Police Officer Assn of Mi v. County of Manistee, 226909

• Decision Date: 08 March 2002
• Docket Number: 226909
• Citation: 645 N.W.2d 713,250 Mich. App. 339
• Parties: POLICE OFFICERS ASSN OF MICHIGAN and GORDON BEST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF MANISTEE and MANISTEE COUNTY SHERIFF EDWARD A. HALIK, JR., Defendants-Appellees.MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

POLICE OFFICERS ASSN OF MICHIGAN and GORDON BEST, Plaintiffs-Appellants v COUNTY OF MANISTEE and MANISTEE COUNTY SHERIFF EDWARD A. HALIK, JR., Defendants-Appellees

No. 226909

MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

March 8, 2002

Manistee Circuit Court LC No. 00-009718-CL

Before: Griffin, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Hoekstra, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this action based on a grievance filed protesting defendants' termination of plaintiff Best's employment, plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order of the circuit court vacating the arbitrator's award reinstating Best. We reverse and remand.

The underlying facts are not in dispute. Best was employed as a Manistee County Sheriff's Corrections Officer, assigned to work at the Manistee County Jail. Defendant Haik fired best on June 4, 1998, for three alleged violations of department rules and regulations. The terms and conditions of Best's employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter "the agreement") between defendants and plaintiff Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM),¹ of which Best is a member. On Best's behalf, POAM sought reinstatement of Best through the three-step grievance procedure set forth in the agreement. Not satisfied with the outcomes of the first two steps, on April 8, 1999, POAM submitted the matter to arbitration, which is the third and final step of the grievance procedure.

The arbitrator concluded that Best had violated department rules and regulations in the ways alleged. However, while concluding that Best's conduct "constituted just cause for severe disciplinary action," the arbitrator concluded that "persuasive mitigating factors" warranted a reduction in the penalty from termination to a long-term suspension. The arbitrator ordered that Best be reinstated without back pay or benefits, and with his seniority in tact.

Best was not reinstated, and on January 3, 2000, plaintiffs filed their complaint to enforce the arbitration award. Defendants filed a counter-complaint seeking to vacate the arbitration award, followed by a motion for summary disposition. The court rejected plaintiffs' action, and reversed the arbitrator's award, reasoning as follows:

This court is of the opinion that the arbitrator in this case clearly exceeded his authority and supplied his own brand of "industrial justice" in the arbitration award below. The arbitrator found that grievant Best had violated the policy provisions alleged by the sheriff to the extent that the security of the jail was jeopardized, including the safety of inmates and sheriff's employees as well as the public. Further, the arbitrator found that such violations constituted "just cause" for severe disciplinary actions. Consequently, the sheriff had "just cause" to discharge grievant Best. By reducing the disciplinary action, the arbitrator exceeded his authority in contravention of section 5.4(B) of the collective bargaining agreement and substituted his own view for the discretion reserved to the sheriff under section 9.1(G) of the collective bargaining agreement.

"[W]hen considering the enforcement of an arbitration award, [this Court's] . . . review is narrowly circumscribed." Lenawee Co Sheriff v Police Officers Labor Council, 239 Mich App 111, 117; 607 NW2d 742 (1999).

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. It is well settled that judicial review of an arbitrator's decision is limited. A court may not review an arbitrator's factual findings or decision on the merits. Rather, a court may only decide whether the arbitrator's award "draws its essence" from the contract. If the arbitrator in granting the award did not disregard the terms of his employment and the scope of his authority as expressly circumscribed in the contract, judicial review effectively ceases. [Lincoln Park v Lincoln Park Police Officers Ass'n, 176 Mich App 1, 4; 438 NW2d 875 (1989) (citation omitted).]

"[W]hile the powers of an arbitrator are not unlimited, his award should be upheld so long as he does not disregard or modify plain and unambiguous provisions of a collective bargaining agreement." General Telephone Co of Ohio v Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 648 F2d 452, 457 (CA 6, 1981).

In Monroe Co Sheriff v Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 113, 136 Mich App 709, 718-719; 357 NW2d 744 (1984), this Court stated:

Federal courts have taken the view that an arbitrator to whom a claim of discharge without just cause is submitted may, in the absence of language in the collective-bargaining agreement clearly and unambiguously to the contrary, determine that, while the employee is guilty of some infraction, the infraction did not amount to just cause for discharge and impose some less severe penalty. An arbitrator's imposition of a less sever penalty is without authority and contrary to the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement where the agreement clearly reserves to the employer, without being subject to review by an arbitrator, the power to discharge for the infraction found by the arbitrator to have been committed. We adopt this approach as our own. [Citations omitted.]

There is no language in the agreement at hand that "clearly and unambiguously" states that the arbitrator cannot determine that while Best was guilty of some infractions, they did not amount to just cause for discharge. Accordingly, defendants' reliance on Lenawee is misplaced. In Lenawee, the Court's conclusion that the arbitrator in that case had acted beyond his granted authority was based in part on "an express provision of the collecting bargaining agreement that mandates discharge" under the circumstances of that case. Lenawee, supra at 120. In the case at hand, there is no specific provision in the agreement mandating that an employee be discharged if the employee is found to have committed the violations found by the arbitrator. Further, while 9.1(F) of the agreement reserves to the sheriff "the right to make reasonable rules and regulations," there is nothing in the language of the rules cited...