 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Associated Builders and Contractors v. Director7/19/2005
n) has continued through the NLRB, the recent result of which calls into question whether or not job targeting programs are as protected as the Intervenors contend. . . .
Now the Board [NLRB] has determined that valid arguments exist to warrant a finding that job targeting programs may be inimical to state prevailing wage projects as well. . . .
The ALJ decision in Croson, supra, is neither binding nor persuasive authority. The issue addressed therein has no bearing on a constitutional analysis of Michigan's PWA. Specifically, the ALJ's decision addressed a technical timing issue, i.e., in the event a state court suit is preempted by the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction, at what point in time does the state suit become an unfair labor practice in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
To the extent that plaintiff's supplemental brief asserts that job targeting is "a collusive practice [that] springs from the collective bargaining process . . . and is precisely the kind of practice that taints the collective bargaining process in relation to the PWA," as noted in our initial opinion, we agree with the circuit court that plaintiff acknowledged below that job targeting or market recovery programs do not violate antitrust laws and may constitute protected concerted activity under the NLRA. Plaintiff's supplemental brief raises nothing to alter our original analysis.
We reverse the circuit court's determination allowing discovery to proceed, and order that summary disposition enter in defendants' favor on the unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority challenge.
II. Cross-Appeal
On cross-appeal, plaintiff argues that the PWA is unconstitutionally vague, both on its face and in application. The circuit court dismissed plaintiff's vagueness challenges, and we affirm.
This Court reviews de novo the circuit court's grant of summary disposition of plaintiff's vagueness challenges of the PWA. Maiden, supra, 461 Mich at 118. The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law this Court reviews de novo. Dep't of State, supra, 251 Mich App at 115-116. Legislation is presumed constitutional absent a clear showing to the contrary. Caterpillar Inc, supra, 440 Mich at 413. Statutes must be construed in a constitutional manner if possible. Id.
A. Facial Challenge on Vagueness Grounds
Generally, " he party challenging the facial constitutionality of an act 'must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the ct would be valid. The fact that the . . .
ct might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient . . . '" Straus v Governor, 459 Mich 526, 543; 592 NW2d 53 (1999), quoting United States v Salerno, 481 US 739, 745; 107 S Ct 2095; 95 L Ed 2d 697 (1987). "Statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand." BCBSM v Governor, 422 Mich 1, 93; 367 NW2d 1 (1985), quoting People v Howell, 396 Mich 16, 21; 238 NW2d 148 (1976).
A law that does not reach constitutionally protected conduct and therefore satisfies the overbreadth test may nevertheless be challenged on its face as unduly vague, in violation of due process; however, to succeed, the complainant must demonstrate that the law is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. [16B Am Jur 2d, ยง 920, p 516, citing Village of Hoffman Estates v Flip-side, Hoffman Estates, Inc, 455 US 489; 102 S Ct 1186; 71 L Ed 2d 362 (1982).]
In the instant case, because the PWA does not implicate constitutionally protected conduct, plaintiff may bring a facial challenge only if it demonstrates the la
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|