Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
INCLUDE MINIMUM STAFFING LEVELS AS
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
REQUIRED SUBJECT OF BARGAINING
Analysis available at
House Bill 4688 (H-2) as reported from committee http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Sponsor: Rep. Jim Haadsma
Committee: Labor
Complete to 1-30-24
SUMMARY:
House Bill 4688 would amend 1947 PA 336, the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA),
to require the inclusion of minimum staffing levels as a subject of collective bargaining
between a public employer and the representative of its police and fire department employees.
Under PERA, public employers are required to participate in collective bargaining by
conferring in good faith with their employees’ bargaining representatives with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Collective bargaining also
requires a public employer to participate in the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) and to execute a written contract, ordinance, or resolution that incorporates any
agreement reached by the parties, but neither the employer nor the representative is required to
agree to a proposal, make a concession, or enter into a CBA.
House Bill 4688 would specify that, for employees that are subject to 1969 PA 312, an act that
requires arbitration for labor disputes involving public police and fire departments, “other
terms and conditions of employment,” as described above, includes minimum staffing levels
within the bargaining unit. Minimum staffing levels for police and fire departments would also
be considered a condition of employment with respect to a bargaining representative’s
collective bargaining responsibilities.
MCL 423.211 and 423.215
BRIEF DISCUSSION:
Supporters of House Bill 4688 argue that the bill would help address staff shortages in the
public sector, particularly for fire and emergency service personnel. Some fire departments are
operating at staffing levels below Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
industry standards, which puts those employees in unnecessary danger. A solution to this
problem would be to include staffing levels in collective bargaining negotiations, which would
allow public employers and employees to discuss a department’s needs and whether the local
government can afford to hire more staff. Additionally, staffing levels used to be a standard
topic for public sector collective bargaining negotiations, but current bargaining standards only
require minimum staffing levels to be a mandatory subject if they are “inextricably
intertwined” with the safety of the employees.1 Supporters of the bill believe that this standard
is insufficient to actually ensure safety.
1
See Oak Park Public Safety Officers Association v. City of Oak Park:
https://www.courts.michigan.gov/497fc6/siteassets/case-
documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/20071018_c271767_33_192o.271767.opn.coa.pdf.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 3
 Critics of the bill argue that requiring bargaining over staffing levels would impose a burden
on local governments, which are already working with limited resources to provide services
for residents. While it is important to address staff shortages for emergency service personnel,
hiring more staff in these areas could lead to cuts in other essential areas, especially during
periods of economic downturn. Additionally, the bill only addresses departments that have
collective bargaining agreements and not departments with less funding, which are typically in
rural areas with volunteer or part-time staff.
HOUSE COMMITTEE ACTION:
The H-2 substitute reported by the House Labor Committee amended House Bill 4688 to only
apply to employees subject to mandatory arbitration under 1969 PA 312 rather than all public
employees.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The bill could potentially increase staffing costs to local police and fire departments and county
correctional facilities. Any fiscal impacts would be directly related to whether any collective
bargaining negotiations result in agreements pertaining to minimum staffing levels that raise
current staffing levels.
POSITIONS:
Representatives of the Michigan Professional Fire Fighters Union testified in support of the
bill. (9-14-23)
The following entities indicated support for the bill (9-14-23):
• American Federation of Teachers of Michigan
• American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 25
• Fort Gratiot Local 5392
• International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1188
• Michigan Education Association
• Michigan Nurses Association
• Michigan Professional Fire Fighters Union Local 1721
• Novi Local 3232
• Plymouth Township Fire Department Local 1496
• Rochester Professional Firefighters Local 5234
• Shelby Township Firefighters Local 1338
• Southfield Firefighters Local 1029
• Sterling Heights Local 1557
• Westland Firefighters
Representatives of the following entities testified in opposition to the bill (9-14-23):
• City of Wyoming
• Michigan Municipal League
The following entities indicated opposition to the bill:
• State 911 Committee (11-2-23)
House Fiscal Agency HB 4688 (H-2) as reported Page 2 of 3
 • City of Ann Arbor (9-14-23)
• Mackinac Center for Public Policy (9-14-23)
• Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police (9-14-23)
• Michigan Association of Counties (11-2-23)
• Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs (9-14-23)
• Michigan Communications Directors’ Association (11-2-23)
• Michigan County Medical Care Facilities Council (9-14-23)
• Michigan Sheriffs’ Association (11-2-23)
• Michigan Townships Association (11-2-23)
Legislative Analyst: Holly Kuhn
Fiscal Analyst: Michael Cnossen
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency HB 4688 (H-2) as reported Page 3 of 3


Statutes affected:
Substitute (H-2): 423.211, 423.215
House Introduced Bill: 423.211, 423.215