36th District Court v. Michigan American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Council 25, Local 917, 295 Mich. App. 502

36th District Court and AFSCME Local 917 were parties to a CBA covering court officers for June 30, 2003–June 30, 2006.
Article 27 allowed auto-renewal for consecutive periods unless 90 days’ notice to modify/terminate was given.
35 District Court mailed a 90-day notice on March 1, 2006, arguing the CBA expired and grievances were not arbitrable.
Weatherly and Holley were not reappointed in 2007; Jones and Carter were not reappointed in 2004.
Grievances were filed by all four individuals seeking arbitration under the CBA; AFSCME sought to enforce arbitration awards; the Court granted summary disposition to AFSCME, and the Court of Appeals granted relief in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who decides arbitrability: court or arbitrator?	Weatherly/Weatherly context argues arbitrator.	Court should decide arbitrability.	Arbitrability for termination is a matter for the court to decide.
Whether the CBA termination notice affected the contract term; whether the contract had terminated by 2007	Termination notice terminated the CBA.	Notice was insufficient to terminate; contract continued.	March 1, 2006 letter did not terminate the CBA; it extended automatically for one year.
Whether reappointment decisions fall within arbitration under Article 8	Reappointment decisions are arbitrable as contract interpretation.	Reappointment decisions are governed by MCR 3.106 and not beyond arbitration.	Reappointment issues are arbitrable under contract interpretation.
Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority by ordering reinstatement	Awards reinstating four officers complied with CBA terms.	Arbitrator lacked authority to order reappointment under MCR 3.106.	Arbitrator exceeded authority; remedy to reinstate violated the court rule and needed modification.
Remedy appropriate under CBA and court rule	Remedy should enforce reinstatement.	Remedy must align with chief judge’s appointment powers under MCR 3.106.	Remand to modify the award so it does not infringe on the chief judge’s appointment authority.

Arrow Overall Supply Co v Peloquin Enterprises, 414 Mich 95 (1982) (existence of contract to arbitrate is a judicial question)
Jaklinski, 423 Mich 1 (1985) (arbitrability is a judicial question; contract existence central to arbitrability)
Florence Cement, 269 Mich App 458 (2003) (existence/enforceability of arbitration terms judicial questions)
Highland Park v Mich Law Enforcement Union, Teamsters Local No 129, 148 Mich App 821 (1986) (limited appellate review of arbitration provisions; post-expiration arbitrability)
Ottawa Co v Jaklinski, 423 Mich 24 (1985) (arbitrability and contract termination issues treated as judicial questions)
B & T Metals Co, 315 F.2d 432 (6th Cir. 1963) (contract termination questions; court must decide existence of contract before arbitrator)
First Options of Chicago, Inc v Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (clear and unmistakable evidence needed to empower arbitrators on arbitrability)
Interstate Distrib Co, 832 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1987) (broad arbitration clause often commits termination/contract questions to arbitration)
Sage Hospitality Resources, 642 F.3d 255 (1st Cir. 2011) (meaning of duration/arbitration clause subject to arbitration when clause broad)
Office & Professional Employers Int’l Union, Local 42, 524 F.2d 1316 (6th Cir. 1975) (courts decide contract termination versus arbitrator in some contexts)
AFSCME Council 25 v Wayne Co, 290 Mich App 348 (2010) (context of labor arbitration and arbitrability in Michigan)