PUBLIC SECTOR UNION CONTRACTS                                                                S.B. 280:

                                                                                  SUMMARY OF INTRODUCED BILL

                                                                                                         IN COMMITTEE










Senate Bill 280 (as introduced 4-16-15)

Sponsor:  Senator Marty Knollenberg

Committee:  Commerce


Date Completed:  6-8-15




The bill would amend the public employment relations act to prohibit a public employer or an officer or agent of a public employer, on or after the bill's effective date, from entering into or renewing a bargaining agreement that required or allowed paid release time for a union officer or bargaining representative to conduct union business if the release time were paid by the public employer. The bill would not apply to a bargaining agreement for employees subject to compulsory arbitration under Public Act 312 of 1969.


(Public Act 312 of 1969 provides for compulsory arbitration of labor disputes in municipal police and fire departments, establishes the procedures for arbitration, and provides for the enforcement and review of arbitration awards.)


The bill would take effect 90 days after its enactment.


MCL 423.210                                                                   Legislative Analyst:  Jeff Mann




The bill would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the State and local units of government.  Under the bill, employer-paid leave or release time for union officers would no longer be allowable as part of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between a union and a public employer. It is unknown how many CBAs with provisions for this type of leave time are currently in effect or what the costs associated are, and since it is difficult to predict with certainty the outcome of future CBA negotiations, the fiscal impact is indeterminate. If these provisions were simply eliminated outright from future CBAs, the State and local units of government would see some cost savings on those contracts relative to otherwise identical contracts that contained the provisions in question. On the other hand, if other concessions were negotiated in lieu of union leave time provisions, the potential savings could be reduced or new costs could be created if the alternative concessions were more expensive than the union leave time provisions would have been.


                                                                                        Fiscal Analyst:  Josh Sefton



This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.