Ottawa County v. Jaklinski
| Decision Date | 07 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 73329,73329 |
| Citation | 423 Mich. 1,377 N.W.2d 668,120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3260 |
| Parties | COUNTY OF OTTAWA, a Michigan Municipal Corporation, and Sheriff of Ottawa County, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Diedre JAKLINSKI and the Police Officers Association of Michigan, Defendants-Appellees. 423 Mich. 1, 377 N.W.2d 668, 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3260, 54 U.S.L.W. 2274 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Scholten, Fant & Marquis, A Professional Corp. by Ronald A. Bultje, Grand Haven, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Law Offices of Howard & Guido by Frank A. Guido and Sheldon Goldner, Southfield, for defendants-appellees.
Hiller, Larky & Hoekenga by Daniel J. Hoekenga and Marc M. Susselman, Southfield, for amicus curiae.
John A. Lyons, Michigan State Lodge, State Labor Council, Birmingham, for Fraternal Order of Police.
The narrow issue in this case is whether the right to grievance arbitration of an unjust discharge claim survives the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement by which it is created.
The resolution of this question requires us to consider fundamental principles of contract and labor law. Foremost among these is that the right to arbitration is necessarily a creation of the parties' intent as expressed in their collective bargaining agreement. A corollary is the right by the parties in their collective bargaining agreement to terminate the right to arbitration.
This question is one of first impression in the Michigan Supreme Court, and it has not been ruled on directly by the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court case which comes closest to answering the question presented here concerned a dispute over severance pay rather than an unjust discharge. 1 That case has spawned a number of lower federal court cases, with disparate results. Several jurisdictions have recognized that the parties' original contractual intent may be effectuated by ordering postcontract arbitration of disputes regarding the kinds of rights which can accrue or vest during the contract's term, but which may not ripen for enjoyment until after expiration.
We find this reasoning persuasive. Therefore, we hold that the right to grievance arbitration does survive the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement when the dispute concerns rights which can accrue or vest during the contract's term.
The right not to be discharged except for just cause in this case is not the kind of right which can accrue or vest during the contract's term. Therefore, Ms. Jaklinski's right to arbitrate her discharge did not survive the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement.
Ms. Jaklinski cannot rightly claim that her right survived the agreement's expiration because it was a mandatory subject of bargaining which the employer could not alter prior to impasse. First, her grievance arose and was denied after impasse was reached and after the employer's duty had terminated. Second, such an "unfair labor practice" claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of MERC.
Ms. Jaklinski cannot rightly claim that her rights under 1969 P.A. 312 were frozen in place during the pendency of the interest arbitration invoked by her union, because they had expired long before Act 312 was invoked.
For these reasons, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the circuit court's order enjoining arbitration.
Diedre Jaklinski was appointed to the office of deputy sheriff in the Ottawa County Sheriff's Department in 1977. She was initially represented for purposes of collective bargaining by and was a member of the Ottawa County Deputy Sheriffs' Association. However, in October, 1979, the The collective bargaining agreement between the county and the sheriff (referred to here as the joint employers) and the Deputy Sheriffs' Association at the time Jaklinski was appointed gave the joint employers the right to discharge or fail to reappoint employees, but only for just cause. Appellants' Appendix, p. 7a. The agreement defined a "grievance" as "a claim, reasonably and sensibly founded, of a violation of this agreement and/or violation of the rules and regulations of the Ottawa County Sheriff Department and/or Ottawa County." Appellants' Appendix, p. 10a. A grievant and the association were given the right to request binding arbitration of "grievances," but the arbitrator's decision was limited to the application or the interpretation of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement or the written rules and regulations of the employer. Appellants' Appendix, p. 11a. 2
Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) became her bargaining agent.
The following chronology of events is set forth for the reader's convenience.
December 31, 1979...The collective bargaining agreement expired; negotiations between the joint employers and POAM for a new collective bargaining agreement continued.
April 14, 1980......The mediator declared that the parties' negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were at an impasse.
April 29, 1980......The POAM petitioned the Michigan Employment Relations Commission for interest arbitration under 1969 PA 312.
June 9, 1980........The POAM filed an amended petition before the MERC.
December, 1980......Jaklinski received notice that she would not be reappointed as deputy sheriff at the end of her term on December 31, 1980.
December 9, 1980....Jaklinski and POAM filed a grievance with the joint employers contesting the failure to reappoint her.
January 1, 1981.....Jaklinski's termination became effective.
February 27, 1981...The joint employers filed suit in Ottawa Circuit Court March, 1981.........The Act 312 interest arbitration hearing was held.
seeking a stay of Jaklinski's grievance arbitration.
March 31, 1981......MERC appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate Jaklinski's grievance at the request of the POAM and Jaklinski.
August 28, 1981.....The Act 312 interest arbitration award was issued and the new collective bargaining agreement became effective.
March 5, 1982.......Muskegon Circuit Judge Piercey enjoined the arbitration of Jaklinski's grievance. 3
The December 9, 1980, request for grievance arbitration alleged that the failure to reappoint Ms. Jaklinski was not for "just cause," in violation of the former collective bargaining agreement. The joint employers denied the request, claiming that Jaklinski's right not to be refused reappointment except for just cause and her right to arbitrate her grievance did not survive the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. The Ottawa Circuit Court agreed with the joint employers that the constraints placed upon the sheriff by contract were no longer effective at the time Jaklinski filed her grievance. No relief was available under the new collective bargaining agreement because the grievance procedure and arbitration clause of the new agreement were not given effect retroactively to January 1, 1980.
In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court and ordered the parties to arbitrate the grievance. We granted the joint employers' application for leave to appeal, instructing the parties to include among the issues to be briefed:
"(1) whether Michigan should adopt from federal labor law a rule that an employer's obligation to arbitrate grievances in a collective bargaining agreement lapses with the termination of the agreement and (2) if so, whether such arbitration is revived by a petition for interest arbitration under 1969 PA 312, MCL 423.233; MSA 17.455(33)." 419 Mich. 934 (1984).
Jaklinski's argument that she is entitled to arbitrate her failure to be reappointed is three-pronged. First, she argues that her right to arbitration is a mandatory subject of bargaining which the joint employers had a duty not to unilaterally alter prior to an impasse in negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, and which therefore survived termination of the contract. Second, she contends that her right to arbitration was a "condition of employment" frozen in place during the pendency of "Act 312" interest arbitration. Third, she urges us to adopt lower federal court decisions holding that a "presumption of arbitrability" arises whenever a collective bargaining agreement fails to state expressly that the duty to arbitrate terminates automatically with the agreement.
The first prong of Jaklinski's argument is that because grievance and arbitration procedures were "mandatory subjects of bargaining" over which the parties were obligated to bargain in good faith the joint employers could not unilaterally change the right to grievance arbitration. It is argued that the right thus survived the hiatus between the expiration of the old agreement and the invocation of Act 312 arbitration. This was also the theory accepted by the Court of Appeals when it ruled that Jaklinski was entitled to arbitrate her failure to be reappointed.
It is true that public employers are required to bargain in good faith to impasse regarding "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment." M.C.L. Sec. 423.215; M.S.A. Sec. 17.455(15). Because "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" are regarded as mandatory subjects of bargaining Under this line of reasoning, it logically follows that as part of its duty to bargain in good faith the joint employers had a duty prior to reaching impasse not to unilaterally alter the grievance arbitration mechanism in place at the time the contract expired. However, Jaklinski's grievance arose and was denied long after the parties had negotiated to impasse, at a time when the joint employers no longer had a duty not to alter the grievance arbitration mechanism.
once a party negotiating a collective bargaining agreement proposes such a subject, neither party may take unilateral action regarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Certified Question, In re
...Clarke v. Brunswick Corp., 48 Mich.App. 667, 211 N.W.2d 101 (1973) (severance pay). As this Court observed in Ottawa Co. v. Jaklinski, 423 Mich. 1, 26, 377 N.W.2d 668 (1985), "the concept of 'accrued or vested rights' cannot be stretched to include the right not to be discharged except for ......
-
Local 2238 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Stratton
...A.2d 745 (1945); Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 356 Mass. 563, 254 N.E.2d 404 (1970); Ottawa County v. Jaklinski, 423 Mich. 1, 377 N.W.2d 668 (1985); Minneapolis Fed'n of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer, 275 Minn. 347, 147 N.W.2d 358 (1966); City of Springfield v......
-
Litton Financial Printing Division Division of Litton Business Systems, Inc v. National Labor Relations Board
...Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO, Local 7 v. Gold Star Sausage Co., 897 F.2d 1022, 1025-1026 (CA10 1990); County of Ottawa v. Jaklinski, 423 Mich. 1, 377 N.W.2d 668 (1985) (discussing Nolde in context of Michigan law applicable to public employers). The Seventh Circuit, finally, restricts appli......
-
Kendzierski v. Macomb Cnty.
...agreement to arbitrate does not survive expiration of a collective bargaining contract ...."); Ottawa Co. v. Jaklinski , 423 Mich. 1, 29, 377 N.W.2d 668 (1985) (opinion by Williams , C.J.) ("Jaklinski’s right to arbitrate her claim that the Sheriff’s failure to reappoint her was not for jus......