Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
December 01, 2014

COA holds that there is no written signature requirement for wage deductions negotiated through collective bargaining

The Michigan Court of Appeals in Detroit Pub. Schools v. Conn. No. 317007 held that the Wage and Hour Division of LARA has subject matter jurisdiction over claims made under the Payment of Wages and Fringe Benefits Act (“PWFBA”). Further, the Court held that payroll deductions negotiated through collective bargaining agreements are exempted from the individualized written consent requirements of the PWFBA.
 
The Detroit Federation of Teachers, on behalf of Detroit Public School teachers, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Detroit Public Schools.  A provision, known as a Termination Incentive Plan, provided that all salaried teachers would have $250 per pay period deducted and deposited into the Termination Incentive Plan account.
 
The teachers challenged the plan citing to § 7(2) of the PWFBA (MCL 408.471(2)), which requires that any deduction for the benefit of the employer must have the written consent from the employee for each wage payment subject to the deduction.  An administrative hearing officer sided with the teachers and held that the deductions were in violation of the PWFBA.
 
The Detroit public schools appealed arguing that 1) LARA’s Wage and Hour Division did not have jurisdiction to hear claims under the PWFBA and 2) that under §7(1)  of the PWFBA (MCL 408.477(1)), the Termination Incentive Plan deductions were lawful as they fit squarely within the collective bargaining exception to the written consent requirements.
 
The Court first determined that based on the statutory language it was clear that the Wage and Hour Division was the proper administrative agency to initially challenge the deductions; it held that disputes under the PWFBA are properly brought at the Division.
 
The Court then considered whether the deduction required individualized written consent by each teacher. Again, citing to legislative intent, the Court concluded that, “A reasonable reading of [both § 1 and § 2], is that where a wage deduction is expressly permitted by a collective bargaining agreement, the deduction is exempted from the written consent requirements of [the PWFBA].
 
Thus, the Court reversed the administrative decision, and permitted the deductions without the individualized written consent of the teachers. 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset