A Teamsters union that represents city of Dearborn workers is backing down from a policy of charging non-union employees a fee for filing a grievance.

The reversal comes after the Teamsters initially tried to punish and intimidate employees who exercised their rights to leave the union as part of the state's right-to-work law. After being taken to court over its actions, the Teamsters Local 214 ended its policy of charging non-union employees $150 for filing a grievance.

The union filed paperwork with the court on Friday. It is unlikely the Teamsters would have been successful defending the policy in court. In a 1944 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that unions cannot discriminate against any members of a bargaining unit because the unions have been granted a monopoly as the exclusive bargaining representative.

"We are gratified that Teamsters Local 214 decided to actually comply with the law rather than fight to discriminate against the very people they represent," said Derk Wilcox, senior attorney for the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, which is representing three Dearborn city workers in the case. 

Under the state's right-to-work law, employees cannot be required to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment.

Teamsters Local 214's policy of charging non-union employees dated back only a few months. On June 10, the union's president, Joseph Valenti, signed the policy and it officially took effect July 1, just three months after the right-to-work law went into effect.

The way the policy worked, all employees were to be assessed the $150 fee for filing a grievance, but the fee was waived for dues-paying union members. Valenti was quoted in the Washington Free Beacon as saying the workers who filed the lawsuit against the union were "committing suicide."

~~~~~

A video about the case:

~~~~~

(Editor's note: This story has been slightly edited since its original posting.)

Restaurants and bars would have the option of allowing smoking on patios and other outdoor portions of their businesses under bipartisan legislation recently introduced in the state Legislature.

"I think this something businesses should be able to offer if they choose to," said Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, the sponsor of House Bill 5159. "People step outside to smoke now anyway.

"I am not a smoker, but to me this is an issue of liberty and property rights," Rep. McMillin continued. "That's why I didn't support the smoking ban legislation when it was in the House. If I was in one of these areas with my children and someone started smoking, I'd go someplace else. I believe that's a choice we always have."

Michigan's smoking ban was signed into law by former Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Dec. 18, 2009, and took effect May 1, 2010. Under the law, smoking was banned in all public places including workplaces, restaurants and bars.

A key development in Lansing that helped lead to the Legislature's passage of the ban came when the Michigan Restaurant Association took the position that ban or no ban, all bars and restaurants should be treated the same. Basically, the restaurant association told lawmakers there should be no differentiation between restaurants that generally cater to quick in and out customers, and bars and other businesses with established customer bases that often included a high percentage of smokers.

The association, which primarily represents restaurants, is taking the same approach in regard to the outdoor patio smoking issue. Restaurant association spokesman Justin Winslow said the group opposes House Bill 5159 on the basis that the smoking ban is in place and no special exceptions should be made.

"We believe this legislation is well intentioned," Winslow said. "However, at this point we all know that the ban exists and has been established. We support letting us all compete evenly."

Meanwhile, the Michigan Food and Beverage Association, which primarily represents bars and taverns, supports the measure.

"Our position has always been that our members should have the right to determine issues like this themselves," said Jennifer Kluge, spokesperson for food and beverage association. "Many of our members are interested in this. If a facility wants to allow this, it should be their right to choose."

House Bill 5159 has been assigned to the House Regulatory Reform Committee.

The measure has bipartisan support. Rep. Harold Haugh, D-Roseville, Rep. Douglas Geiss, D-Taylor, and Rep. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, who is the committee vice chair, are cosponsors of the bill. Rep. Haugh is the ranking Democrat on the House Regulatory Reform Committee. 

"There haven't been any hearings scheduled on the bill yet," Rep. McMillin said. "But I'm hoping we can get a good discussion going on the issue."