Labor dispute involving a refusal to bargain over unilateral changes to parking arrangements; Alleged violation of § 10(1)(e) of Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) (MCL 423.210(1)(e)); Comparing In re Univ of MI Health System & Univ of MI House Officers Ass’ns (MERC); Unfair labor practice (ULP); Port Huron Educ Ass’n, MEA/NEA v Port Huron Area Sch Dist; A public employer’s duty to bargain in good faith; MCL 423.215(1); Whether a change has a significant impact on bargaining members; Oak Park Pub Safety Officers Ass’n v Oak Park; The “covered by” doctrine; Waiver; Collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed the MERC’s decision and order concluding that respondent-University’s refusal to bargain over unilateral changes to parking arrangements on its medical campus violated § 10(1)(e) of the PERA. The charging party-nurses association (MNA) filed a ULP charge with MERC after the University refused to bargain over the parking changes at its medical center. The MERC agreed with the nurses, finding: (1) the parking changes “implicated a mandatory subject of bargaining and significantly impacted a term or condition of the” MNA members’ employment, (2) “the University did not fulfill its duty to bargain over” the changes because the subject was not “covered by” the parties’ CBA, and (3) the MNA did not waive the right to bargain over the topic. MERC ordered the University to cease and desist from refusing to bargain, to restore the status quo from before it implemented the “changes, and to make bargaining unit members whole for monetary losses incurred as a result of” the changes, with interest. On appeal, the court rejected the University’s argument that the redesignation of parking spaces did not implicate a mandatory subject of bargaining because the changes had a de minimis impact on bargaining unit members. It found that “competent, material, and substantial evidence supported MERC’s holding that the parking changes had a significant impact on the terms and conditions of bargaining unit members’” employment. The “changes had a cascading effect on bargaining unit members, impacting the length of their workday commute, the quality of the parking available, and the value of their parking permits.” The court also rejected the University’s claim that it reasonably relied on the language of the parties’ CBA to implement the changes, noting that “neither the language of the CBA nor the parties’ history of negotiations support that the topics related to the parking changes were ‘covered by’” the CBA. “Given that the only mention of topics related to the parking changes was limited to stray commentary regarding future projects, this evidence did not support that the CBA covered the parking issues in dispute.” Finally, the court rejected the University’s contention that during negotiations, the nurses had notice that it intended to make the changes and ceded authority to do so, noting there was no “‘clear and unmistakable’ evidence that the MNA waived the right to bargain over topics relevant to the parking changes.”