Merdler v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. of City of Detroit
Decision Date | 26 August 1977 |
Docket Number | AFL-CIO,Docket No. 30736 |
Citation | 259 N.W.2d 211,77 Mich.App. 740,96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3264 |
Parties | Ruth Jean MERDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF DETROIT, a Municipal Statutory Body Corporate, Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231, American Federation of Teachers,, a union association, and Dorothy Irwin, Defendants-Appellees. 77 Mich.App. 740, 259 N.W.2d 211, 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3264 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[77 MICHAPP 741] George Stone, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
Theodore Sachs, George T. Roumell, Jr., Detroit, for defendants-appellees.
[77 MICHAPP 742] Before MAHER, P. J., and KAUFMAN and BORCHARD, * JJ.
Plaintiff brought this action for wrongful discharge against defendant Board of Education of the School District of the City of Detroit (hereinafter referred to as "Board"). She also named Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231, as defendants, (hereinafter referred to as "Union") claiming that the Union had wrongfully refused to process her grievance.
Both defendants responded to the complaint by denying the essential allegations contained therein except to agree that the plaintiff's grievance was without merit.
Both defendants then moved for accelerated and summary judgment of dismissal for the reasons that (1) plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; (2) there was no material dispute of fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (3) plaintiff's exclusive remedy was the grievance procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreement; and (4) plaintiff had failed to utilize and exhaust her internal union remedies.
Following the submission of briefs and after hearing oral argument, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Thomas J. Foley entered an opinion on August 31, 1976 which granted both defendants' motions for summary and accelerated judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for all the reasons set forth by the defendants in their motions.
Plaintiff appeals as of right.
The trial court granted summary judgment based on GCR 1963, 117.2(1), the failure to state a [77 MICHAPP 743] claim upon which relief can be granted. The standard for review of summary judgment based on that rule is well established. A motion based on sub-section (1) challenges the legal sufficiency of plaintiff's claim and is to be examined and considered by the legal sufficiency of the pleadings alone. Every well-pleaded allegation must be accepted as true. The test is whether plaintiff's claims are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recovery. Woodworth v. Brenner, 69 Mich.App. 277, 244 N.W.2d 446 (1976); Borman's, Inc. v. Lake State Development Co., 60 Mich.App. 175, 230 N.W.2d 363 (1975).
Plaintiff Ruth Jean Merdler was a part-time substitute teacher; in terms of the contract, an "emergency substitute in regular position", or "ESRP".
On September 1, 1972, plaintiff was employed by the Board as an ESRP for the ensuing school year to function in a relief capacity three days per week at Lynch Elementary School. The plaintiff served as a relief teacher for tenured and probationary teachers making use of the one hour of preparation time allowed them each day. On March 12, 1973, the plaintiff received the following notice terminating her services:
[77 MICHAPP 744] "Thank you for your service to our school this year.
The collective bargaining agreement Article XII, § G provides, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
The parties to the contract agree that this language refers to the assignment of the teacher, rather than the job to which that teacher may be assigned. This interpretation is entitled to great weight. Barrett v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 538 F.2d 1311 (CA 8, 1976); Pekar v. Local 181, Brewery Workers, AFL-CIO, 311 F.2d 628, 636 (CA 6, 1962), cert. den., 373 U.S. 912, 83 S.Ct. 1303, 10 L.Ed.2d 414 (1963).
In Detroit Federation of Teachers v. Detroit Board of Education, 396 Mich. 220, 240 N.W.2d 225 (1976), the Michigan Supreme Court discussed the closing out of an ESRP's assignment:
There is no [77 MICHAPP 745] similar limitation on the discretion of the board to transfer ESRPs." 396 Mich. at 225, n.6, 240 N.W.2d at 228.
The statement of facts in Justice Williams' opinion noted:
(Emphasis added; footnote omitted.) 396 Mich. at 230, 240 N.W.2d at 230.
There is no dispute that plaintiff received two days' notice before she was discharged. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that she was wrongfully dismissed must be rejected. In the absence of a contractual provision to the contrary, an employer can discharge an employee at will and without cause. Carry v. Consumers Power Co., 64 Mich.App. 292, 235 N.W.2d 765 (1975).
Why defendant Union entered into this contract is not for us to decide 1 and plaintiff as a member of defendant Union worked under this contract of employment.
Defendant Union in its answer to plaintiff's complaint and in its motion supra stated that while it would prefer to agree with the interpretation of plaintiff, that is simply not what the parties bargained for and it is obliged to abide by its agreement.
The complaint against the defendant Union contains the following allegations:
The pleadings in the present case were framed in conclusional language. No facts were pleaded. Therefore, the complaint was insufficient. Plaintiff's citation to Handwerk v. United Steelworkers of America, 67 Mich.App. 747, 242 N.W.2d 514 (1976), is misplaced in this case, as the Union did not act in a negligent or untimely fashion here.
In order to properly plead such a breach of duty, the law requires that the complaint must factually allege misconduct. The Court in Carry v. Consumers Power Co., supra, 64 Mich.App. at 298, 235 N.W.2d at 768, concluded:
" ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goolsby v. City of Detroit
...The Court distinguished Sims as a pre-Lowe case. Thus, it relied not on Sims, but on Ruzicka I. In Merdler v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 77 Mich.App. 740, 746, 259 N.W.2d 211 (1977), the union did not process the plaintiff's grievance because it found the grievance to be without merit. The Court o......
-
Kruse v. Iron Range Snowmobile Club
...Employees Federal Credit Union v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 381 Mich. 683, 685, 167 N.W.2d 274 (1969); Merdler v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 77 Mich.App. 740, 744, 259 N.W.2d 211 (1977); Holloway Construction Co. v. State of Michigan, 44 Mich.App. 508, 533, 205 N.W.2d 575 For all the foregoing reason......
-
Omega Healthcare Inv. Inc. v. Lantis Enter.
...interpretations of contractual terms by the parties may be entitled to great weight, see Merdler v. Board of Educ. of the School Dist. of the City of Detroit, 259 N.W.2d 211, 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977), that is not true unless the extrinsic aid used for interpretation was a "circumstance[] s......