STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5430

January 9, 1979

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN:

Article 11, Sec. 5 (Civil Service)

STATE POLICE:

Collective bargaining

STATE OFFICES AND EMPLOYEES:

Collective bargaining

WORDS AND PHRASES:

'Public employer'

The term 'employer' in Proposal G, which amended Const 1963, art 11, Sec. 5 by authorizing State Police Troopers and Sergeants to engage in collective bargaining, means the Governor's designated representative.

Honorable William Faust

State Senator

Majority Leader

Capitol Building

Lansing, Michigan 48909

Honorable Thaddeus C. Stopczynski

State Representative

State Capitol Building

Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have requested my opinion relative to who is deemed to be the 'employer' within the meaning of Proposal G adopted by the electorate at the November 7, 1978, general election authorizing state police troopers and sergeants to engage in collective bargaining.

Proposal G amended Const 1963, art 11, Sec. 5, the civil service section of the Michigan Constitution by adding the following language:

It should be noted from the outset that the employer of state police troopers and sergeants, as with all state employees, is the State of Michigan. Therefore the real question is who may represent the State for collective bargaining purposes.

In order to reach the intended meaning of 'employer' it is necessary to comply with the general rules of constitutional construction as established by the Courts. With respect to interpreting constitutional provisions, it has been held that the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the provision and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby must be considered. Schwartz v Secretary of State, 393 Mich 42, 47; 222 NW2d 517 (1974); State Highway Commission v Vanderkloot, 392 Mich 159, 179; 220 NW2d 416 (1974); Michigan Farm Bureau v Secretary of State, 379 Mich 387, 390-391; 151 NW2d 797 (1967); Jones v City of Ypsilanti, 26 Mich App 574, 579; 182 NW2d 795 (1970); Thomas v City of Lansing, 315 Mich 566, 571; 24 NW2d 213 (1946); City of Jackson v Commissioner of Revenue, 316 Mich 694; 26 NW2d 569 (1947). Moreover, the intended meaning of the constitutional provision may be determined by reference to previously existing State law of custom. Walber v Wayne Circuit Judge, 2 Mich App 145, 148-149; 138 NW2d 772 (1966); Bond v Ann Arbor School District, 18 Mich App 506, 512; 171 NW2d 557 (1969); In re Constitution of 1978 PA 428, ---- Mich ----; ---- NW2d ---- (1978).

The courts have been confronted with a similar situation in construing the term 'public employer' under the Michigan public employee relations act, (PERA), 1965 PA 379; MCLA 423.201 et seq; MSA 17.255(1) et seq, which pertains to public employees other than State classified civil servants. This act also requires a 'public employer' to engage in collective bargaining but does not designate the person or persons who are to represent the public agency which is required to deal with the collective bargaining representatives of the employees.

A review of appellate decisions construing PERA reveals that in each instance the determination has been based upon the specific facts presented in the case. (See: Wayne County Civil Service Commission v Board of Supervisors, 384 Mich 363; 184 NW2d 201 (1973), where the County Road Commission and not the Civil Service Commission or County Board of Commissioners, was held to be the employer of Road Commission employees; AFSCME v St. Clair Sheriff, 77 Mich App 145; 258 NW2d 168 (1977), Sheriff held to be the employer of employees within his department; Judges of the 74th Judicial District v Bay County, 385 Mich 710; 190 NW2d 219 (1971), held that judicial districts must be deemed the employer of court employees and Wayne County Library Board v Wayne County Board of Commissioners, 78 Mich App 240; 259 NW2d 440 (1977) found that the County Board of Commissioners and not the Library Board is the employer of Library employees.)

Here, the circumstances surrounding the adoption of Proposal G offer an indication of what the people intended the term 'employer' to mean within the meaning of the amendatory language.

In 1976 the Michigan Civil Service Commission adopted an employee relations policy which established a meet and confer bargaining procedure whereby certain classified state employees, including State police officers, could organize and designate representatives to meet and confer with their employer concerning conditions of employment and make presentations to a compensation hearings panel. Pursuant to the definition of terms provided in the policy, both the Governor and the various appointing authorities are deemed to be 'employers' for various purposes. However, in accordance with Section 2.16 of the policy, only the Governor's designated representative is authorized to act on behalf of State Government as a whole before the compensation hearings panel and with regard to the primary negotiations of labor relations matters.

Thus, prior to the adoption of Proposal G the circumstances under which state police officers pursued modifications of conditions of employment and wages involved a system whereby the Governor's designee was the 'employer' for purposes of representing state government. This, coupled with the fact that Proposal G is an amendment to Const 1963, art 11, Sec. 5, which is the civil service section of the Constitution, evidences intent that the Governor's designee would represent state government for collective bargaining purposes.

Therefore, it is my opinion that the term 'employer' in Proposal G, means the Governor's designated representative.

Frank J. Kelley