## Facts

- Alpena Community College had multiple bargaining units, including an MEA-represented unit of nonsupervisory office personnel, a separate building service employees unit, and a faculty unit.
- About thirty nonsupervisory support employees were not represented by any union and held varied positions (e.g., technicians, bookstore staff, lab assistant, public information director, coordinators).
- In September 1993, the Michigan Education Association (MEA) petitioned the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) to hold an election so these unrepresented employees could choose representation by being added to the existing MEA office-personnel unit.
- MERC treated the employees as a residual group of remaining nonsupervisory support positions at the college and ordered an election on representation by the existing unit.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals stayed the election and reversed, emphasizing the employees’ diverse duties and work settings.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether MERC acted within its discretion in finding the unrepresented support employees constituted an appropriate residual grouping that could be added to the existing MEA office-personnel unit.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals improperly substituted its judgment for MERC’s by reweighing employee differences and rejecting MERC’s election order.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated MERC’s order directing an election.
- The Court held MERC’s unit determination and direction of election were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record and were not legally erroneous.
- The Court concluded the Court of Appeals exceeded the proper scope of review by effectively reconsidering the unit determination de novo.

## Legal Principles

- MERC has broad discretion to determine appropriate bargaining units in public-sector labor relations, and courts must defer if MERC’s decision is supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence and reflects correct legal standards.
- A “residual” group of unrepresented employees in a workplace with existing units may be treated as an appropriate grouping and may be permitted to vote on representation in an existing unit when the agency’s rationale is supported by the record.
- Differences in job titles, duties, skills, or work locations do not automatically defeat an appropriate-unit determination; the inquiry is whether MERC’s overall configuration is reasonable and consistent with statutory labor-relations policies.
- Judicial review of MERC’s fact-intensive, policy-laden unit determinations is limited; courts may not reweigh evidence or replace MERC’s reasonable line-drawing with their own.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court reinstated MERC’s election order, holding that MERC reasonably treated the college’s remaining unrepresented nonsupervisory support employees as a residual group eligible to vote on inclusion in the existing MEA office-personnel bargaining unit, and that the Court of Appeals erred by reweighing the record and overruling MERC’s discretionary unit determination.


Mich. Educ. Ass’n v. Alpena Cmty. Coll., 457 Mich. 300, 577 N.W.2d 457 (1998)