Brief in Support of Petitions for Writs of Certiorari with Appendix

    IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES  

October Term 1973 
No.

------ 1------
THE GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM,

Petitioner,
vs.

RONALD BRADLEY and RICHARD BRADLEY, by their Mother and 
Next Friend, VERDA BRADLEY; JEANNE GOINGS, by her 
Mother and Next Friend, BLANCH GOINGS; BEVERLY LOVE, 
JIMMY LOVE and DARRELL LOVE, by their Mother and Next 
Friend, CLARISSA LOVE; CAMILLE BURDEN, PIERRE BUR­
DEN, AVA BURDEN, MYRA BURDEN, MARC BURDEN and 
STEVEN BURDEN, by their Father and Next Friend, MARCUS 
BURDEN, KAREN WILLIAMS and KRISTY WILLIAMS, by 
their Father and Next Friend, C. WILLIAMS; RAY LITT and 
MRS. WILBUR BLAKE, parents; all parents having children at­
tending the public schools of the City of Detroit, Michigan, on 
their own behalf and on behalf of their minor children, all on be­
half of any person similarly situated; and NATIONAL ASSOCIA­
TION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, 
DETROIT BRANCH; DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL- 
CIO; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, a 
school district of the first class; PATRICK McDONALD, JAMES 
HATHAW AY and CORNELIUS GOLIGHTLY, members of the 
Board of Education of the City of Detroit; and NORMAN DRACH- 
LER, Superintendent of the Detroit Public Schools; WILLIAM G. 
MILLIKEN, Governor of the State of Michigan and ex-officio mem­
ber of the Michigan State Board of Education; FRANK J. KELLY, 
Attorney General of the State of Michigan; MICHIGAN STATE 
BOARD OF EDUCATION, a constitutional body corporate, and

(Continued on Reverse Side) 
+--------

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONS FOR WRIT 
OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
SIXTH DISTRICT

♦
ROSS, BRUFF AND HENDRIKSEN  

Attorneys for Professional 
Personnel of Van Dyke 

215 S. Gratiot 
Mt. Clemens, Michigan 
962-6281

Interstate Brief 6  Record Co.. 1036 Beaubien St.. Detroit, Michigan 48226 
W O . 2 -8 74 5 -W O . 2-8732



JOHN W. PORTER, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Depart­
ment of Education of the State of Michigan, ALLISON GREEN, 
State Treasurer, ALLEN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SCHOOL 
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF BERKLEY, BRANDON SCHOOLS, 
CENTERLINE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, CHERRY HILL SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, CHIPPEWA VALLEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SCHOOL 
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF CLAWSON, CRESTWOOD SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, DEARBORN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DEARBORN 
HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, EAST DETROIT PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF FERNDALE, 
FLAT ROCK COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, GARDEN CITY PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS, GIBRALTAR SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOL DIS­
TRICT OF THE CITY OF HARPER WOODS, SCHOOL DISTRICT 
OF THE CITY OF HAZEL PARK, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY OF MACOMB, LAKE SHORE 
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, LAKEVIEW PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE LAM- 
PHERE SCHOOLS, LINCOLN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MAD­
ISON DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MELVINDALE-NORTH  
ALLEN PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF 
NORTH DEARBORN HEIGHTS, NOVI COMMUNITY SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, OAK PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, OXFORD AREA  
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, REDFORD UNION SCHOOL DIS­
TRICT NO. 1, RICHMOND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, SCHOOL 
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF RIVER ROUGE, RIVERVIEW  
COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ROSEVILLE PUBLIC 
SCHOOLS, SOUTH LAKE SCHOOLS, TAYLOR SCHOOL DIS­
TRICT, WARREN CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS, WARREN  
WOODS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, W AYNE-W ESTLAND COMMUN­
ITY SCHOOLS, WOODHAVEN SCHOOL DISTRICT and W YA N ­
DOTTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS; KERRY and COLLEEN GREEN, by 
their Father and Next Friend, DONALD G. GREEN; JAMES, 
JACK and KATHLEEN ROSEMARY, by their Mother and Next 
Friend, EVELYN G. ROSEMARY; TERRI DORAN, Mother and 
Next Friend, BEVERLY DORAN; SHERRILL, KEITH, JEFFREY  
and GREGORY COULS, by their Mother and Next Friend, 
SHARON COULS; EDWARD and MICHAEL ROMESBURG, by 
their Father and Next Friend, EDWARD M. ROMESBURG, JR.; 
TRACEY and GREGORY ARLEDGE, by their Mother and Next 
Friend, AILEEN ARLEDGE; SHERYL and RUSSELL PAUL, by 
their Mother and Next Friend, MARY LOU PAUL; TRACY 
QUIGLEY, by her Mother and Next Friend, JANICE QUIGLEY; 
IAN, STEPHANIE, KARL and JAAKO SUNI, by their Mother 
and Next Friend, SHIRLEY SUNI; and TRI-COUNTY CITIZENS 
FOR INTERVENTION IN FEDERAL SCHOOL ACTION NO. 
35257; DENISE MAGDOWSKI and DAVID MAGDOWSKI, by their 
Mother and Next Friend, JOYCE MAGDOWSKI; DAVID VIETTI, 
by his Mother and Next Friend, VIOLET VIETTI; and the CITI­
ZENS COMMITTEE FOR BETTER EDUCATION OF THE DE­
TROIT METROPOLITAN AREA, a Michigan non-Profit Corpora­
tion; SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ROYAL OAK; 
SOUTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MICHIGAN EDUCATION  
ASSOCIATION; PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL OF VAN DYKE,

Respondents,



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Statement of the Case ................................................... 1

Reasons for Granting the W r i t ............ .......................  2

Conclusion ......  5

Appendix ...............................      7

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases: Page

Oliver v. School District of Kalamazoo, 448 F. 2d
635 (CA 6, 1971) ................................................... 3

'Smuck v. Hobson, 408 F 2d 175 (Dist of Col Dis­
trict, 1969) .......................................     3

Statutes:

M.C.L.A. 423,211 ........................................................  3



‘



IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES  

October Term 1973 
No.

--------f-------

THE GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM,

vs.
Petitioner,

RONALD BR AD LEY, et al.,
Respondents

♦

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONS FOR WRIT 
OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
SIXTH DISTRICT

-------♦------
The brief ant, Professional Personnel of Van Dyke, 

upon Order of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, was 
granted the right to intervene in this cause.

This brief is written in support of the three Petitions 
for Writ of Certiorari previously filed herein. Its page 
references are to the Petition of the Crosse Pointe School 
System.

STATEM ENT OF THE CASE

Professional Personnel of Van Dyke is an independent, 
i.e., unafiiliated, labor union, representing some three 
hundred and fifty-three teachers in the Van Dyke School 
District. It is the exclusive bargaining agent o f such 
teachers, having been so elected under the appropriate 
statutes of the State of Michigan (423.211 M.C.L.A.). As 
such exclusive bargaining agency, it has entered into a 
labor contract, (called ‘ ‘Master Agreement” by the par-



2

.ties) with the School District of Van Dyke. Such agree­
ment covers the salaries, fringe benefits, class size, teacher 
assignments, grievance procedure and teacher responsibil­
ity.

The school district is located in southeast Macomb 
County (immediately north of Detroit). It has 1,500 stu­
dents.

When, at the trial level, it first became apparent that 
the trial judge might fashion a remedy that encompassed 
school districts other than the defendant, School District 
of the City of Detroit, Professional Personnel of Van 
Dyke petitioned for the right ,to intervene, or, in the al­
ternative, for leave to intervene. This petition, filed on 
February 22, 1972, was denied by order dated March 15, 
1972. Professional Personnel then filed a motion for 
re-hearing of its original petition. Filed on April 11, 1972, 
the re-hearing was denied on June 29, 1972.

Finally, on July 2, 1973, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth District reversed. (Its Order is 
appendixed herein.)

(It is noteworthy that the Detroit Federation of Teach­
ers, the bargaining agent for the teachers of the School 
District of Detroit, was granted intervention early in 
this matter, and without the difficulty experienced by the 
Professional Personnel).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE W RIT

Professional Personnel of Van Dyke agrees wi,th Rea­
son 1 (of Petition of Grosse Pointe School System—p.8).

The Decisions Below are in Direct and IRRECON- 
CILIABLE CONFLICT W ITH  THE DECISIONS OF 
OTHER UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEAL, AS 
W ELL AS DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SU­
PREME COURT; and Reason 2 (p. 14).



3

THE DECISIONS BELOW  INVOLVE ISSUES 
OF IMMENSE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF (A ) THE 
FAR-REACHING P R E C E D E N T  ESTABLISHED 
THEREBY, AND (B) THE IMPACT OF THE LOWER 
COURTS’ PROPOSED REM EDY UPON THE RESI­
DENTS OF EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE DE­
TROIT METROPOLITAN AREA. It is in agreement 
with Reason 3, p. 17) as well, but would re-state such 
reason to be more specifically applicable to this briefant, 
an organization of teachers, as follows:

THE REFUSAL OF THE LOW ER COURTS TO 
ACCORD FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS 
OF LA W  TO THE PROFESSIONAL PER­
SONNEL OF VAN DYKE, WHO, IT IS NOW 
C O N C E D E D ,  SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
GRANTED THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE 
(AS OF FEBRUARY 22, 1972) REQUIRES 
THE EXERCISE OF THIS COURT OF ITS 
SUPERVISORY POWERS.

Professional Personnel of Van Dyke was singularly 
unsuccessful, on the trial level, in its attempts to inter­
vene. Its original petition was filed on February 22, 1972 
(prior to the adoption by the trial court of the so-called 
Metropolitan Plan.) It was denied on March 15, 1972. 
Its petition for re-hearing, filed on April 11, 1972, was 
denied on June 14, 1972, after ,the passage of two very 
critical months in the proceedings. And this in spite of 
the fact that the law was clear that its motion to inter­
vene should have been granted. [Oliver v School District 
of Kalamazoo, 448 F 2d 635 (CA 6, 1971) and Smack v 
Hobson, 408 F 2d 175 (Dist of Col District, 1969)].

Assuming a Metropolitan Plan, the issues to be deter­
mined by the trial court are overwhelming: Teacher place­
ment, tenure, grievance, salaries and advancements; cur­
ricula and class size are but a few of them.



4

The original input in an attempt ,to solve these prob­
lems is to be made by a court-appointed panel, consisting 
of two members of the defendant, State Board of Educar- 
tion, three members of the defendant, Detroit Board of 
Education, one from the plaintiff, one from defendant in- 
tervenors, Magdowski (who favor a Metropolitan Plan 
and who are essentially white home owners residing in 
the City of Detroit,) one from all the intervening school 
districts and one from the Michigan Civil Rights Com­
mission (Joint Appendix 99a).

It is at once noteworthy that no one from any teacher 
organization is included. Yet without any teacher parti­
cipation, this panel is mandated to re-assign faculty and 
staff, and to develop criteria “ in the hiring, assignment, 
promotion, demotion and dismissal of faculty and staff 
. . . ”  (Joint Appendix 103a). And the Court of Appeals 
expressly held that such panel should proceed with its 
studies and plans (Joint Appendix 178a).

It is respectfully submitted that such panel—totally 
without a representative of any teacher organization or of 
any teachers—is violative of elementary due process and, 
indeed, contrary to the statutes of the State of Michigan 
(M.C.L.A. 423.211) recognizing collective bargaining right 
of public employees. It is further submitted that such 
panel has been given the power to completely obliterate 
the contractual rights of members of the Professional 
Personnel of Van Dyke.

The grant of the Petition to Intervene, as ordered by 
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, is rendered totally 
meaningless if Professional Personnel is foreclosed from 
full and active participation in open court as well as this 
most important planning panel.



5

In its appellate brief on the denial of its Petition to 
Intervene, Professional Personnel wrote:

Once an order is entered herein that affects the 
Van Dyke School District, the movant appellant 
will be practically foreclosed from litigating its 
rights in any form. Its members may be laid off, 
transferred, have their salaries reduced, their con­
tractual rights decimated, have their tenure lost, 
without any day in court.

In reversing the trial court and ordering intervention, 
the Court of Appeals must have agreed with such think­
ing. Yet, under the terms of the Judgment of the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, Professional Personnel will be 
sent back to ,the trial court with naught but a hollow 
“ right to intervene.” It will not have a day in court-un- 
less, the Supreme Court grants the writs of certiorari re­
quested.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, Professional Personnel of Van Dyke re­
spectfully submit that the Writs o f Certiorari requested 
issue.

Respectfully submitted,

ROSS, BRUFF and HFNRIKSEN 
B y: William Ross

Attorneys for Professional 
Personnel of Van Dyke 

215 S. Oratiot 
Mt. Clemens, Michigan 
962-6281





If-
I

APPENDIX

M.C.L.A. 423.211 Representatives designated or se­
lected for purposes of collective bargaining by the major­
ity of ,the public employees in a unit appropriate for such 
purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all 
the public employees in such unit for the purposes of 
collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, 
hours of employment or other conditions of employment, 
and shall be so recognized by the public employer: Pro­
vided, That any individual employee at any time may 
present grievances to this employer and have the griev­
ances adjusted, without intervention of the bargaining 
representative, if the adjustment is not inconsistent with 
the terms of a collective bargaining contract or agree­
ment then in effect, provided that the bargaining repre­
sentative has been given opportunity to be present at such 
adjustment.



8

ORDER

(U. S. Court of Appeals— Sixth Circuit)

(Filed July 2, 1973)

In re Appeal of
Professional Personnel of Van Dyke,

Appellcmts.

Ronald Bradley, et al.
Y.

William Gr. Milliken, et al.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDW ARDS and 
PECK, Circuit Judges.

This is an appeal by Professional Personnel of Van 
Dyke, which is the exclusive bargaining agent for the 
teaching personnel of the Van Dyke School District. A p­
pellants undertook to intervene in the District Court in 
the case of Bradley v. Milliken. On March 15, 1972, the 
District Court denied the motion of appellants to inter­
vene. On April 11, 1972, appellants filed a petition for re­
hearing of their motion to intervene. On June 29, 1972, 
the District Court affirmed its previous denial of the mo­
tion.

Upon consideration, it is Ordered that the decision of 
the District Court denying to appellants the right to in­
tervene is vacated and the case is remanded to the Dis­
trict Court with directions to grant the motion to inter­
vene.

Eutered by order of the court.
/ s /  James A. Higgins,

Clerk.

No. 72-2008









[ Jit