Great Lakes Wire

The Michigan Court of Claims has issued its first decision interpreting the state’s Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA), clarifying how the law applies to collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) that do not mention earned sick time. The case was brought by the Michigan Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) against the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO), with NECA arguing that LEO had misinterpreted ESTA.

This marks the first legal challenge and ruling regarding Michigan’s ESTA. The backdrop for this case is last year’s Michigan Supreme Court decision, which found that the Legislature’s use of an “adopt and amend” process to pass previous paid leave laws was unconstitutional. As a result, the original ESTA from 2018 became effective on February 21, 2025. Following this, LEO released guidance stating that CBAs in place at ESTA's effective date would not block implementation of the law. If a CBA does not contain provisions for sick leave or paid time off as required by ESTA, it does not need to be changed until renegotiation.

The Electrical Workers Union argued that employers should be required to comply with ESTA even if their CBA lacks language about sick or paid time off.

In her decision, the judge focused on statutory language and grammar rules: “conflicts with is an active verb,” meaning only CBAs with explicit earned sick time provisions conflicting with ESTA are exempt from immediate application. She added, “Silence is passive and therefore, silence on the issue of ESTA does not ‘conflict with’ EST’.” Absent a conflict, she wrote, “the ESTA takes immediate effect for those employers and employees with a CBA that is silent on the issue of EST.” According to statute, compliance is not required until current contracts expire.

This ruling affects ten existing CBAs negotiated by the Electrical Union; these contracts must expire before new ESTA-compliant terms can be implemented.

The court also considered whether LEO’s interpretation violated contract or equal protection clauses in either state or federal constitutions but found no significant impairment: “The nature of the impairment is too fleeting to be substantial.” The judge further determined that federal labor law does not override ESTA requirements.

Following the decision, LEO stated that “the judge’s ruling upholds LEO’s interpretation of the statute which follows legislative intent.”

For additional context on recent changes to paid leave laws in Michigan: After court challenges invalidated earlier legislation passed through "adopt and amend," https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/26/michigan-paid-sick-leave-minimum-wage-laws-court-ruling/69842094007/ lawmakers have been revisiting how such laws are structured in order to comply with constitutional requirements.