Whether defendant-Township’s Guidelines violate the Local Government Labor Regulatory Limitation Act (LGLRLA); MCL 123.1386

The court held that local “governments may contract with bidders who pay a prevailing wage and may consider wage levels when deciding which bid to accept as to a particular contract, but they may not, as [the Township] has done, adopt a blanket policy effectively barring bid awards to companies that do not pay prevailing wages.” Thus, it concluded the Township’s Guidelines violate MCL 123.1386, and affirmed the trial court’s determination that the “Guidelines fall within the scope of the LGLRLA’s prohibitions.” The case arose from the Township adopting “‘Guidelines’ that require employers working on Township contracts to pay ‘prevailing wages’ and fringe benefits.” The appeal turned on the interpretation of the LGLRLA. The court held that “regardless of nomenclature, the ‘Guidelines’ violate MCL 123.1386.” The Township’s claim that the “LGLRLA applies only to regulations is contrary to MCL 123.1386’s unambiguous language that includes local policies and resolutions within its prohibition. If there was any doubt on that matter, MCL 123.1395 further establishes that MCL 123.1386 applies to policies setting the terms and conditions of a local government’s own contracts. MCL 123.1386 does not prohibit local governments from entering into contracts with prevailing-wage provisions, so long as those provisions are not required by an ordinance, policy or resolution.” However, here, the Township “formally adopted a policy requiring all employers working on Township contracts to pay prevailing wages. That action cannot be squared with the statutory language.”