Registered Nurses, Registered Pharmacists Union v. Hurley Med. Ctr.
Decision Date | 18 April 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 343473,343473 |
Citation | 328 Mich.App. 528,938 N.W.2d 800 |
Parties | REGISTERED NURSES, REGISTERED PHARMACISTS UNION, Billie Jo Busby, and LeaAnn Frank, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Miller Cohen, PLC (by Richard G. Mack, Jr., Detroit, and Jeremy F. Fisher ) for plaintiffs.
Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, PC (by John C. Clark, Troy, Geoffrey S. Wagner, Troy, and Anthony K. Chubb ) for defendant.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Meter And Gleicher, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs in this action to compel arbitration. We affirm.
Billie Jo Busby and LeaAnn Frank are members of the Registered Nurses, Registered Pharmacists Union (RNRPh) and were employed by defendant. On May 11, 2017, they were both absent from work. In June 2017, defendant terminated Busby and Frank for allegedly striking on May 11, 2017, in violation of Article 36 of the collective-bargaining agreement (the CBA) between RNRPh and defendant. Thereafter, RNRPh filed grievances challenging the discharges and requesting arbitration of the grievances pursuant to the CBA. Defendant denied the grievances as well as the request for arbitration. Plaintiffs filed this action, seeking to compel arbitration of the grievances and alleging breach of the CBA. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of plaintiffs, ordering arbitration of the dispute. This appeal followed.
Defendant first argues that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because a public employee’s exclusive mechanism to challenge strike-related discipline is to request a hearing under § 6 of the public employment relations act (PERA), MCL 423.201 et seq. We disagree.
The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point in the proceedings.
Glen Lake-Crystal River Watershed Riparians v. Glen Lake Ass'n , 264 Mich. App. 523, 527-528, 695 N.W.2d 508 (2004). Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. at 527, 695 N.W.2d 508.
"Jurisdiction of the subject matter is the right of the court to exercise judicial power over a class of cases, not the particular case before it; to exercise the abstract power to try a case of the kind or character of the one pending." Id. at 528, 695 N.W.2d 508 (quotation marks and citation omitted). "Jurisdiction always depends on the allegations and never upon the facts." Workers' Compensation Agency Dir. v. MacDonald’s Indus. Prods., Inc. (On Reconsideration) , 305 Mich. App. 460, 478, 853 N.W.2d 467 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
In this case, plaintiffs' complaint sought to compel arbitration and alleged breach of the CBA. The arbitrability of an issue is a question for the court to decide. As stated by this Court in Burns v. Olde Discount Corp. , 212 Mich. App. 576, 580, 538 N.W.2d 686 (1995) :
The existence of an arbitration contract and the enforceability of its terms are judicial questions that cannot be decided by the arbitrator. To ascertain the arbitrability of an issue, the court must consider whether there is an arbitration provision in the parties' contract, whether the disputed issue is arguably within the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute is expressly exempt from arbitration by the terms of the contract. [Citation omitted.]
This was precisely the issue addressed by the trial court in this case.1 Similarly, the issue of whether a party breached a CBA involves the interpretation of a contract, which is a question of law that is decided by a court. See Butler v. Wayne Co. , 289 Mich. App. 664, 671, 798 N.W.2d 37 (2010). Accordingly, given the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint, the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.
Given that the trial court had the right to exercise judicial power over this case, defendant’s claim that PERA prohibits arbitration in this case is not a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. Rather, it is a question of statutory interpretation, which is also a question of law that could be decided by a trial court and that we review de novo. McNeil v. Charlevoix Co. , 275 Mich. App. 686, 691, 741 N.W.2d 27 (2007). "When interpreting a statute, this Court’s goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature by applying the plain language of the statute." Id.2
Section 6 of PERA provides:
In support of its argument, defendant relies on the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Lamphere Sch. v. Lamphere Federation of Teachers , 400 Mich. 104, 114, 252 N.W.2d 818 (1977), in which the Court held that under § 6, "the statutorily permitted discipline-discharge should be the unitary and exclusive remedies available to public employers in dealing with illegal strikes by public employees in violation of the PERA’s Section 2 strike prohibition." For that reason, the Court concluded that the plaintiff school district was barred from suing the defendant teachers' union for damages under traditional common-law tort theories. Id. at 107, 252 N.W.2d 818.
Contrary to defendant’s claim that Lamphere stands for the proposition that "a public employee’s ‘exclusive’ mechanism to challenge strike-related discipline is to request a § 6 hearing under PERA," Lamphere addressed and expressly referred to the exclusive remedy available to public employers. Lamphere , 400 Mich. at 114, 252 N.W.2d 818. The Court did not discuss the remedies available to employees or unions, and, therefore, that decision does not bar plaintiffs' request for arbitration in this case. Similarly, the plain language of § 6 provides only that an employee is entitled to a determination under that section; it does not limit the remedies available to employees or unions. See MCL 423.206(2).
Defendant also relies on Rockwell v. Crestwood Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. , 393 Mich. 616, 628, 227 N.W.2d 736 (1975), but that case similarly stated that § 6 provides "a specific, unitary procedure for the discipline of public employees...." It did not discuss the remedies available to public employees.... Accordingly, defendant fails to support its claim that PERA prohibits arbitration of this matter.
Finally, defendant cites Kent Co. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. Kent Co. Sheriff , 238 Mich. App. 310, 325, 605 N.W.2d 363 (1999), in which this Court stated that 3 Plaintiffs' complaint, however, did not expressly allege an unfair labor practice. Nor has defendant asserted, either below or on appeal, that plaintiffs have alleged an unfair labor practice. Because defendant has failed to provide any support for its suggestion that this case involves an unfair-labor-practice charge, this argument is abandoned. See Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. City of Berkley , 259 Mich. App. 1, 14, 672 N.W.2d 351 (2003).
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by granting plaintiffs' motion for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Berdy v. Buffa
-
Kilpatrick v. Lansing Cmty. Coll.
... ... N.W.2d 148 (2019); Registered Nurses, Registered ... Pharmacists Union v Hurley Med Ctr , 328 Mich.App. 528, ... 535-536; ... ...
-
S.P. v. Lakelands Golf & Country Club
... ... Registered Nurses, Registered Pharmacists Union v Hurley ... ...
-
Jenkins v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp.
... ... contract.'" Registered Nurses v Hurley Med ... Ctr, 328 Mich.App ... ...