5 . " . 4'92}? .5 850 .. I
. '“""7" "‘3";_""‘,“'"“ ""1”." - r -
1 .2 ... . - ' .... m

7:

... “‘1”. “a. .. au—

.y-r‘";
:3

15

r u .
M:

.1

:1

‘3

0

“133.33; :3 ' 'x'o’i ‘.‘0 83M
.trf-a-03; 0(1‘: $8.1m?“

. .~ -.

 

9:- ‘
i' ‘
4.1: f

1 ‘.

L.m&.. .4; .

3141+

HOplc’Lns, J. "Review of Events in Professional Negotiations." Theory
into Practice, IV (April, 1965), pp. 1-11.

Houghton, A. L. N. D. "Collective Bargaining in the Civil Service."
Public Administration, XI (January, 1933), pp. 86-97.

Hughes, Helen, and Rawson, D. W. "Collective Bargaining and the
White-Collar Pay Structure." Journal of Industrial Relations, II
(October, 1960), pp. 75-89.

Humphrey, Hubert H. "A Community Program for Labor Management Peace."
American City. LXII (May, 191.7). pp. 92-9h.

International City Managers' Association. "Cities Established
Arbitration Boards to Settle Labor Disputes." American Gig, LXVI
(November, 1951), p. 103.

Irons, Warren B. Sgte of the Art iannployee-Management Cgperation.
(Government Employee Relations Report No. 83.) Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of National Affairs, 1965, p. A3.

Irwin, James W., et al. "Labor Relations in the Public Water Supply
Field." Journal of the American Water Works Association, mv

(December, 1W3), pp. 1§5§-1§7§.

Jacoby, Robert. "Collective Bargaining Rights for Federal Enployees."
Intramural Law Report, XVIII (May, 1963), pp. 287-310.

Johnson, David B. "Dispute Settlement in Atomic Energr Plants."
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XIII (October, 1959),

PP 0 38-33 0

Johnson, Eldon L. "General Unions in the Federal Service." Jgurnal
of Politics, II (February, 191(0), pp. 23-56.

. "Joint Consultation in Britain's Nationalized Industries."
Public Administration Review, XII (Summer, 1952), pp. 181 -1 89.

Johnson, Richard B. "Administrative Problems of Government Seizure in
Labor Disputes." Public Administration Review, II (Summer,
1951), pp. 189-1980

Jones, Roger W. "The Federal Civil Service Today." Public Personnel
Review, In (April, 1960), pp. 11h-120.

Kahn, Mark L. "Regulatory Agencies and Industrial Relations: The
Airlines Case." American Economic Review, XLII (May, 1952),
pp. 686-698..

3‘6

Kammerer, Gladys M. "An Evaluation of Wartime Personnel Administration."
Journal of Politics, X (February, 19h8), pp. 686-698.

Kaplan, H. Eliot. "Concepts of Public Enployee Relations." Industrial
and Labor Relation Review, I (January, 19118), pp. 206-230.

. "Have Public Employees the Right to Strike? -- No."
National Municipal Review, xxx (September, 191:1), pp. 518-523.

 

. "Public Euployee Relationships." Civil Service Law
R orter, I (October, 1951), pp. 92-98.

. "What Rights Have Public Erployees?" Good Government,
LXIV (January-February, 19147), PP- 1-h.

. "How Can Strikes by Municipal Employees Be Avoided?"
American City, LXII (February, 19117). Pp. 83-85.

 

Kassalow, Everett M. "New Union Frontier: White-Collar Workers."
Harvard Business Review, XL (January-February, 1962), pp. h1-52.

. "Occupational Frontiers of Trade Unionism in the U.S."
Proceedings: of the Fourteenth Annual Enter Meeting, St. Louis,
Missouri, Industrial Relations Research Association, 1960,

pp. 183-203.

. "Organization of White Collar Workers." Monthly Labor
Review, LEXIV (March, 1961), pp. 2311-238.

. "The Pr03pects for Elite-Collar Union Growth." Industrial
Relations, v (October, 1965), pp. 37-h7.

 

 

Kelly, George A. "Civil Servants: Government Workers and the Right
to Strike." Commonweal, XLVI (May 9, 1911?), pp. 87-89.

Kennedy. Stephen P. "No Union for New York City Police." American
Gig, LXIIII (October, 1958), pp. 179, 181.

Keppel, F. "Use Strike Only As Last Resort, Keppel Urges A.F.T. Members."
Nation's Schools, LXXVI (October, 1965), p. 92.

Keresman, Peter. "Constructive Employee Relations in Police Departments."
Labor Law Journal, VIII (August, 1957), pp. 556-558.

Khanna, B. S. "Whitleyism: A Feature of Democratic Administration."
Indian Journal of Public Administration, v (April-June, 1959),
pp. 207-5220

 

. ortnlqfi" a». ‘

u-

 

‘.' ,fiht’od‘a

1

0

. LL'LLLJL‘I 3‘ \-

 

 

, I '
seal.
a... u
up. I
1.
,r. .. w o
v
u. a, M. .. a m
..J v . I. .. ... . I. R r
11”,. . . .v. («M a... 9.. .JVJ
I . , 1. n1. .
c .U r. I. F. in
f- v . . ... .
s We. a .1
. I J
. a A“ .. L
_ ~ 1 . ‘ p c
I I .1
o. .
u . n . o
n ,. .
. .. . v
i . .
I I 14
C
. H d
o .
O I
o
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

311-6

Killingsworth, Charles T: "Grievance Adjudication in Public Employ-
ment." American Arbitration Journal, XIII (1958) , pp. 3-15.

King, Oren L. "How Reiverside, California Benefits by . . . Labor
Council Support for the City Manager." American City, LEIII
(March, 1958), pp. 129, 1115, 1117.

Kite, Robert H. "A Study to Determine the Degree of Influence Selected
Factors Had in Causing Teacher Strikes and to Determine the Degre
to Which These Factors Were Present in School Districts in Which
Teacher Strikes Were AveFted." Dissertation Abstracts, DEVI
(October, 1965), p. 2017.

Klass, Irwin. "The New Breed of Teacher." American Federationist,
1m (Novanber, 1962), pp. 1'5.

Klaus, Ida. Collective Bargaining Will Helpjtaff Morale. New York:
Society for the quaerimental Study of Education, 1963.

. "The Energing Relationship." Address presented at the
Conference on Public Employment and Collective Bargaining,
University of Chicago, February 5, 1965.

Klein, Lawrence R. "The NBA Convention and the Organizing of
Teachers." Month Labor Review, LUXVIII (August, 1965), pp.
883-885.

Knapp, Daniel C. "Administering Federal Grievance Procedures."
Public Personnel Review, VIII (April, 1911?), pp. 96-101.

Knowlton, Thomas A). "Is Collective Bargaining the Answer?" Arbitration
Journal, 21 (July, 1966), pp. 93-97.

Kooken, Don L. and Ayres, Loren D. "Pblice Unions and the Public
Safety." Annals, CCXCI (January, 1951;), Pp. 152-158.

Krislov, Joseph. "The Cleveland Transit Strike of 19119." Personnel
Administration, XIV (November, 1950), pp. 25-30.

. "The Union Quest for Recognition in Government Service."

Ebor Law Journal, IX (June, 1958), pp. 1121-11211, 1161.

. "The Independent Public Enployee Association: Character-
istics and Functions." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XV
(JUly’ 1962), pp. S10“520.

 

. "PrOSpects for the Use of Advisory Grievance Arbitration in
Federal Service." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XVIII
(April, 1965), PP- EEO-7122.

34?

Labor Management Institute of the American Arbitration Association.
Memorandum of Agreement. New York: City Administrator's
Office, March 31, 1966.

 

LaDue, Wendell R. "Significance of Legislation Forbidding Strikes by
Public Enployees." Journal of the American Water Works Association,
am: (September, 19117), pp. BMWSII.

. "Union Relations with Public Ownership." Journal of the
American Water Works Association, XXXVIII (August, 19116), pp.
9114-920.

 

 

Lang, William. The Develgament and TechniQJes of Collective Bargaining
in the Munici 8.1 Service. Washington, D.C.: International
Association 0% Fire Fighters, 1966.

Law, Kenneth I», et al. The Manual for Teacher Ne otiators. Windsor,
Ontario: Educational Consultative Service, Inc., 19 6.

Iawton, Esther C. (ed.). "Viewpoints: Should Personnel Staff Manbers
Belong to Unions?" Personnel Administration, XIX (March-April,
1956), pp. h6‘50.

League of California Cities. . . "City Employees and Unionization."
Western City, XXV (April, 1959), P. 17.

Lehne, Donald P. "Washington Case Law: 1958: Municipal Corporations:
Labor Unions: Right of Municipal Employees to Strike: Govern-
mental and Proprietary Functions." Washington Law Review,

xmv (Summer, 1959), pp. 216-222.

Leich, Harold H. "The Hoover Commission's Personnel Recommendations:
A Progress Report." American Political Science Review, XLVII
(March, 1953). pp. 1062.175.

Levitan, David M. "The Euployee and the Government." Journal of
Politics, VII (August, 19115), pp. 295-313.

Lieberman, Wron. "Influences of Teachers' Organization upon American
Education," in Nelson B. Henry (ed.), Social Forces Influencin
American Education. Chicago: National Society for the Study
of Education, 1961, pp. 182-202.

. "Teachers Choose a Union." Nation, 193 (Decanber 2, 1961),
pp. 11113-14117.

. "Teachers on the March." Nation, 200 (February 1, 1965),
pp. 107-110.

 

348

. "Teachers' Strikes: Acceptable Strategy?" Phi Delta
Happen, ILVI (January, 1965), pp. 237-240.

_ .. "Who Speaks for Teachers?" Saturday Review, 148 (June
19, 1965): PP- 65‘66, 714'75'

, and Moskow, Michael H. Collective Negotiations for Teachers.
Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1966.

Lowe, William T. "Who Joins Which Teachers' Group?" Teachers College
Record, LXVI (April, 1965), pp. 61h-619.

McCafferty, Bart. "Unionized Municipal Employees: Financial Aspects."
Municipal Finance, IXIIII (November, 1960, pp. 98-103.

McCaffree, Kenneth M. "Collective Bargaining in Atomic-Energy Construc-
tion." Journal of Political Economy, LXV (August, 1957),

pp- 322-?-

McCutchen, Duval T. "Seniority and the Democratic Crisis." Social
Forces, m (March, 19113), pp. 351-358.

McDermott, F. Arnold. "The Denver Lay-Off Fornmla: Seniority Plus
Merit." Public Personnel Review, XXI (July, 1960), pp. 179-182.

McGlothlin, William J. "The Apprentice Program of TVA." Personnel
Administration, VIII (April, 19116), pp. 5-8.

. "Union-Management Administration of Employee Training:
The Experience of TVA." Advanced Management, VIII (April-June,

1910). PP- 38-1114-

McIntosh, Marjorie. "The Negotiation of Wages and Conditions for Local
Authority Employees in England and Wales: Part I: Structure and
Scope." Public Administration, m1II (Summer, 1955), PP. 1119-162.

. "The Negotiation of Wages and Conditions for local Authority
Employees in England and Wales: Part II: The Process of Nego-
tiation and Settlement." Public Administration, XXIIII (Autumn,

1955) 9 PPo 307-323-

. "The Negotiation of Wages and Conditions for Local Authority
Employees in England and Wales: Part III: Some Results of
fioint Negotiation." Public Administration, mu (Winter, 1955),
01-h17.

McKelvey, Jean T. "The American Cities and Its Public Employee Unions."
firoceedingsgf the Annual Spring Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
Industrial Relations Research Association, 1966, pp. 68-69.

349

. "The Role of State Agencies in Public Enployee Labor
Relations." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XX (January,
1967). pp. 179-197.

Macmahon, Arthur W. "A Balanced Approach to Unionization." Public
Administration Review, II (Spring, 19112), pp. 168-171.

. "Collective Labor Action in City Government." Public
“Management,L 3111 (November, 19111), pp. 328-331;.

 

. "The Mexican Railways under Workers' Administration."
Public Administration Review, I (Autumn, 19141), pp. h58-571.

. "The New York City Transit System: Public Ownership,
Civil Service, and Collective Bargaining." Political Science
Quarterly, LVI (June, 19m), pp. 161-198.

 

Macy,wJohn.W., Jr. "The Federal Erployee-Management Cooperation Program."
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XIX (July, 1966), pp.
m9-g6T.

. "Personnel Developments on the Federal Level." Public
Personnel Review, XXV (January, 1961;), pp. 7-12.

Mahoney, Anne. "Bargaining Rights for Nurses: Convincing the Member-
ship." American Journal of Nursing, LXVI (March, 1966), p. Shh-

Mailick, Sidney. "Organization for Personnel Man ement in Israel."
Public Personnel Review, XIII (January, 1952 , pp. 28-3h.

Martin, Richard. "Municipal Recognition of Employees." Public
Management, XXXVIII (January, 1956), pp. 2-3.

Martin, T. D., et al. "Compulsory Membership in Teachers' Associations?"
Phi Delta Kappan, 33 (September, 1951), pp. 56-61.

Mathewson, Stanley B. "Labor, Management and the Public." Survey
Graphic, nvx (July, 1937). pp. 388—391.

Melton, Presley W. "Employee Relations in Federal Service." Personnel
Journal, XVII (September, 1938), pp. 96-101.

Miller, Glen W. Collective Bargaining by Public Eloyees. Columbus:
Ohio State University, Ohio State Labor Education and Research

Services, College of Commerce and Administration, 1966.

Mire, Joseph. "Collective Bargaining in the Public Service." American
Economic Review, XXXVI (May, 19116), pp. 3&7-358.

. "Freedom of Assembly, Speech and Petition." Wisconsin
"—r5"w Review, mu: (July, 1910), pp. 693-696. "'"‘“""

H— ”~N
m
A»

 

Moff

Morg

Mosh

Moskc

"Munj

NatiC

Natic

Natio

 

 

350

. Labor Or anizations in German Public Administration and
ervices. (United States bcpert Series No. 8.7 Washington,
D.C., United States Office of Military Government for Germany, 1919.

Moffitt, J. C. "Sanctions Do What?" American School Board Journal,
CXLIX (September, 19611), pp. 25—26.

 

Morgan, Arthur E. "Bench-Marks in the Tennessee Valley: VI. Building
a Labor Policy." Survey Graphic, mv (November, 1935), pp. 529-
5323 575-576.

Mosher, William E. "Implications of an Ellightened Personnel Policy."
Library Journal, LEI (November 15, 1937): PP. 8119-852.

 

. "The Profession of Public Service." American Political
Science Review, mm (April, 1938), pp. 332-‘3112.

Moskow, Michael H. "Collective Bargaining for Public School Teachers."
Labor Law Journal, IV (December, 19611), PP. 7811-7914.

. "Recent Legislation Affecting Collective Negotiations for
Teachers." Phi Delta Kappan, XLVII (November, 1965), pp. 136-
1141.

. "Teacher Organizations: An Analysis of the Issues."
Teachers College Record, LXVI (February, 1965), pp. h53-h63.

. Teachers and Unions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
fiess, 1966.

"Municipal Enployee Labor Relations Practices." Municipality, LI
(March, 1956), pp. 65, 76.

National Civil Service Reform League, Special Committee on Government
Employee Relationships. "Enployer and Employee Relationships in
Government." Public Personnel Sjgzdies, I (August, 19in), pp. 7h-75.

National Civil Service League. "Anti-Strike Laws Won't Work: Can
Public Employee Strikes Be Avoided?" Good Government, LXVIII
(May-June, 1951), pp. 29-30.

. "'Little Hatch Acts' Provide Election-Time Do's and Don't's
for Public Servants." Good Government, LXI (September-October,
1953). Pp- 112-16.

 

National Education Association. glassroom Teachers Speak on Professional
Negotiations. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,
1963.

. Professional Negotiation with School Boards: A Legal
Angsis and Review. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, Research Division, 1965.

351

. Public Schooleeachers and Collective Bargaining. (Special
Memo.) Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,

Research Division, May, 1955, and March, 1958.
"NEA's New Alternatives." I.U.D. Digest, VIII (Spring, 1963), pp. 38-146.
"Negotiating with Teachers." School Management, IX (May, 1965), PP. 81-87.

Nesbitt, Murray B. "League Studying Employee Organizations in
Government." Good Government, LXXVIII (June, 1960), pp. 1-3.

[New York State] Governor's Committee on Public Enployee Relations.
Final Report. Albazv, New York: Office of the Governor, March,

31, 19%.

 

Newland, Chester A. Public Employee Unionijzration in Teaiag. Austin,
Texas: Institute of Public Affairs, University of Texas, 1962.

Nolan, Loretta R. , and Hall, James T., Jr. "Strikes of Government
Euployees, 19112-1961." Many; Labor Review, 1m (January,
1963): PP: 52'5’4-

Nolte, M. C. "Teacher Militancy May Be Counter-Pressure." American
School Board Journal, CLI (October, 1965), pp. 7-8.

. "Teachers Face Board of Education Across the Bargaining
Table Legally." American School Board Journal, CL (June, 1965),
pp. 10-12.

Nolting, Orin F. "Management Policy on Employee Relations." Public
Management, XXIX (January, 19,47), PP- 5-10.

Northrup, Herbert R., and Rowan, Richard L. "Arbitration and Collective
Bargaining: An Analysis of State Experience." Labor Law
Journal, XIV (February, 1963), pp. 178-191.

Oakes, R. C. "Should Teachers Strike? An Unanswered Question."
Journal of Riucational Socioloq, {XXIII (March, 1960), pp. 339-3hh.

Office of Professional DevelOpment and Welfare. Guidelines for Profes-
sional Neggtiation. Revised edition. Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association, July 2, 1965.

. "Professional Negotiations: Selected Statements of
School Board Administrator - Teacher Relationships." Washington,
D.C.: National Education Association, 1965.

Ohm, Robert E., and Johns, Oliver D. Neggtiétions in the Schools: The
Superintendent Confronts Collective Action. Norman, Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma, College of Education, 1965.

352

Olmstead, H. M. "Controversies beWeen Cities, Organized Labor Causes
Critical Situations." National Municipal Review, 131111, (April,

19th). pp. 195-197.

. "Organizing by Public Enployees: Civil Service League
Makes Policy Statement." National Civic Review, L (February,
1961), pp. 86'87.

 

Orzack, Louis H. Work as a Central Life Interest of Professionals.
(Reprint Series No. 3.) Madison: University of Wisconsin, Indus-
trial Relations Research Center, 1959.

Padway, Joseph A. "Collective Bargaining in Government Enterprise."
Lawyers Guild Review, II (March, 19142), pp. 1-7.

Parker, Hyman. "Role of the Michigan Labor Mediation Board in Public
Employee Labor Disputes." Labor Law Journal, X (September, 1959),
pp. 633-6h2.

Perlman, David. "Government Employees and Unions." The American
Federationist, LXVIII (September, 1961), pp. 14-7.

Perry, Charles R., and Wildman, Wesley. "A Survey of Collective
Activity among Public School Teachers." Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly, II (Spring, 1966),

Phelps, Orme W. "Compulsory Arbitration: Some Perspectives." Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 18 (October, 19611): PP. 81-91.

Plunkett, Thomas J. "Collective Bargaining and the Municipal Personnel
Officers Ganacia7.u Public Personnel Review, XVI (July, 1955),
pp. 139-1 2.

"A Policy for Emiloyee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Service."
Report of the President's Task Force, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1962, p. 19.

 

"Political Activity of Public Enployees." Civil Service Law Reporter,
V (July-August, 1955), PP. 67-68.

Posey, Rollin B. "Analysis of City Ehrlployee Strikes." Public
Management, XXII'V (June, 1952), pp. 122-127.

. "Employee Organization in the United States Public Service."
Public Personnel Review, XVII (October, 1956), pp. 238-2115.

"Handling City Employee Grievances." Public Management,

film-arch, 1953), pp- 94-58-

_ . "How to Negotiate with Labor Unions." Public Personnel
Review, XIV (January, 1953), pp. 11-17.

353

. "Organized Labor and the Council-Manager Plan: III. Views
of an Observer." Public Management, XXIII (June, 1957),
pp. 129-132.

 

. "Recognition of Unions in Municipal Erployment." Public
Management, XXII (February, 1919), pp. 140-143.

 

. "Union Agreements in Municipal Employment." Public
Management, xxx (February, 19h8), pp. 35-140.

 

Potts, Georgena R. "A Summer School Short Course in Teacher Negotia-
tions." Monthly Labor Review, LXXIEX (August, 1966), pp. 8147-850.

"Power of a Municipal Corporation to Enter into a Check-off Ageement
with a Labor Union: Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore." Maryland Law Review, I}: (Winter, 19h8), pp. 70-73.

President's Commission on Labor Relations in the Atomic Energy
Installations. "Panel to Handle Atomic Energy Plant Disputes."
Monthly Labor Review, LXVIII (June, 19W), pp. 661-662.

Presthus, R. Vance. "British Public Administration: The National
Coal Board." Public Administration Review, 11 (Summer, 19149),

pp. 200-210.

Public Employee Labor Relations. (Publication 132.) Springfield:
Illinois State Legislative Council, 1958.

"The Public Interest in How Teachers Organize." National Education
Association, and American Association of School Administrators,
Educational Policies Commission, Washington, D. C.: The Commission,

1961;.

Radke, Mrs. Fred A. "Real Significance of Collective Bargaining for
Teachers." Labor Law Journal, XV (December, 19614), PP. 795-801.

 

Rains, Harry H. "Collective Bargaining in Public Ehrqaloyrnent." Labor
Law Journal, VIII (August, 1957), Pp. 5148-550.

Ranen, Ellis. "Bargaining Rights in Civil Service." Survey Midmonthll,
LXIVIII (February, 19h2), pp. hz-hs.

Raslc'ln, A. H. "Do Public Strikes Violate Public Trust?" New York Times
Magazine, CI (January 8, 1961), p. 12.

Rawn, A. M. "Ernployee Organization in the Professional Field and the
Public Services." Journal of the American Water Works Associa-

tion, XXXVI (July, 19%), pp- :752-577 .

Cu

\
l

r: homo-q;

r; .'-

6 . ' 3.1; ; mare!

.L

"1‘

  

'utf’.» J 1’:
L10 (7031813 ' l-

v' .11.": UK: A" '

7

’1

" 6‘0 . ‘dx’m
_ .-.“..-

L'J rd _‘(IV V V

aha-I...

 

v.“

 

.EOO"

"1.",
~- r‘u '3" . ' ,
u 25‘ (In) .AV

.r
,4

 

 

 

 

 

.11.

I

i“
n “‘4

‘31:
.(“zK r

i .. 4 3
L.
o

l" trfisa’ufi,

«nah-In, \..rr.1.lc . ,.. .7; on
. 1 ,I Infiltflilw Lb.

u ’.

N
A

t

l

I“
~

:1 kidu‘l w;

r .8 vascular.) D'-

b " A
1'};

     

I m

:1“):

(If)

\:| .11

1..

< rug-1,0 .-

'.
n ‘

.' 7’ “A a inn: not.

‘ l '; (70:??-

T
\.

+4

  
   

.cc . (Mr- sizes), *

,.

n
u
l

I

 

I H Lg. ..flukmuM-WW

.yz

 

35"

"Recognition of Representatives of Federal Emloyee Organizations in
Grievance Procedures." Hearings before House Committee on‘Post

Office and Civil Service on H. R. SH and H. R. 571. 82nd
Congress, 2nd Session (August, 19 1 and March, 195?).

Repas, Robert. "Collective Bargaining Problems in Public Emloyment."

East Lansing: Michigan State University, University Labor
Education Association, March 31, 1966 (mimeographed).

Report of the Interim_Commission to Study Collective Bgrgaining %
Municipalities Report. . . as provided by Pub 'c Act No. 9 of
the 1963 Session of the General Assembly. Hartford, Connecticut:

The Commission, February, 1963.
Report on a Pro am of Labor Relations for New York Ci lo ees.
New York: ZOity? Department of Labor, 1957.

"Restrictions on the Civil Rights of Federal Duployees." Columbia
Law Review, ILVII (November, 1911?). pp. 1161-1189. ""—_

 

 

 

Rhyne, Charles 5. Labor Unions and Municipal Emlgyee Law. National
Institute of Municipal Law Officers, 19116. see also: Supple-
mental Report, no. 129.

. "Public Employees Have No Right to Strike: Municipal
Relations with Unions Representing Municipal Enployees."
American Gill, LVIII (January, 19113), PP. 89, 91.

. "Public Workers and the Right to Strike." mgneering
News-Record, CXXIVII (September 5, 19116), pp. 80-83.

 

. "Recent Decisions on Labor Union Contracts and Mmicipali-
ties." American City, LXI (February, 191.16), pp. 139, 111.3.

 

Rich, J. M. "Teacher Unrest Has Damaged School Public Relations."
Nation's Schools, LXXV (March, 1965), pp. 146-147.

. "Civil Disobedience and Teacher Strikes." Phi Delta
Kappan, ILV (December, 1965), pp. 151-1511.

Richardson, George J. "Labor Unions in Fire Departments." Public
Management, HI (January, 1937), PP. 6-9.

"Right of Municipal E'nployee's Union to Strike and to Bargain Collec-
tively." Minnesota Law Review, XXIV (February, 1950), pp. 260-266.

"Right of Municipality to Enter into Collective Bargaining Agreements
on Behalf of Civil Service Enployees." New York Universig Iaw
Quarterly Review, XVIII (January, 19141), pp. 2h7-261.

Roach, S. P. "Collective Bargaining." School Managanent, 1 (March,
1966), p. 66.

add!!!" I

(1211’! new a -

I"

1"
"O

4“! ch “. ‘4 if.

 

.’

    

  

 
 

 

e w n w _ . w .,
v .m .m ) . , . _,
t 5 M 0“ fl. ru 1
. I (x. n . ..
2. we w i . 3 Wm
.L. Y. 0 r .11. v. 1 ..., w . .1 or.“
... 1 .11. n... . n w. rm 3 w
.. 1 .. .1. ... , . ;. ...
1 .. .w .1. ., n .11. Tl. Wu. J. an. a v1. 3
r .., 1 . five .r, 1 h n1 a.
\., ._ r e .V .. z 0 r a. m. .3 1H am...
. - . . z u e, 1.. w s w 1 ,.
,. 1 .. J r. OI. ..1 . — u. — “a“
.. ,. ..u. .. . n 1 ....x/ I. .n
. .. .r. .. m 9 v1) ... r
n .O .11 ,. VI. ..VL m flu U
..1. 1 . . .; ,1. .1 ..~ I
a H v .1 .n... T .1.— 1 Mn n1 C r
c. . .... ..a O _. .uL a
1 o 1.. v o
. ... . 9 .. u
0 fix . . (J . to
1 N .1 L
. e . rm
. .u a. L
— g I o 0
It ... .1;
. . . .

..
1':

1-. ". F.

Lee

C I

.... n.
f

rr

1...... . In” '
2‘1"“ m
“19153) I anagrams:

'r'w' ' ‘,"f'.

W

.
4A

. r
m—“~-l;m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

355

Rock, Eli. "Municipal-Collective Bargaining: New Areas for Research."
Proceedings of the Annual Spring Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
Industrial Relations Rogearch Association, 1966, pp. 70-80.

. "The Process and Procedures of the Long-Standing
Relationship." Address presented before the Conference on Public
Employment and Collective Bargaining, University of Chicago,
February 5, 1965.

 

"The Role of Employee Organizations in Government." New onrk State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornellj University,

31963? pp. 3- 7.

Ross, N. S. "Joint Consultation and Workers' Control." Political
Quarterly, XXVII (January-March, 1956), pp. 82-1005“"“"’

 

Ross, Philip. The Government as a Source of Union Power. Providence:
Brown University Press, 1965.

Rowlands, David D. "Labor Relations in the City Government." Public
Management, XL (February, 1958), pp. 30-32.

Roy, Walter. "Mémbership Participation in the National Union of
Teachers." British Journal of Industrial Relations, II (July,

196k), pp. 189-203.

. "Reaction of Organized British Teachers to Crises."
Monthly Labor Review, LXIXVII (September, 1961;), pp. 1022-1025.

Rushin, Enmett R. "A New Frontier for Enployee-Managanent Cooperation
in Government." Public Administration Review, III (Spring,
19h3), pp- 158-163.

Samuel, Edwin. "The Israel Civil Service." Indian Journal of Public
Administration, VI (July-September, 196OT, pp. 267- 271.

Sanford, William V. "Strikes by Government F‘nmloyees." Vanderbilt
Law'Review, II (April, 19h9), pp. hh1-h50.

Scanlon, John. "Strikes, Sanctions, and the Schools." Saturday Review,
XLVI (October 19, 1965), pp. 51-55, 70-7h.

Schmidt, Charles T. et al. A Guide to Collective Negotiations in
Education. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Social
Science Research Bureau, 1967.

Schnaufer, Pete. "Representing the Teacher's Interest. Response from
the AFT." Montfl Labor Review, LIXXIX (June, 1966), pp. 620-621.

. The Uses of Teacher Power. Chicago: American Federation of
Teachers, 1966.

7"

1‘ r

l

 

|
,-
1‘._.1

    

     

 

.w. .. .... .
. .. ... . on
. w ,Mm ,. e. . .w
7.. ... ...” nimaei . . .. . .. .r.. . .1. ,
11 A In. 9 M. (m o . J., 4 J» F o. _ . ... r.) .1. C 9 a“ M . v
. - mo..- . . .. . . .. ,. ....
1| 1 1 w u .1! C _ . . 1. . r.\ H n U ...!” O r... l
... 1. . l H . 1 . (b .. N... ... a,“
um I . a . . 1 9t . 1r 1
a fly rm.‘ Wow U .. .. . o . « MC . .... a... . ..M
. . .... . u ,r h. ...I a... 3" l
,. A .. _ _ f. . .r m." m. ._
. .11 -.. l N . w UK u.
c . o
. . . a. ...
. u .. e 11] n
. v. . . L ...1. "l. .
.1 .... . .. i
I . me. ..n ...
_ . .. ..n .
1» H.r .11] ad. ..
_ u ..a .. .U o n
v M" 1 m.” no ‘_
.A.... m. a
O I ... r... l m
. e . .... t Fl ”A
l — .. '1! In A
. . . . . a
. ._ . . w, .w% av .1
. ./ ./\ . .
1 . .. ”I (...a 0‘ W .
1 f 1, F. . 1
p .I .1 1
.l n... w a 5
. I a
_ .4. U W
. .. §
.. . . .m. a
. . q a
... b V
i .2 F4 . ._
I. ul- . .o a. f
‘ o .
h ...-lo

 

 

 

 

356

Schneider, B. V. H. "Collective Bargaining and the Federal Civil
Service." Industrial Relations, III (May, 1961;), pp. 97- 120.

Schneider, Carl J. "The Revival of Whitleyism in British local
Government." Public Administration Review, XIII (Spring,

1953): PP. 97-1050

Schnoor, Howard. "Employee Participation in Management in the German
Civil Service." Personnel Administration, XV (September,
1952), pp. 11-18,720

Schoemann, Peter T. "The Right of Teachers to Organize." Th__g
American Federationist, LIX (March, 1963), pp. 23-2h.

Schwartz, Murray L. "Notes: Industrial Nationalization and Industrial
Relations in Great Britain." Universit of Pennsylvania Law
Revi____e_w, XCVII (March, 19119). Pp. 3123- E38.

Seasongood, Murray and Barrow, Roscoe L. "Unionization of Public
Employees." University of Cincinnati Law Review, XXI (November,

1952), PPo 327- 392.

Seaman, Melvin. "Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership."
American Sociological Review, XVIII (August, 1953). Pp. 373-380.

Segal, Melvin J. "Grievance Procedures for Public Employees." Labor
Law Journal, II (December, 1958), pp. 921 ~9214.

Seitz, Reynolds 0. "Rights of School Teachers to Engage in Labor
Organizational Activities." Marquette Law Review, ILIV (Summer,

1960), pp. 36-1411.

. "School Board and Teacher Unions." American School
Board Journal, CXLI (August, 1960), pp. 11-13, 38.

Selden, David. "American Federation of Teachers: What It Wants, How
It Bargains, Where It's Headed." School Management, VIII
(February, 1961;), pp. 56-58.

. "Class Size and the New York Contract." Phi Delta Kappan,
"1m (March, 19611), pp. 283-287.

. "Teacher Collective Bargaining Today," in Eugene C. Hagberg
7am, Problens Confronting Union Organizations in Public Enplo -
ment. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Labor Education
and Research Service, 1966, pp. 39-52.

. Winning Collective Bargaining. Chicago: American Fed-
eration of Teachers, 1963.

.1--

..o‘flz. . ‘

JVW‘A
i. . '- I .

v5. 5" ”‘-

w.——.‘.

,- u»

: al.-z}

is ‘
~11

. (12:? 75’

~54
.. -:-‘

9.4.3“ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

10"-
. . o . - .’
u
’.
c
. o v -
w -
.

 

.. ’1'

., ‘ .
at“
31

,0

   
  
  
  
  
 
   
  
  
  
  
  

- . 5"." .
,_ .--.‘EL’qu an”
.387 ‘83-'18"?

3 " “JR" .1" 'I

I!
A. ;L::o]3w1r'£ 11.2 ‘t
,. P

4 .'

1111-.
74.!

.1...

::-. -:‘ n1" .1!

r1", 5 nt.:1.‘:.i‘.'r.b“

1‘ 1. (Y .
.‘4‘ .i’.

1.- “'1" _w ‘2": 5mmlAu ‘
,- L415’ "191’91‘5"

. ',;-7 .c:q._(1.-O’<’

4 ’-
.1". ' , {1 '2m‘: 5‘ F. ' I
-. ('3'! “I...

. .' (“31.8.1110 1911* ..
. 51‘.“ 7'1;th 'J 4“: . ’1 '
“a '1-1-1’: ’1’:

,7— “.‘. 1 90’?an

wews an... on --

.Fd?‘ .. 1:)

357

Seligson, Harry. "A New Look at Duployee Relations in Public and
Private Services." Labor Law Journal, XV (May, 1961),), pp. 287-299.

"Settlement of DiSputes in Public Ehnployment" Monthly Labor Review,
LXXXIX (April, 1966), pp. 3-11.

Seymour, Harold. "Divided, the fieaching7 Profession Weighs the Pros
and Cons of Unionism." Industrial Bulletin, ILI (January, 1962),
pp. 17-20.

Shenton, David G. "Compulsory Arbitration in the Public Service."
Labor Law Journal, XVII (March, 1966), pp. 138-1117.

Shoben, E. J. "When Teachers Strike." Teachers College Record, LXV
(November, 1963), pp. 1611-167.

Shestack, Jerome J. "The Public Employee and His Government:
Conditions and Disabilities of Public Enployment." Vanderbilt
Law Review, VIII (June, 1955). pp. 816-837.

 

Shils, Edward B. "Philadelphia Streamlines Personnel Plan." National
Municwipal Review, ml (July, 19113), pp. 367-372. "'"'""'

Short, Lloyd M. "Unions of Municipal Employees." Minnesota Municipali-
ties, mx (July, 191111), pp. 219-225.

Siciliano, Rocco C. "Employee-Management RelatiOna in the Federal
Government." Good Government, LKXVII (January, 1960), pp. 3-h.

Silver, Jonas. "Labor Relations of Public Employees." American
Labor Legislation Review, In (December, 1910), pp. 169-17 .

. "Union Agreements with Municipalities." Monthly Labor
"'"'""—Review, LVI (June, 19h3), pp. 1165-1170.

Silver, Richard A. "Collective Bargaining with Public Employees."
Personnel Administration, XIII (January-February, 1959): PP. 27-314.

Smith, M. Mead. "Labor and the Savannah River AEC Project: Part I
_/:Manpower, Wages, and Recruitmentz." Montily Labor Review,
LXIIV (June, 1952), pp. 629-639.

. "Labor and the Savannah River AEC Project: Part II
nionization and Industrial Relatianpj‘.n Monthly Labor Review,
W (JUly', 1952), pp. 12-21.

Smith, Oscar 8. "Are Public Service Strikes Necessary?" Public
Personnel Review, XII (July, 1960), pp. 169-173.

         

4 . .

p -
gift-‘3'

    

.L'

  

11 1‘,
V

 

   

. .... . H ..n. .
. 1 mu m \1. ... M‘N 1.
.1 . n 1L ‘1” u .m I 1 r. ..h; .
.. a... . 1...... 1w. .0. mm... a.
.. .m. T1 M... . W. .. r“ .11. .1 Lht‘. I
... 1 A ,. r .. .14”; . I .
. I“( m 1.. .\ .r, .. . .. 3 r . 1. w. m... ...... J m
11“.?! n J... 1. ”I ..r..._ v1 "1.1 ... ,. r. 2... 1 .1 n.» We
.1 . . «a C \o- .11 14 o . .1 .0o r. a” 1.11. L I. .D ..1. (. n. J. .t .L .m
1 1 . 1 fl '1‘ :71 l v a .1 \.l .I.~ 1. .11 Lu . .. ~11 v1. I AJ 4
1 1 .... v.11. .. e. . . . . . .r .. 1 0 1h 0.. \II
in 0' h. 5 . NI. r... H .. . .. 4." v w .1. ... 1. r r... Iu
. on J 1 \1 o . o \ u o. I .. t u ..r. (L r. .oJ .
a .. - .... _. .. .
1 a to .n. v. o . . r1 1 v. v.
"1’ w. 1" . I n
( a o .w o . r 1 1
.1. d... . e 1 .. u
.1. .1... . . .1“ .... o
. ... v _. ...;
.. ... u . 10 . [K
t . o 1v. 1 v.
... 1 . D .. ..
ow. 1 1 m. ..u .
1 #1.; o 1‘
o I , I I“ r .
1 . 4 . . .I
. s" 11. 1. u 1A _
O . \l 1.. .o
.. . . 3m . “1 . ....
1 . . . . .. 1... 1
a 1 w 1. on U - J4.
. u . . . . a .A..
. 1. .......Jp—ao
1 . n. 1.. 1'. .
. m x1“ -Q. .r.
_ . .. .1 v.4 .
_ . . v.“ . ... ...

 

 

 

 

. v'1. 11. 1

,1...“ .15. F111... ....19...(.

 

 

358

. "The Effect of the Public Interest on the Right to
Strike and to Bargain Collectively." North Carolina Law Review,
xxvn (February, 19119), pp. 2011-212.

. "Implications for Collective Bargaining in Quasi-Public
—Work." Monthly Labor Review, LXXEV (March, 1952), pp. 257-262.

 

. i'Obligations of Government as Owner, Financier and Consumer
in Relation to Collective Bargaining." Labor Law Journal, VII
(November, 1956), pp. 6811-689.

 

Smith, Russell A. , and McLaughlin, Doris B. "Public Employment Research:
A Neglected Area of Research and Training in Labor Relations.”
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XVI (October, 1962),

pp . 30%.

wathe, Cyrus. "Collective Bargaining Under Executive Order 10988:
Trends and Prospects." Public Personnel Review, XXVI (October,
1965), pp. 199-202.

Snyder, Eleanor M. "Cost-of-Living Adjustment of State and Municipal I
Wages." Monthly Labor Review, LVII (November, 1953): PP. 885-8911.

Solberg, James G. "Representing the Teachers' Interest. Response from
a School Board Member." Monthly Labor Review, W (June,
1966), pp. 622-6230

Solomon, Benjamin. The Role of the Teacher in Educational Decision
Making. (Reprint Series No. 125.) Chicago: University of
Chicago, Industrial Relations Center, 1966.

Somens, Gerald G. (Ed.). "Collective Bargaining in the Public
Service." Proceedings of the 1966 Annual Sprin Meetin ,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Industrial Relations Research Association,
may 6‘7, 1966.

Sommers, William A. "Municipal Wage Policy for Unionized Enployees."
American 03:01. LIX (November, 1955), PP. 1111, 1113.

"Sound Off: Teachers Should Have the Right to Strike.” The Instructor,
Lmzt (March, 1963), pp. 10-11.

Spencer, V. "Nurse and Her Enployee Labor Relations." Hogital
Management, xcvn (April-May, 19611). pp. 1111-118.

Spero, Sterling D. "Arbitration in the American Public Service."
Arbitration Journal, II (October, 1938), pp. 3117-351.

. "Collective Bargaining in the Public Service." Annals,

CEVIII (November, 19116), pp. 1116-153.

 

(I

 

’v" 1

_.
v
_
._
\. a
.. n
. 1
.. u
..
. I.
J 1 v
.
.

 

! \‘1v‘z1ulfoa" 1,4. 3

\

1‘ I

.11 ' ,j
ZZPDJfi ,"'1.:.
‘7' ug.lrv

; mm m? 1

   

1. n ...
.J n1 V.” .1._. 1.
RI. A
. 1, L . . f.
1 ... .1 ......
, _ 11.. f .1..
. 1 .. 11...
I
,. . L:
d V
a.
w

 

 

 

 

'.

L.

',.)'

man has a
’yf.) 17W

....A.

r 51‘ 111163197

V

t.

.
f {"311 .—.(4

A." 1;“ _, V

:r" 11111111111511" "

{1361:3110} I

.L‘

- .'.l
111.1

.— .41
1 a}...
o-

- I

... v
T
..\ .1
r1.” .1
1 m1!
.1 .
..-
I
o

~a

   

        

   

.\
(J

(L

: " 1.1111113151191113
'7 0'1" ,(OLE‘U ‘m'

1 {-4.3}

: ‘.[ 1'1." 6'1"
0 ‘1

“‘ . as ’1": .32;

12mm”

359

. Government as Enplgzei. New York: Chemical Publishing
Company, 191.18.

. "Have Public Enployees the Right to Strike? -- Maybe."
National Municipal Review, xxx (September, 1941), pp. 5211-528, 551.

 

. "Whitleyism and Collective Bargaining." Public Administra-
tion Review, Iv (Spring, 191111). pp. 1611-167.

 

Srivastava, Anand K. "Public Service Unions in the United States." Indian
Journal of Public Administration, I (October-December, 1955),

pp. 333-3h3.

Starie, John H., and Spatafora, Jack. "Union or Professional Manbership:
A Matter of PhiIOSOphy and Program." Industrial and Labor Relations
Repgrt Card for Social Science Teachers, III (November, 19637,

pp. 2-5.

 

Steet, Marion L. "Professional Associations: MOre than Unions."
Teachers College Record, LXVI (December, 1961.1) , pp. 203-218.

Steffensen, James P. "Board-Staff Negotiations." School Life, XLVII
(October, 19611), PP. 6-8.

. Teachers Negptiate with Their School Boards. (Bulletin 140.)
Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Education, 1961i.

Stephens, Kenton E. "Collective Relationships Bemeen Teachers'
Organizations and Boards of Education." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Chicago, 196k.

Steward, Luther C. "The Part of Organized Employees in DevelOping and
Administering a Personnel Wstem." Public Personnel Studies,
VIII (October-November, 1930), pp. 1111-1113.

Stinnett, T. M. "Professional Negotiation, Collective Bargaining,
Sanctions and Strikes." The Bulletin of the National Associa-
tion of Sgcondaxy School Principals“? XL"VI'I'I (April, 1961.),
pp. 93-10 0

, neimnan, Jack H., and Ware, Martha L. Professional
Negotiation in Public Education. New York: Themacmillan
Company, 1965

Story, H. W. "Collective Bargaining with Teachers Under Wisconsin
Law." Theory into Practice, IV (April, 1965), pp. 61 -65.

Stout, Dorman L. "Public Enployees: Rights to Strike and to Bargain
Collectively." Tennessee Law Review, XXV (Summer, 1958),
pp. 511-515.

360

Straus, Donald B. "The Atomic Energy Program and Collective
Bargaining." Monthly Labor Review, LXXI (November, 1950),
PP- 587-588.

Strauss, George. "The AAUP as a Professional Occupational Association."
Industrial Relations, V (October, 1965), pp. 128-1110.

. "Professionalism and Occupational Associations."
Industrial Relations, II (May, 1963), pp. 7-31.

Strickland, Jack F. "The 119th Convention of the Federation of Teachers."
Monthly Labor Review, CXIXVIII (October, 1965), pp. 12911-1205.

Stumpf, W. A. "New World of Educational Administration: Teacher
Militancy." American School Board Journal, CLVIII (February,
1966), p. 10.

Sturmthal, Adolph. "Nationalization and Workers' Control in Britain
and France." Journal of Political Econom, LXI (February, 1953),
pp- (43'790

Stutz, Robert L. "Collective Bargaining by City Ernployees." Labor
Law Journal, xv (November, 19611), pp. 696-701.

. Collective Dealing by Units 2f Local Government in
Connecticut. Storrs, Connecti'Eut: University of Connecticut,
May, 1960.

 

Sublette, Donald J. and Meyer, Charles A. "Detroit Does Not Experiment
in Arbitrating Labor Disputes." Public Personnel Review, HII (June,
1952), Pp. 13b--1360

Sunby, Robert D. "Municipal Employee Labor Relations: Discussion of
Legal Aspects of Municipal Labor Relations." Municipality,
ILVIII (April, 1953), pp. 80-81, 89-911.

Sussna, Edward. "Collective Bargaining on the New York City Transit
Systan, 19110-1957." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, II
(July. 1958). pp- 983%.

Teachers College Record. (November, 1961), "The Union Patterns in
Teachers' Organizations," by Carl J. Megel, pp. 115-120.

___._____- (November, 1961), "The Professional Pattern in Teachers' --
Organizations," by Clarice Kline, pp. 121-127.

Thompson, Arthur A. "Collective Bargaining in the Public Service."
Labor Law Journal, XVII (February, 1966), pp. 89-98.

Thompson, Peter M. "Negotiating with Unions: The Canadian Experience."
Public Personnel Review, XXIII (October, 1962), p. 235.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11‘ 1‘
’LA § '
MI 1 .
1112
:Ié. '
i'“ E
1 ‘ ; '
l
. x :1 '1

5123-1

 

" wineries-YB nr them-1'3-

c
.
u 1
u
-.
I l"
‘1
4
". ‘-

"n

911.

.
e
e
1
1
. i
I
x
n 1
1 ' .
I
1 u
e
I

' 'T. ‘7‘.
:at'c-WJ :ifiw 311583

‘(S‘OU' J ‘7'1J0m

~. .'W‘Jmer ,
Lf Ii". ‘11“ Evil] v,

F.

1 1.11"“ r (1‘11"330
(23y 112607)

5'
J
.
>1
-, .........
1-.
C

1' 11'1" ' 1 ‘-.11:1.r}i":=r:‘.
1~r .' .~ ' m in air.
’3‘er
-.' 2.1:." t ”'

.‘..:A,Ouooa
. .....E. 31.: 3‘20!
‘ “It! 1‘??-

.b':
L‘ 1!? ",bnoimal

   
  
   
 
 
 
 
  

.1
:-'71

r ‘
. rm 'roi’. )

xiii:

.'.!

361

Thorns, Irene. "Collective Negotiation: A Survey and Analysis of
Teacher Group Collective Negotiation Contracts with School
Boards." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1961.

Torpey, William G. "They Shall Not Strike." Minnesota Municipalities,
mII (January, 1911?), pp. 16-19.

Torres Braschi, Ramon, et al. "Personnel Opinions: What Policies and
Rules, If Any, Should Govern Supplementary Outside Ehnployment by
Public Employees?" Public Personnel Review, IV, (April, 19514),
pp. 93—99.

"Tripartite Panel to Improve Municipal Collective Bargaining Procedures."
Memorandum of Agreement, New York: City Adnfinistrator's Office,
March 31, 1966.

"Union Activity in Public Employment." Columbia Law Review, LV (March,
1955), pp- 3113-366.

"Union Labor and the Municipal mployer." Illinois Law Review, EV
(July-August, 1950), pp. 3611-377.

"Unions Eye Igunicipal Employees." Business Week, 15112 (March 21 , 1959),
Pp. 11 -1220

"The Union Shop, Euployment Security, and Municipal Workers." Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, III (January, 1959): Po 256.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Collective Bar ainin eements in the
Federal Service. (Late Summer, 196147 (Bulletin No. 11131 .)
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965.

U.S. Office of Education. Teachers Negotiate with Their School Boards.
(Bulletin No. 19614.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government fiinting
Office, 196h.

 

Upton, C.—D,, Miller, LeRoy, and Erickson, John E. "Minnesota State
Enployees Train for Unionism." American Federationist, ILVII
(May, 19210), pp. 1196-501-

Unruh, A. "Negotiations and the Role of the Superintendent."
Educational Forum, XXIX (January, 1965), pp. 165-169.

Vietheer, George C. "The Government Seizure Strategem in Labor Disputes."
Public Administration Rivieg, VI (Spring, 19116), pp. 1119-156.

Vogel, Isadore. "What About the Rights of the Public Emloyeeflz
Labor Law Journal, I (May, 1950), pp. 6011-618.

362

Vosloo, William B. Collective Bargainingin the United States Federal
Civil Service. Chicago: Public Personnel Association, 1966.

 

Walker, Harvey. "Employee Organizations in the National Government
Service. 1: The Period to the World War." Public Personnel
Studies, I (August, 19111), pp. 67-73.

. "Employee Organizations in the National Government Service.
2: The Formation of the National Federation of Federal Employees."
Public Personnel Studies, I (October, 19M), pp. 130-135.

 

. "Employee Organizations in the National Government Service.
3: Enployee Organizations Activities Involving Pay." Public
Personnel Studies, I (November, 19111), pp. 167-177.

 

. "Employee Organizations in the National Government Service.
1;: Retirement Legislation." Public Personnel Studies, 1
(February, 19112), pp. 246-256.

 

Warner, Kenneth 0. (ed.). DeveIOpments in Public Eknplgygg Relations:
Legislative, Judicial, Administrative. Chicago: Public
Personnel Association, 196?.

. Management Relations with Organized Public Egployees:
Theory, PoliciegLPrograms. Chicago: Public Personnel
Association, 1963.

Washington Education Association. Guidelines for Professional Ne -
tiations. Seattle: Washington Education Association, 19 .

Weber, F. W. "The Federal Personnel Officer: Management or Employee?"
Personnel Administration, XVIII (January, 1955), PP. 38-112.

Weiford, Douglas, and Burggraaff, Wayne. "The Future for Public
Employee Unions." Public Management, XLV (May, 1963), p. 102.

Weisenfeld, Allan. "Collective Bargaining by Public Employees in the
U.S.” Proceedings of the Annual @ring Meeting, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, Industrial Relations Research Association, 1966, pp. 1-10.

. "Public Employees: First or Second Class Citizens?"
Labor Law Journal, XVI (Novanber, 1965), pp. 685-7011.

 

Welsh, James T. "mployee Participation in Personnel Procedures."
Public Mana ment, RIVIII (January, 1956), pp. 5-6.

Wermel, Michael T. "A Look Ahead at Personnel and Salaries." Western
City, mm (May, 1958), pp. 27-30.

 

363

"What Impacts Will the Trend Towards Unionization and Collective
Bargaining with Public Employee Organizations Have on the Merit
System?" Public Personnel Review, XXVII (January, 1966),

pp . 52-59.

"When Teachers Organize." Monthly Labor Review, IMVII (November,
19611), pp. 1295-1298.

White, Leonard D. "Strikes in the Public Service." Public Personnel
Review, I (January, 19119), pp. 3-10.

Wilbern, York. "Professionalization in the Public Service: Too Little
or Too Much?“ Public Administration Review, XIV (Winter, 1951;),

pp. 13-21.

Wildman, Wesley A. "Collective Action by..'Public School Teachers."
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XVIII (October, 19611),

pp. 3-190
. Implications of Teacher Bargaining for School Administration.

(ReprintvSeries No. 120.7 mug“ fiiversity of Chicago,
Industrial Relations Canter, 1965.

. Le al A ects of Teacher Collective Action. (Reprint
Series No. 155.; Chicago: University of Chicago, Industrial
Relations Center, 1966.

 

. "Representing the Teachers' Interest." Proceedings of the
Nineteenth Annual Winter MeetingI Industrial Relations Research
Association, 1966, pp. 113-123.

 

, and Perry, Charles R. Grou Conflict and School Organiza-
tion. (Reprint Series No. 123., CE’cago: fiiversity of Chicago,
Industrial Relations Center, 1966.

Wirth, Richard M. "Sane About the Union." Michigan Education Journal,
XL (October 1, 1962), pp. 205, 223.

"Who Runs the Public Schools?" The American Federationist, Ln (July,
1963), pp. 21-22.

fiisconsin Legislative Council, Labor Relations Comittee]. "Labor
Committee Opposes Interference in Municipal loyer-Euployee
Relations." Municipality, LII (February, 1957 , pp. 35, 119.

Wollett, Donald H. "Professional Negotiations: What Is This Thing?"
Washington, D.C. : National Education Association, 19611 (mimeographed)

 

3611

. "The Public Euployee at the Bargaining Table: Promise or
Illusion?" Labor Law Journal, IV (January, 1961;), pp. 8-15.

Wolpert, Al‘nold W. "Representing the Teachers' Interests. Response
from the NEA." Montigy Labor Review, LDOCIX (June, 1966),
pp. 621-622.

Woodcock, George. "Trade Unions under Nationalization." Labor and
Industry in Britain, v (June, 19117), pp. 123-125. "

"Work Stappages, Government Enployees, 19112-1961." Monthly Labor
Review, LXIXXVI (January, 1963), pp. 52-51;.

Work Stoppages Dvolfingleachas, 19LLO-1 962, Summarg Release.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.

Wormuth, Francis D. "The Hatch Act Cases." Western Political
@arterly, I (June, 191.18), pp. 165-173.

Yabroff, Bernard, and Lily, Mary David. "Collective Bargaining and
Work Steppages Involving Teachers." Monthly Labor Review,

mm (May. 1953), pp. 1175-1179.

, and Willis, Daniel P., Jr. "Federal Seizures in Labor-
Management DiSputes, 1917-52." Monthly Labor Review, LXXVI
(June, 1953), PP. 611-616.

 

Young, Dallas M. "Fifty Years of Labor Arbitration in Cleveland
Transit." Monthly labor Review, mu (May, 1960), pp. 11611-1171.

Zander, Arnold S. "Labor Problems." A discussion by Gordon R. Clapp.
"Problems of Union Relations in Public Agencies." American
Economic Review XXIII (Supplement) Part 2, (March, 1,9133},
pp. 20 3.263.

. "Organized Labor and the Council-Manager Plan: II.

Views of a Labor Official." Public Management, XXIII (June,

195?), pp. 126-129.

. "Public Employee Unions: The American Federation of State,
Coun , and Municipal Employees." Public Management, XIX
(Septanber, 1937): Pp. 259-261.

 

. "Trends in Labor Legislation for Public Enployees."
Monthly Labor Review, IHIIII (December, 1960), pp. 1293-1296.

. "Where Our Union Stand on Its Collective Bargaining Program."
Public mp1 ee, mv (July, 1959). pp. 3-6.

 

365

Zwackman, John E. "Municipal Employment Relations in Wisconsin: The
Extension of Provate Labor Relations Devices into Municipal
E'rqaloyment." Wisconsin Law Review, VIII (Summer, 1965), pp. 671-
701 .