Harper Hospital v. Michigan Labor Mediation Bd., 1
| Decision Date | 03 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 7945,A,No. 2,No. 1,1,2 |
| Citation | 181 N.W.2d 566,25 Mich.App. 662 |
| Parties | , 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2157, 64 Lab.Cas. P 52,470 HARPER HOSPITAL, Appellant, v. MICHIGAN LABOR MEDIATION BOARD (Now Michigan Employment Relations Commission), and Harper Hospital Employees' Union Localppellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Thomas H. Schwarze, Keller, Thoma, McManus & Keller, Detroit, for appellant.
Theodore Sachs, Rothe, Marston, Mazey, Sachs & O'Connell, Detroit, for Union.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Francis W. Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Labor Mediation Bd.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and R. B. BURNS, and O'HARA, *, JJ.
This case comes to the Court by leave granted to review an interlocutory order of the Michigan labor mediation board reopening the record of the cause for the purpose of receiving new evidence.
In the instant matter, Marzet Williams was forced to resign from the job with appellant, Harper Hospital. Williams's union, appellee, filed an unfair labor practice charge against the hospital alleging that Mr. Williams was discharged because he was a 'union adherent'. The hospital denied this allegation contending that Williams was discharged for theft.
The trial examiner on April 23, 1969 issued his report which recommended that the charge be dismissed. In his report he found that the hospital discharged Williams for theft and that the hospital was not motivated in that action by his union activities. This latter conclusion was in part based upon the findings that the hospital's knowledge of Williams's union activities was 'in doubt'.
The union next requested the board to reopen the record to allow Mr. Richard Rhinehart, a witness who had testified at the hearing, to give further testimony. This witness had testified previously that he did not tell anyone that Marzet Williams had handed him a union application. Mr. Rhinehart wishes to testify that he now remembers telling two hospital administrators that he signed a union application card.
On July 30, 1969, the labor mediation board issued an order directing the trial examiner to reopen the record to receive the further testimony of Mr. Rhinehart. The appellant asked for leave to appeal to this Court for the purpose of reviewing that order which was granted.
The rules governing the board's actions and the rules governing review by this Court of decisions of the labor mediation board are provided for in P.A.1969, No. 176 as amended by P.A.1965, No. 282, M.C.L.A. § 423.1 Et seq. (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 17.454(1) Et seq.). The applicable portions of that act to the case at bar are set out in § 23 as follows:
'(f) Any person aggrieved by A final order of the board granting or denying in whole or in part the relief sought may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals * * *.' (Emphasis supplied).
The MERC's brief points out that the objections raised by Harper Hospital to this interlocutory order by the commission may be raised before this Court in an appeal from a final order of the commission. The commission has not made a final decision in this action and until they do so, Harper Hospital should not be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. This question of whether the commission should have remanded the case to the trial examiner would be a proper subject for review once the final order is issued and therefore a review of that question at this stage should be dismissed.
The other appellee (Harper Hospital Employee's Union No. 1) points out that the presumption is that the commission as trier of fact will not abuse its responsibilities and that no determination of whether any prejudice from this order will injure to appellant can be made until the trial examiner hears the evidence and the commission issues a final order. For these reasons, an appeal at this stage of the proceedings should be dismissed.
While the question of whether or not to review interlocutory orders has not often come up, with reference to labor mediation cases, it has been discussed in workmen's compensation cases which are applicable to the instant case by analogy. In Lucas v. Ford Motor Co. (1941), 299 Mich. 280, 300 N.W. 87, the Michigan Supreme Court noted that the right to appeal from the department of labor and industry was wholly statutory and that the statute did...
To continue reading
Request your trial