court answer by taylor district to lawsuit

7/29/2019 Court answer by Taylor district to lawsuit

1/7

STATE OF MICHIGANIN THE THIRD JUDICIAL WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

Rebecca Metz. Nancy Rhatigan.and Angela StatThe,

Plaintiffs,

Taylor Fedcraton of Teachers AFT Local 1085ad Tay.lor Public Schoo.l Board of EducationuD TuDor Schoo.l District.

Defendants.Patrick B. Wright (P54052)Derk A. Wilcox (P66 177)Mackinac Center Legal FoundationAttorneys for Plaintiffs140 West Main StreetMidland, MI 48640(989) 631-0900

Mark H. Cousens (P12273)Mark H. Cousens Attorney26261 Evergreen Road, Suite 110Southfield, Michigan 48076(248) 355-2150

Answer on Behalf of All Defendants

;(.).rHHELD.PHONE (24.FAN 355 17F

1. The allegation is admitted.2. The allegation is denied in the form and manner alleged. Fo r further answer Defendantssay that the Plaintiff Stefike is an employee of the Defendant Taylor Board of Education anda member of the bargaining unit represented by the Taylor Federation of Teachers.3. The allegation is admitted.4. The allegation is admitted.

V

Case No,: 13-002906 CK[Ion. Daphne Means Curtis

FILED IN MY OFFICE

WAYNE COUNTY CLERK

3/22/2013 12:37:48 PM

CATHY M. GARRETT

13-002906-CK


2/7

MARK .H, Cc.usENs

66 F48076

5 The allegation is denied in the form and manner alleged. For further answer Defendantssay that Plaintiff Metz is an emploee of the Defendant Taylor Board of Education and amember of the bargaining unit represented by the Taylor Federation of Teachers.6. The allegation is admitted.7. Th e allegation is admitted.8 The allegation is denied in the form and mariner alleged. Fo r further answer. DefendantsFOy that .PiaintifiRhatigan is an employee of the De..fhn.dant Taylor .Efoard ot.E.dueaton and ai ienrber ofte ba galnuig unit rep mooted by th e T a [or Federation 0 I eanhers9. The allegation is admitted.10. The allegation is denied in the form and manner alleged. For further answer Defendantssay that the Taylor Federation of Teachers is a voluntary unincorporated association.Ii. The allegation is admitted.12. The allegation is admitted.13, The allegation is admitted.14. The allegation is admitted.15. The allegation is admitted.16. Th e allegation is denied in the form and manner alleged. For further answer, Defendantssay that contracts were negotiated within the County of Wayne bu t they include covenantswhich may be performed either inside ou r outside that County.17 Defendants admit that the action seeks a declaration of rights Defendants deny that theCourt has jurisdiction over the claims as the issues are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction ofthe Michigan Employment Relations Commission.18. No contest being presented by this statement no answer is required.


3/7

19. Denied in the form and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state that theTaylor Board of Education and Taylor Federation ofTeachers reached agreement on collective

bargaining agreements.20 . The allegation is admitted.21. Denied in t he form and manner a lleged. For further answer Defendants state that theagreement relates to certain mandatory and permissive subjects for bargaining.22. Denied in the form and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state that theyreached agreement on a collective bargair irg agreement fuhich contained te.rms an.d conditionsof employment which are mandatory subjects for bargaining.23. Denied in the f orm and manner alleged. Fo r further answer Defendants state that theterms of the agreement are recited in the contract.24. Denied as inaccurate. For further answer, Defendant Taylor Federation of Teachersstates that a ratification process was conducted as required by its constitution.25. The allegation is admitted.26. Denied in t he form and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state that theterms of the agreement are contained in the agreement.27. Denied in t he form and manner alleged. For further answer. Defendants state that onDecember 11. 2012 a majority of the Michigan House of Representatives voted in favor ofHouse Bill 4003.28. Denied as inaccurate. Fo r further answer. 2012 PA 349 addresses a narrow class ofagreements which impose certain obligations as a condition of employment.

3


4/7

R IARK H. CousFonAoi RHAN

252.61 Evooo RoooSunolvi OHiOAN 48076

PHONE 1248l 55. U54i.Fx (21151 3552 170

29. Denied in the form and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state that theyreached agreement on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement to succeed an expired

agreement and those agreements were bilaterally ratified.30. Defendants admit that they approved a union security agreement.31. Denied in th e f orm and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state that theagreements were subject to separate votes for ratification.32, Denied in the form an.d manner. alle.ge.d. For further answer Defendants state that theagreements were subject to separate votes fOr ratification.33. Denied in the f orm and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state tha t theagreements were subject to separate votes for ratification.34, Denied in the f orm and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state that eachagreement has a duration provision.35. Denied as incorrect as a matter of law.36. Denied as incorrect as a matter of law.37. No contest being presented by the statement, no answer is required.38. Denied as incorrect as a matter of l aw and outside the jurisdiction of this Court.39. Denied as inaccurate.40. Denied as incorrect as a mater of l aw and outside the jurisdiction of this Court.41. No contest being presented by the statement, no answer is required.42. Denied as untrue.43. Denied as untrue.44. No answer is required as the paragraph contains a statement of opinion and not fact.45. Denied as untrue.

4


5/7

MARK H. C.ousrNs

2626! . iiRiiRNSi 45576

46. Denied as inaccurate.47. Th e paragraph contains a statement whose meaning is uncertain and appears to contain

a statement of opinion and no t fact; no answer is required.48. Denied in the form aid manner alleged. Fo r further answer Defendants state that theparagraph does not accurately state the law.49 . Denied as incolTeet as a matter of law and outside the jurisdiction of this Court.50. Deni.ed as incorrect as matter of law

o contest neina presentea the statement o answer s reqa red52. Denied in the form and manner alleged. For ftthher answer Defendants state that acontract was made.53. Denied as untrue.54. Denied as untrue.55. Denied in the form and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state that theparagraph does not accurately state the law.56. Denied in the form and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state that theSchool Board is a body corporate whose members are elected.57. Denied in the form and manner alleged. For further answer Defendants state that theparagraph doe s not accurately state the law.58 The paragraph contains a statement of opinion and not fact and no answer is required


6/7

Affirniative Defenses

1. Plaintiffs lack standing to sue as they are no t parties to a collective bargainingagreement:2. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider matters arising under the Public EmploymentRelations Act. MCL 423.201 et seq. as those matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction otthe Mic.higan Emoloyi.nent Relations Commission;3 TheieoIa1ntfaIstsjtedJ TonwhlehrClefmas m:ntedas

a The Court does not nqune into consideration,b. No provision of any law restricts the duration of a collective bargainingagreement;c. The Michigan Employment Relations Commission has expresslyapproved a collective bargaining agreement with a ten year term;

4. This matter is subject to controlling opinions of the Michigan Employment RelationsCommission and the Supreme Court including:

a. Wise v Civil Service Commission, 2007 Mich App LEXIS 1996(members of bargaining unit are not parties to collective bargainingagreement);b. First Security Savings Bank v Aitken, 226 Mich App 291, 306 (1997),

reversed on other grounds, Smith v Globe Life Ins Co 460 Mich 446(1999) (non par ti es may no t challenge the validity of a contract);c. Lamphere Schools v Lamphere Federation ofTeachers, 400 Mich 104(1977) (CircuitCourt lacks jurisdiction to consider unfair labor practice

claims):d. Ann Arbor Fire Fighters Local 1733. 1990 MERC Lab Op 528(contract provision of ten years enforceable although of different

duration than other provisions);

6


7/7

e. Bebensee v Ross Pierce Electric Corp, 400 Mich 233. 245 (1977)(union has very broad discretion in the negotiation of collectivebargaining agreements).

5. The Taylor School District is not a proper party Defendant as it is no t a party to acollective bargaining agreement.

Req nest For Relief

Th..is Cou.rt should:1. Dismiss thi s cause with prejudic.e.:2. Award Defendants their fees and costs pursuant to MCR 2. 114(E) as this matter wasinitiated to harass or intimidate and is unsupported by law.

MARK H.GOUSENS (P 12273)Attorney for a ll the Defendants26261 Evergreen Road. Ste. 1 10Southfield, MI 48076(248) 355-2150

March 22, 2013

7

court answer by taylor district to lawsuit

Documents