LENAWEE SHERIFF v. Police Officers Labor Council

• Decision Date: 22 March 2000
• Docket Number: Docket No. 211705.
• Citation: 239 Mich. App. 111,607 N.W.2d 742
• Parties: SHERIFF OF LENAWEE COUNTY and Lenawee County Board of Commissioners, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants-Appellees, v. POLICE OFFICERS LABOR COUNCIL, Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

607 N.W.2d 742

239 Mich. App. 111

SHERIFF OF LENAWEE COUNTY and Lenawee County Board of Commissioners, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants-Appellees, v. POLICE OFFICERS LABOR COUNCIL, Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellant.

Docket No. 211705.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted September 15, 1999, at Detroit.

Decided December 14, 1999, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication March 22, 2000.

Keller, Thoma, Schwarze, Schwarze, DuBay & Katz, P.C. (by Carl F. Schwarze and Richard W. Fanning, Jr.), Detroit, for the plaintiffs.

John A. Lyons, P.C. (by Timothy J. Dlugos), Troy, for the defendant.

Before: WHITBECK, P.J., and SAAD and HOEKSTRA, JJ.

HOEKSTRA, J.

After being discharged from his employment, Steven Nystrom, a deputy sheriff corrections officer for Lenawee County and a member of defendant labor council, pursued a grievance under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between plaintiffs and defendant. Having exhausted the grievance procedures, defendant sought Nystrom's reinstatement pursuant to the arbitration process provided in the labor agreement. The arbitrator found Nystrom's dismissal to have been wrongful, sustained Nystrom's grievance, and awarded him reinstatement with back salary, benefits, and seniority. Plaintiffs filed a complaint, seeking to vacate the arbitration award, and defendant filed a countercomplaint, seeking to enforce it. Following a hearing regarding cross-motions for summary disposition, the circuit court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and vacated the arbitrator's award on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded the authority granted to the arbitrator under the labor agreement and that his award was contrary to public policy.

On appeal, defendant argues that the circuit court erred in granting plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition and denying its motion for summary disposition. Specifically, defendant claims that the circuit court exceeded its scope of review by substituting its own fact finding into the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, as set forth in the arbitration award. We disagree. Under the circumstances herein and in light of the parties' express contractual limitations on the arbitrator's power, we hold that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, and consequently, we affirm.

I

The underlying causes of Nystrom's discharge, the ensuing arbitration, and the instant suit are Nystrom's polygamy for over nine months in 1987-88, and his related false statements in official documents. A chronology of events leading up to Nystrom's discharge follows.

In July 1984, while married to April Coyle, Nystrom commenced employment with plaintiffs and took an oath of office.¹ While separated, but not divorced from Coyle, Nystrom married Susan Jones on May 1, 1987, in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Nevada marriage license indicates that Nystrom's marriage to Jones was his first, although evidence revealed it was actually his third marriage. On July 2, 1987, approximately two months after his marriage to Jones, Nystrom petitioned for divorce from Coyle, which the circuit court granted on February 16, 1988. On his health insurance membership and record change form filed with the sheriff's department, Nystrom indicated that his date of marriage to Jones was February 17, 1988, the day after his divorce was final, instead of May 1, 1987. After providing this false information, Nystrom signed the form, certifying that to his knowledge and belief, the stated information was correct. Years later, on December 23, 1992, Nystrom was appointed to the position of deputy sheriff corrections officer for Lenawee County and he took a second oath of office.

In June or July 1996, a rumor circulated that Nystrom had been married to two women from May 1, 1987, through February 16, 1988. Sheriff Richard Germond phoned a contact in Las Vegas and verified the truth of the rumor. Upon receipt of written confirmation in September 1996, Sheriff Germond immediately informed the prosecuting attorney. In October 1996, during the campaign for sheriff in which Sheriff Germond, Nystrom, and one other individual were candidates, the media spread word of the alleged polygamy, although the source of the allegation remained unconfirmed. Sheriff Germond won the November 1996 election. On December 3, 1996, Sheriff Germond charged Nystrom, on the basis of Nystrom's polygamy, with violating certain sections of the sheriff's department's rules and regulations and his oath of office.

Nystrom participated in a Garrity hearing² on December 10, 1996, and thereafter the sheriff discharged him for violating the following three sections of the department's rules and regulations:

Section 9.1, Individual Deportment.

The conduct of the Departmental members shall be free from impropriety. Their personal behavior, both on and off duty, shall be such that at no time will it bring discredit to the Lenawee County Sheriff Office.

Section 9.2, Obedience to Law.

Members shall not knowingly violate any laws of the United States, State of Michigan, or any ordinance of a unit of local government.

Section 10.4, Official Integrity.

No member shall at any time intentionally manufacture, falsify or destroy evidence, nor shall he withhold evidence or information from his Commanding Officer.

Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, § 4.0, plaintiffs have the power "to suspend, investigate, demote, discharge, or take such other disciplinary action for just cause which is necessary to maintain the efficient administration of the [c]ounty." Moreover, the sheriff has the power "to make and enforce reasonable rules and regulations relating to personnel policies, procedures, and working conditions not inconsistent with the express terms of this Agreement." Further, pursuant to § 6.0, the employer may not discharge a nonprobationary employee, such as Nystrom, without just cause. In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specifically provides in relevant part that "[a]n employee shall lose his seniority and the employment relationship shall end" under certain circumstances, including:

If he knowingly makes a false statement on his application for employment or on an application for leave of absence or on any other official document, provided, however, that after two (2) years from the date of said application for employment this provision shall be void as to said application for employment only. [Subsection 8.5(h).]

Following his discharge, Nystrom pursued a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement. After exhausting the grievance procedure, the parties proceeded with arbitration, as provided in the agreement. The agreement limits the arbitrator's powers in relevant part as follows:

Section 5.4, Arbitrator's Powers.

(a) The arbitrator's powers shall be limited to the application and interpretation of this Agreement as written. He shall at all times be governed wholly by the terms of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall have not [sic] power or authority to amend, alter, or modify this Agreement either directly or indirectly....

(b) Absent fraud, undue influence, corruption, conflict of interest, or the exercise of jurisdiction in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the arbitrator by this Agreement, the arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding upon the Employer, the Union, and employees in the bargaining unit.

In this arbitral hearing, the arbitrator was to determine whether Nystrom was discharged for just cause. To determine just cause, the arbitrator looked to Nystrom's alleged violations of §§ 9.1, 9.2, and 10.4 of the rules and regulations and to subsection 8.5(h) of the collective bargaining agreement.

Despite finding that Nystrom committed polygamy and provided false statements on official documents, the arbitrator concluded:

The employer cannot use its rules and regulations to do what the law does not allow [to] be done to a former bigamist [sic] after six years of discontinuance of said bigamy [sic].

While [Nystrom] has made several entries in the application for marriage and other forms, he has nevertheless maintained a clean record since February 17, 1988 until his discharge—a period of nine and one-half years.

What was done to him by who[m]ever leaked that short episode of wrongdoing in his life, is the guilty one of the violations which brought discredit to the Sheriff's Department. The conduct unbecoming an officer of the Department had long been corrected and protected by the legal waiver of criminally charging him under the Michigan law of bigamy or polygamy.

Because the arbitrator erroneously determined that Nystrom's discharge was untimely and without just cause, he awarded Nystrom's reinstatement with accompanying salary, benefits, and seniority lost.

II

We review de novo a trial court's grant of summary disposition. Spiek v. Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337, 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998); Russell v. Dep't of Corrections, 234 Mich.App. 135, 136, 592 N.W.2d 125 (1999). However, when considering the enforcement of an arbitration award, our review is narrowly circumscribed. Port Huron Area School Dist. v. Port Huron Ed. Ass'n, 426 Mich. 143, 150, 393 N.W.2d 811 (1986). In Lincoln Park v. Lincoln Park Police Officers Ass'n, 176 Mich.App. 1, 4, 438 N.W.2d 875 (1989), we set forth the relevant standard of review:

The necessary inquiry for this Court's determination is whether the award was beyond the contractual authority of the arbitrator. Labor arbitration is a product of contract and an arbitrator's authority to resolve a dispute arising out of the appropriate interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement is derived exclusively from the contractual agreement of the parties. Port Huron Area School Dist. v. Port Huron Ed. Ass'n, 426 Mich. 143, 393 N.W.2d 811 (1986). It is well settled that judicial review of an arbitrator's decision is limited. A court may not review an arbitrator's factual

...