Michigan Repeals “Right-to-Work” Law

Michigan’s “Freedom to Work” law, effective since 2013, currently prohibits public and private sector employees from being required, as a “condition of employment,” to belong to a labor union or to pay a “service fee” in lieu of membership. The current law also invalidates any collective bargaining provision to the contrary, and prohibits enforcement of such unlawful provisions.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed into law legislation repealing the Freedom to Work law insofar as it applies to private-sector employees. The repealer will be effective as of March 30, 2024. Governor Whitmer signed a separate bill that would similarly repeal these prohibition as to public sector workers in the event the U.S. Supreme Court reverses a 2018 decision that essentially adopted similar “right-to-work” principles with respect to public sector employees and unions. That decision ruled that it is a violation of public workers’ first amendment speech rights to be required to join or financially support public sector labor unions through mandatory “service fees.”

When the new law takes effect, it will, for the first time since 2013, be legal for private-sector unions to negotiate and enforce “union security” requiring membership in, or financial support through “Beck Objector” fees, of those unions.  See NLRB FAQ’s

Per data collected by researchers available at unionstats.com, in 2022, close to 39,000 private sector workers in Michigan were covered by a collective bargaining agreement but were not union members paying dues or service fees. Now, when the new law goes into effect, those individuals will be required to pay dues or fees. Employers can be forced to fire bargaining unit workers who refuse to pay dues or fees under the enforcement of a lawful union security clause.

Private Sector employers in Michigan have approximately one year to prepare for the effective date of the new law. Employers with unionized workforces should anticipate attempts by unions to enforce “suspended’ union security clauses or renegotiate such provisions into future collective bargaining agreements, and plan accordingly.

If you have questions about the new law or require assistance, please contact David J. Houston or your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

This alert serves as a general summary and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions.


Attorney David J. HoustonFraser Trebilcock Shareholder Dave Houston has over 40 years of experience representing employers in planning, counseling, and litigating virtually all employment claims and disputes including labor relations (NLRB and MERC), wage and overtime, and employment discrimination, and negotiation of union contracts. He has authored numerous publications regarding employment issues. You can reach him at 517.377.0855 or dhouston@fraserlawfirm.com.

Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – May 27, 2022

Five Stories that Matter in Michigan This Week – May 27, 2022; Legal, Legislative, and Regulatory Insights


The Republican-led Michigan Senate and House recently passed $2.5 billion in tax cuts, with a party-line vote in the Senate and a more bipartisan vote in the House. The legislation was passed shortly after Governor Whitmer suggested sending $500 rebates to “working families” in Michigan. The proposed tax cuts would include an expansion of Michigan’s Earned Income Tax Credit from 6% to 20% in the 2022 tax year; increasing personal tax exemptions by $1,800; and reducing the personal income tax rate from 4.25% to 4% starting in 2023, among other things.

Why it Matters: The jockeying between the governor and legislature revolves around the broader debate over what to do with the billions of dollars the state has available in the form of unexpected surplus, due in large part to federal pandemic relief funding. How the money is spent, or returned to Michigan residents in the form of tax cuts or rebate checks, is sure to be a key issue in the November elections.

——–

The Michigan legislature recently voted to put the issue of term limits for lawmakers on this year’s November ballot. The plan would permit lawmakers to serve 12 years in Lansing, and all of that time could be spent in the House or Senate, or it could be divided between the two chambers. Voters will also be asked to approve or reject a requirement that state-level office holders submit annual financial disclosures to address conflicts of interest. If approved by voters, elected officials would have to disclose their assets, income and liabilities, and their involvement in any businesses, nonprofits, labor organizations or educational institutions.

Why it Matters: In 1992, Michigan voters voted in favor of a constitutional amendment for term limits. Since then, Michigan House members have been limited to three two-year terms and Michigan Senate members to two four-year terms—a maximum of 14 years between the two chambers. Accordingly, if the new term limit proposal is passed by Michigan voters, it would represent the first substantive change to term limits in 30 years.

———

The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case with significant implications for criminal cases against nine former government officials stemming from the Flint water cases, as well as for criminal procedure, more generally, in Michigan. The criminal defendants, including former Governor Rick Snyder, argue that their constitutional rights were violated when a single grand juror indicted them.

Why it Matters: Beyond the question of whether a one-person grand jury is constitutional, this case also raises interesting separation of power issues, given that the grand juror was a sitting judge.

———

In a cash-out merger, the shareholders of the target company cash out and aren’t involved in the ongoing operations of the acquiring company. But what happens when not all the shareholders are happy about the deal? As you might suspect, litigation often ensues, and that’s exactly what happened in a case, Murphy v. Inman, recently decided by the Michigan Supreme Court. It’s an important case because the Court clarified the rights of shareholders bringing claims against directors after a cash-out merger.

Why it Matters: This decision gives shareholders, boards of directors—and their respective advisors—much needed clarity on how actions taken during corporate transactions will be viewed by the courts. First, the Court adopted a two-question test, based on reasoning from Delaware courts, to determine whether a claim should be derivative or direct. Second, it made clear that boards of directors do owe fiduciary duties directly to shareholders during a cash-out merger.

———

Three significant developments related to the production and consumption of energy happened recently. First, Governor Whitmer announced a roadmap for making Michigan carbon neutral by 2050. Second, the Attorney General’s office reached a settlement with Consumers Energy that would result in Consumers ending its use of coal by 2025. Third, Governor Whitmer petitioned the U.S. Department of Energy to keep the Palisades Nuclear Plant in southwest Michigan open, arguing that its closure would cost the state 600 well-paying jobs.

Why it Matters: Energy continues to be a major political and economic issue around the world (the war in Ukraine), in the United States (high gas prices), as well as here in Michigan. Energy inflation, together with ongoing efforts to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, pose ongoing challenges and opportunities for politicians, policymakers and business leaders alike.


Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Mergers & Acquisitions | Edward Castellani

Criminal | Election Law | Klint Kesto

Energy, Utilities & Telecommunication | Michael Ashton

Taxation | Mark Kellogg

Michigan Legislature Repeals Emergency Powers of Governor Act of 1945

On July 21, 2021, the Michigan legislature approved a petition to repeal the Emergency Powers of Governor Act of 1945, which was the statutory basis used by Governor Whitmer during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic to institute sweeping health and safety restrictions.

Because the action taken by the legislature was pursuant to an “initiated law,” the repeal does not require Governor Whitmer’s approval, nor can she veto it.

Under Article II §9 of the Michigan Constitution, citizens can put an initiative on the ballot if they gather a certain number of signatures — at least eight percent of the total number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial race. Before an initiative reaches the ballot, the Michigan legislature can, as it did in this instance, pass the proposed law with a simple majority vote in each chamber, and such a measure approved in this manner cannot be vetoed.

Governor Whitmer’s use of the Emergency Powers of Governor Act, which involved ordering lockdowns, mask mandates, and cancellation of youth sports, among other things, has been the subject of considerable controversy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Petition organizers from a group called Unlock Michigan began collecting signatures for the repeal effort in the Spring of 2020, and turned in petitions with more than the required 340,000 signatures to the Michigan Secretary of state in October, 2020.

The Michigan legislature previously approved legislation (through the conventional legislative process) that would have repealed the law, but Governor Whitmer vetoed it.

Court challenges were also raised, and in October, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the use of the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act to institute COVID-19 health and safety measures was unconstitutional.

Subsequently, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services issued orders pursuant to its authority under the Public Health Code which reinstated many of the same health and safety measures that were invalidated by the court’s ruling. However, Unlock Michigan recently launched a new petition drive to change the Public Health Code to limit any emergency orders issued by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to 28 days without legislative approval.

If you have any questions about these issues, please contact Jean Kordenbrock or your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.


Jean E. Kordenbrock is an experienced legal professional and entrepreneur across a broad range of legal areas, business, and a diverse clientele. She has the unique quality of being a skilled attorney while also leading her own teams where outcomes combine legal, political, and business expertise. Jean can be reached at (517) 377-0824 or jkordenbrock@fraserlawfirm.com.

Michigan COVID-Related Capacity, Mask and Gatherings Restrictions Will be Lifted Beginning June 22

Governor Gretchen Whitmer announced on June 17, 2021 that COVID-related restrictions for capacity, masks and gatherings will be lifted effective June 22. Beginning June 22, capacity in both indoor and outdoor settings will increase to 100 percent and the state will no longer require residents to wear a face mask.

MDHHS Secretary Elizabeth Hertel’s “Rescission of Emergency Orders” provides that most COVID-related restrictions for capacity, masks and gatherings will be ended effective June 22.

The lifting of these restrictions was expected to take place on July 1. However, given that more than 9 million vaccines have been administered and COVID cases are plummeting in Michigan, the timeline has been accelerated.

In addition to the order regarding gatherings and masks, additional orders being rescinded as of June 22 include:

While state mandates on mask wearing are ending, it’s important to note that individual businesses may still require masks.

In addition, some orders will remain in effect to protect vulnerable populations in corrections, long-term care and agriculture. Certain public health measures also will continue for reporting requirements and COVID testing.

If you have any questions regarding how these developments affect your business or organization, please contact Dave Houston or your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.


Fraser Trebilcock Shareholder Dave Houston has over 40 years of experience representing employers in planning, counseling, and litigating virtually all employment claims and disputes including labor relations (NLRB and MERC), wage and overtime, and employment discrimination, and negotiation of union contracts. He has authored numerous publications regarding employment issues. You can reach him at 517.377.0855 or dhouston@fraserlawfirm.com.

Michigan Workplaces May Return to In-Person Work on May 24 Under “MI Vacc to Normal” Plan

Michigan workers may return to in-person work in all sectors of business on May 24 now that 55 percent of residents age 16 or older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Under Governor Whitmer’s “MI Vacc to Normal” plan, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services COVID restrictions are relaxed or eliminated once certain vaccination thresholds are met. Pursuant to the plan, a return to in-person work is allowed two weeks after the 55 percent threshold is reached, which occurred on May 10.

Additional restrictions, such as limitations on attendance at sporting events and conferences, and capacity limits for indoor dining indoor gatherings, will be eased at the 60 and 65 percent thresholds. Once 70 percent of Michigan residents 16 and older are vaccinated, all COVID restrictions, including orders regarding face coverings, will be lifted.

While prohibitions on in-person work are set to be lifted on May 24, it is unclear whether additional COVID-19 workplace rules and restrictions from the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) will be altered. Sean Egan, COVID-19 workplace safety director for the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, said in a statement:

“MIOSHA is in the process of reviewing both the emergency rules and draft permanent rules as the state meets and exceeds certain vaccination rates. MIOSHA’s rule-making is flexible in that the agency has the ability to modify or rescind all or parts of each rule set to best protect Michigan workers as the pandemic moves closer to ending.”

In addition, on May 14, Governor Whitmer announced that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) will be updating the Gatherings and Mask Order to align with the CDC’s latest guidance on face coverings. Beginning May 15 at 9:00 a.m., fully vaccinated individuals do not need to wear a mask while outdoors. While indoors, fully vaccinated Michiganders will no longer need to wear a mask, but residents who are not vaccinated, or have not completed their vaccinations, must continue to wear a mask or face covering to protect themselves and others. 

We will continue to keep you updated as to any new developments affecting workplace safety. If you have any questions about your workplace, and the state or federal rules and regulations concerning COVID-19, please contact Dave Houston or your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.


This alert serves as a general summary, and does not constitute legal guidance. All statements made in this article should be verified by counsel retained specifically for that purpose. Please contact us with any specific questions.


Fraser Trebilcock Shareholder Dave Houston has over 40 years of experience representing employers in planning, counseling, and litigating virtually all employment claims and disputes including labor relations (NLRB and MERC), wage and overtime, and employment discrimination, and negotiation of union contracts. He has authored numerous publications regarding employment issues. You can reach him at 517.377.0855 or dhouston@fraserlawfirm.com.

Governor Whitmer Issues New Order on Capacity Limits in Michigan

Under a new Order issued by Governor Whitmer on March 2, 2021, the following capacity limits were changed:

    • Restaurants and bars can go to 50% capacity and 100 people with an 11 p.m. curfew, up from the 25% capacity and 10 p.m. curfew.
    • Retail is now allowed to be at 50% capacity.
    • Indoor residential gatherings are now up to 15 people from three households, an increase from the previous 10 people from two households, while outdoor residential gatherings can now include up to 50 people.
    • Public meetings and other small indoor gatherings may resume with the allowance of up to 25 people for indoor non-residential gatherings where people interact across households.
    • Exercise facilities can go to 30% capacity with restrictions on distancing and mask requirements.
    • Casinos are now allowed to be at 30% capacity.
    • Outdoor non-residential gatherings where people interact across households are permitted up to 300.
    • Indoor entertainment venues are allowed to be at 50% capacity, up to 300 people.
    • Indoor stadiums and arenas are allowed to have 375 if seating capacity is under 10,000; 750 if seating capacity is over 10,000.
    • Outdoor entertainment and recreational facilities may host up to 1,000 patrons.

The new Order is effective Friday, March 5, through April 19, 2021.

If you have questions, please contact Ed Castellani or your Fraser Trebilcock attorney. When it matters in Michigan, Fraser Trebilcock is the trusted advisor for businesses and individuals facing legal and regulatory challenges, and our capabilities extend to wherever clients require counsel.


Fraser Trebilcock Business Tax Attorney Edward J. CastellaniEdward J. Castellani is an attorney and CPA who represents clients involved with alcohol beverages as a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer. He leads the firm’s Business & Tax practice group, and may be contacted at ecast@fraserlawfirm.com or 517-377-0845.

Governor Signs Four Bills Reinstating Remote Notarization, Witnessing, and Visitation During COVID-19 Pandemic

Update:

The remote visitation by guardians and the remote signing, witnessing, and notarization of estate planning, and other, documents has been extended through June 30, 2021. On December 29, 2020, Governor Whitmer extended these remote practices by signing Enrolled Senate Bills 1186, 1187, 1188, and 1189. The Bills were designated as Public Acts 335, 336, 337, and 338 of 2020.


On November 5, 2020, Governor Whitmer signed into law four bills that passed the Michigan House and Senate overwhelmingly that continue the practices of remote notarization, remote witnessing and remote visitation that were first permitted under Executive Orders issued since April 8, 2020. To reduce exposure to COVID-19, the Executive Orders encouraged the use of remote, 2-way real-time, audiovisual technology for signing, notarizing and witnessing of legal documents and for remote visitation by guardians and guardians ad litem.

These remote practices were halted and the validity of all legal documents executed under the Executives Orders after April 30th were called into question by an Order of the Michigan Supreme Court on October 2, 2020. The Order concluded that the Governor lacked authority to declare a state of emergency or a state of disaster under Michigan’s Emergency Management Act (EMA) after April 30, 2020 and ruled that the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act (EPGA) violated the Michigan Constitution. The Supreme Court effectively terminated the continued validity of Governor Whitmer’s Executive Orders issued under the EMA and the EPGA since the Legislature refused to continue her Executive Orders after April 30, 2020.

House Bills 629462956296, and 6297 (PA 246’20, PA 247’20, PA 248’20, and PA 249’20) were given immediate effect and amend the following Michigan laws: the probate code (Estates and Protected Individuals Code), the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, the Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act, and Michigan Law on Notarial Acts. The bills are effective retroactively from April 30, 2020 through December 31, 2020. The bills:

  • reinstate use of 2-way real-time, audiovisual technology for remotely executing, notarizing and witnessing legal documents, including wills, durable powers of attorney, patient advocate designations, funeral representative designations, appointments by parents of guardians for minors, and deeds, provided strict procedures are followed as outlined in the bills;
  • define 2-way real-time audiovisual technology;
  • permit a guardian or guardian ad litem to fulfill her duty to visit with an individual in person by using remote visitation instead of in-person visits;
  • permit each State department to send and accept electronic records and electronic signatures to and from other persons;
  • encourage governmental agencies and officials of the state to use or permit the use of electronic records and electronic signatures to transact business, process applications, and recognize the validity of legal instruments, and when a notarized signature is required by a law of this state, to use a notary public who performs notarial acts electronically under the new law;
  • apply the law’s use of remote signatures to the Uniform Commercial Code during this time frame (with some exceptions);
  • direct registers of deeds to accept for recording electronic documents, or if a county’s register of deeds does not have equipment to accept an electronic document, to accept for recording a tangible copy of an electronic document properly notarized under Michigan’s notary law, as amended to allow remote notarization;
  • direct financial institutions to accept documents or electronic documents recorded by a register of deeds under the amended laws permitting remotely signed and notarized documents; and
  • extend the validity of notary public commissions that expire between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 until December 31, 2020.

What is 2-way real-time, audiovisual technology?

Remote execution, notarization, witnessing, and visitation must be performed using 2-way real-time, audiovisual technology which is defined as procedures that allow for direct, contemporaneous interaction and communication by sight and sound between the signatory and the witnesses, or the notary and an individual seeking a notary’s services and any witnesses to the notarial act.

Requirements for executing and witnessing documents with this technology must be met, including:

  • the interaction must be recorded and preserved for at least 3 years;
  • the signatory must affirmatively represent their presence in Michigan or, if physically outside the state, that certain factors apply showing relevance of the document to the state of Michigan;
  • the signatory must affirmatively state what document is being signed;
  • each title page and signature page must be shown to the witnesses;
  • specific page numbering must be followed (page x of y);
  • the act of signing the document must be captured sufficiently up close so the witnesses can observe the signing;
  • the signatory or her designee must transmit the document within 72 hours after it’s signed and the witnesses must sign and return the signed copy, within 72 hours after receipt, back to the signatory by fax, mail or electronic means; and
  • the document must be in writing and readable as text.

Notarization of documents include additional requirements for 2-way real-time, audiovisual technology, including:

  • the interaction must be recorded and preserved for at least 10 years;
  • if the person seeking notarial services, or any required witness, is not known by the notary, satisfactory evidence of their identity must be presented during the video conference;
  • signatures must be capable of being affixed in a manner rendering any change or modification of the remote online notarial act to be tamper evident;
  • the signed document must be transmitted to the notary on the same day it was signed; and
  • once received with all necessary signatures, the notary must notarize the record and transmit it back to the individual seeking the notarial services.

Effective date of notarial act; use of counterparts is convenient.

The effective date of the notarial act is the date which the notary witnessed the signing of the document through the 2-way real-time, audiovisual technology. Documents may be signed in counterparts, using separate pages for each signature, unless the document prohibits the use of counterparts. Using counterparts is useful in that it allows remote signatures and notarization while also allowing original signature pages to be gathered and combined at a later date, resulting in a final document that includes all original signatures.

The validity of documents signed and notarized under the Executive Orders are preserved.

The new witnessing law includes a savings clause that protects the rights and interests of persons who relied in good faith and without actual notice that a document, signed on or after April 30, 2020 and before January 1, 2021, was not executed in accordance with the signing and witnessing requirements of the new law.

The new notary law includes a savings clause providing that notarizations performed, on or after April 30, 2020 and before January 1, 2021, using the outlined procedures in the law, as amended, are valid. The right and interests of a person who relied in good faith and without actual notice that the record was executed on or after April 30, 2020 and before January 1, 2021 but was not executed or notarized in accordance with this section are not impaired, challenged, or terminated on that basis alone.

If a recent document was executed, witnessed, or notarized pursuant to Executive Orders
2020-412020-742020-1312020-1582020-1732020-187, the savings clauses in the new bills protect the validity of such documents since the new witnessing and notarization law incorporates the same procedures required by the Executive Orders.

Compliance is presumed but a document’s validity can be challenged.

Compliance with the new law is presumed. A document can be challenged and the presumption of compliance with the new law may be overcome by the presentation of clear and convincing evidence that the signatory or a witness, or a notary or the individual seeking the notary public’s service, intentionally failed to comply with the requirements of the new law.

All good things come to an end: Will that be so here or will the Legislature extend?

The current bills validate remote, use of 2-way real-time, audiovisual technology, for the execution, witnessing, and notarization of legal documents signed on or after April 30, 2020 and before January 1, 2021. This means that unless the law changes, December 31, 2020 is the last day that these new procedures can be used.

The Executive Orders and new law related to remote signatures, witnessing and notarization are based upon the need for the continued signing of important legal documents during the COVID-19 pandemic in a way that reduces exposure to the virus. Given the reality and uncertainty of this health crisis, many people are trying to execute and update important legal documents, particularly estate planning documents. As the year comes to an end, the legislature may determine that the pandemic is continuing and that the public has a continued need for the protection that remote execution, witnessing and notarization of legal documents provide. In that case, the new law will most likely be extended. As with many laws, additional changes may be made as we learn new ways to streamline and improve the process.


Teahan, Marlaine2.jpgMarlaine C. Teahan is a subcommittee member of a joint initiative of the Elder Law and Disability Rights and the Probate and Estate Planning Sections of the State Bar of Michigan that worked on a legislative solution to replace the Executive Orders on remote execution, witnessing and notarization of documents. The subcommittee (led by Howard Collens and Nathan Piwowarski), the represented Sections and their lobbyists, and other stakeholders were instrumental in the passage of the new bills. Representative Lightner, the bills’ sponsor, and the leadership in the Legislature recognized the importance of these issues and worked quickly with all stakeholders to respond to the developing crisis and pass these laws out of the Legislature for signature by the Governor. Marlaine can be reached at mteahan@fraserlawfirm.com or 517.377.0869. 

Michigan’s New Executive Orders 2020-160 & 2020-161

On July 29, 2020, the Governor signed Executive Orders 2020-160 and 2020-161, amending Michigan’s Safe Start Order and issuing revised workplace safeguards.

Starting July 31, 2020, statewide indoor gatherings will be limited to 10 people and certain bars will be closed for indoor service across the state.  While this was the case previously for most of Michigan, the new order applies these restrictions to Regions 6 and 8, northern lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. Outdoor gatherings are still restricted to 100 people unless located within Regions 6 and 8.  For these regions outdoor gatherings are limited to 250 people.

Remote work, which previously looked to be strongly encouraged is now being required if an employee can perform their duties remotely (EO 2020-160, p 3, par 1.).

Stay tuned for more developments as new information is released.


We have created a response team to the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation and the law and guidance that follows, so we will continue to post any new developments. You can view our COVID-19 Response Page and additional resources by following the link here. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.


Fraser Trebilcock attorney Paul V. McCord has more than 20 years of tax litigation experience, including serving as a clerk on the U.S. Tax Court and as a judge of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Paul has represented clients before the IRS, Michigan Department of Treasury, other state revenue departments and local units of government. He can be contacted at 517.377.0861 or pmccord@fraserlawfirm.com.

Employer Update: Michigan’s NEW Mask Rule – Does it Affect My Business?

On Friday July 10, Governor Whitmer tightened prior rules for wearing of masks, or “face covers.” In summary, the Order requires customers who enter any “indoor public space” of a business to wear a mask, and obligates all businesses that make such “indoor public space” available to require their customers to wear masks. However, the key term, “indoor public space” is not defined in the Order or prior orders. Previously announced minor exceptions for mask use, such as removing coverings while seated in a restaurant, or exempting persons who cannot medically tolerate wearing a mask, are continued. EO 2020-147 applies state-wide, including Regions 6 and 8, the Traverse City area and the Upper Peninsula.

The Provisions of the Executive Order

Section 1 of EO 2020-147 applies to all persons moving in public – outside of their home or residence — within Michigan. The rule states:

“1. Any individual who leaves their home or place of residence must wear a face covering over their nose and mouth:

a. When in any indoor public space.

b. When outdoors and unable to consistently maintain a distance of six feet or more from individuals who are not members of their household; and

c. When waiting for or riding on public transportation, while in a taxi or ridesharing vehicle, or when using a private car service as a means of hired transportation.”

Section 2 of 2020-147 establishes health, age, and business service exceptions to the rule set out in Section 1.

Section 3 of 2020-147 applies to every business in Michigan that is “open to the public,” and makes those businesses responsible to require mask use by visiting customers. Section 3 provides:

“3. To protect workers, shoppers, and the community, no business that is open to the public may provide service to a customer or allow a customer to enter its premises, unless the customer is wearing a face covering as required by this order.”

Interpretation and Application

As noted, the phrase “indoor public space” used in Section 1 does not appear to be defined. However, the Governor has spoken repeatedly and publicly about requiring mask use in retail and, especially, food establishment and bar settings. Also, Section 3 references “shoppers” and another provision of Section 3, not quoted in this Article, refers to liquor licensees. Considering the entire Order in the context of its issuance, it appears that EO 2020-147 is intended to apply to situations where public presence within the “indoor … premises” of the business is routine or, at least, reasonably anticipated.      

Further, Executive Order 147 does not lessen any preexisting face covering requirements, for example, industry-specific rules for non-public operations involving manufacturing or, apparently, office work where no general public access is permitted for the purpose of operating the business.

Examples of businesses that must require mask use by customers present to receive otherwise permissible services include:

  • Food service establishments (currently limited by EO 2020-143 to those earning 30% or less of their gross receipts from alcoholic beverages);
  • Grocery, clothing, retail and other stores or similar establishments, including shopping mall common areas;
  • Publicly used common areas of otherwise private buildings, for example, commercial or apartment building lobbies, restroom areas; and,
  • Public or not-for-profit facilities.

Examples of businesses likely are responsible to require mask use include:

  • Offices or areas of offices where members of the public are present, for example, reception or conference rooms made available to customers in the course of the ordinary business of the enterprise.
  • Waiting rooms (health care facilities are subject to specific rules).

You can read the entire Executive Order here.

This alert serves as a general summary, and does not constitute legal guidance. All statements made in this article should be verified by counsel retained specifically for that purpose. Please contact us with any specific questions.


We have created a response team to the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation and the law and guidance that follows, so we will continue to post any new developments. You can view our COVID-19 Response Page and additional resources by following the link here. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.


Fraser Trebilcock Shareholder Dave Houston has over 40 years of experience representing employers in planning, counseling, and litigating virtually all employment claims and disputes including labor relations (NLRB and MERC), wage and overtime, and employment discrimination, and negotiation of union contracts. He has authored numerous publications regarding employment issues. You can reach him at 517.377.0855 or dhouston@fraserlawfirm.com.

Reopening Offices Under Michigan COVID-19 Executive Orders

Governor Whitmer’s various Executive Orders (“EOs”) have transitioned from shut-down to phased reopening. Those multiple EOs make the reopening process confusing. This article summarizes the requirements to permissible recall office workers for work outside of their own homes. However, the actual requirements are lengthy and all must be met by the employer. We have collected those requirements in a document that may be obtained HERE.

Office Workers – Phased Reopening

Executive Order 2020-77, since superseded, began the “reopening” process for businesses within the State of Michigan. Only employers in Regions 6 and 8 – the Traverse City quadrant and the Upper Peninsula – were conditionally permitted to recall office workers to return to work. However, it is likely that the conditions will be similar for the remainder of the state when office workers in other parts of the state are allowed to return on a Region-by-Region basis. There are two sets of rules for operating office businesses – one applicable to all employers using “in-person” services, and a second set applicable to office work specifically.

Requirements for Employers Allowing In-Person “Office” Work

Identification of Workers Who May Permissibly be Recalled

Only office workers specifically permitted to be recalled may work at the employer’s premises. Each employer that seeks to recall office workers is responsible to ensure that workers are recalled “only to the extent that such work is not capable of being performed remotely.” EO 96 Section 11.m.

Each employer “must determine which of their workers are critical infrastructure workers or workers who perform resumed activities and inform such workers of that designation … in writing, whether by electronic message, public website, or other appropriate means.” EO 96 Section 6.a.

Most importantly, “[b]usinesses and operations maintaining in-person activities must adopt social distancing practices and other mitigation measures to protect workers and patrons, as described in Executive Order 2020-97 and any orders that may follow from it.” EO 96 Section 6.c.

Workers may also be recalled to prepare the workplace to be in compliance with the various Executive Orders. Workers necessary to prepare a workplace to follow the workplace standards described in Executive Order 2020-97 and to otherwise ready the workplace for reopening. EO 97 Sec 11.o.

Executive Order 2020-97 – Mandatory Requirements

The rules set out in Executive Order 2020-97, as referenced, are extensive, mandatory, complex, and overly long for inclusion here. Rules governing office work are selected and available HERE.

Employers must note that the penalties for non-compliance may be significant. A “willful violation” of the Governor’s Executive orders “is a misdemeanor. See, EO 2020-96 section 22. Likely more concerning, EO 96 also states:

“Any business or operation that violates the rules in sections 1 through 10 has failed to provide a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are causing, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to an employee, within the meaning of the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act, MCL 408.1011.”

Office facilities to be reopened must comply with the threshold policy adoption, social distancing and safe-work requirements of section 11 of EO 2020-97, which are applicable to all businesses requiring “in-person work.” Those rules, which have been in effect in various forms since the initial stay-at-home order, include among other things:

  • Develop an OSHA-compliant COVID-19 preparedness and response plan
  • Make that plan available to workers and others by June 1, 2020, or within two weeks of resuming in-person activities,
  • Designate one or more worksite supervisors or employees, who must be on-site while workers are present, to implement, monitor, and report on implementation of that Plan
  • Provide COVID-19 training to employees that covers, at a minimum:

(1) Workplace infection-control practices.

(2) The proper use of personal protective equipment.

(3) Steps the employee must take to notify the business of any COVID-19 symptoms or of a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

(4) How to report unsafe working conditions.

  • Conduct a daily entry self-screening protocol for all employees entering the workplace, including, at a minimum, a questionnaire covering symptoms and suspected or confirmed exposure to people with possible COVID19.
  • Keep everyone on the worksite premises at least six feet from one another to the maximum extent possible,
  • Provide non-medical grade face coverings to employees,
  • Require face coverings to be worn when employees cannot consistently maintain six feet of separation,
  • Increase facility cleaning and disinfection to limit exposure to COVID-19 and adopt protocols to clean and disinfect the facility in the event of a positive COVID-19 case in the workplace.
  • Make cleaning supplies and access to hand washing or sanitizer available to employees upon entry and at the worksite(k) When an employee is identified with a confirmed case of COVID-19, within 24
  • Establish a response plan for dealing with a confirmed infection in the workplace, including protocols for sending employees home and for temporary closures to allow for deep cleaning.
  • Promote remote work to the fullest extent possible.
  • Adopt any additional infection-control measures that are reasonable in light of the work performed at the worksite and the rate of infection in the surrounding community.

EO 2020-97 Section 1.

Again, there are additional, mandatory work safety requirements set forth in Executive Order 97.

This alert serves as a general summary, and does not constitute legal guidance. All statements made in this article should be verified by counsel retained specifically for that purpose. Please contact us with any specific questions.


We have created a response team to the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation and the law and guidance that follows, so we will continue to post any new developments. You can view our COVID-19 Response Page and additional resources by following the link here. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.


Fraser Trebilcock Shareholder Dave Houston has over 40 years of experience representing employers in planning, counseling, and litigating virtually all employment claims and disputes including labor relations (NLRB and MERC), wage and overtime, and employment discrimination, and negotiation of union contracts. He has authored numerous publications regarding employment issues. You can reach him at 517.377.0855 or dhouston@fraserlawfirm.com.