Michigan's Fair & Open Competition in Governmental Construction Act (Public Act 98) became law in 2011. It essentially prohibited governmental units from requiring non-union companies to agree to project labor agreements ("PLAs") in order to work on a project. A PLA is a "pre-hire agreement between a construction project owner and a union or unions that a contractor must agree to before accepting work on the project and that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for the project." Proponents of the law argued that PLAs discriminate against non-union contractors by essentially forcing them to join the union in order to work on a project.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, enjoined enforcement of the statute on February 29, 2012. In her order, Judge Victoria Roberts held that Michigan's statute interfered with the comprehensive regulatory scheme established by the National Labor Relations Act and was preempted. Consequently, governmental units may again fund projects that require contractors working on the projects to sign PLAs.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette appealed the District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals and filed a motion to stay Judge Roberts' order pending the outcome of the appeal. The appeal remains pending. However on May 23, 2012, Judge Roberts denied the motion to stay the ruling insofar as it pertained to the merits of the case.
Disclaimer
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, enjoined enforcement of the statute on February 29, 2012. In her order, Judge Victoria Roberts held that Michigan's statute interfered with the comprehensive regulatory scheme established by the National Labor Relations Act and was preempted. Consequently, governmental units may again fund projects that require contractors working on the projects to sign PLAs.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette appealed the District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals and filed a motion to stay Judge Roberts' order pending the outcome of the appeal. The appeal remains pending. However on May 23, 2012, Judge Roberts denied the motion to stay the ruling insofar as it pertained to the merits of the case.
Disclaimer
RSS Feed