History
  • No items yet
midpage
Afscme Local 1128 v. City of Taylor
328669
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 19, 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • AFSCME Local 1128 and City of Taylor entered a CBA (effective to June 30, 2010) containing an arbitration clause (Art. 19) and staffing guarantees (Art. 5.2: ≥100 full‑time employees; Art. 24.2: specified clerk levels). Art. 45.2 provided automatic extension and limited termination rules (Arts. 5.2 and 21.1 not cancelable until a new CBA).
  • In June–September 2011 the union filed grievances (2011‑1, 2011‑6, 2011‑20) alleging the city violated staffing provisions by laying off employees; the union also filed a MERC ULP charge.
  • An ALJ (MERC referee) orally ruled in part in 2013 that perpetual numerical staffing obligations for non‑safety employees intrude on core managerial functions and that the city arguably gave notice by layoffs; no written MERC decision issued.
  • Grievance 2011‑20 was arbitrated and found untimely; the arbitrator nonetheless remarked that the 100‑employee guarantee was terminable at will and effectively terminated in June 2011 (relied on ALJ analysis). Grievance 2011‑20 was denied on timeliness grounds.
  • The city refused to arbitrate grievances 2011‑1 and 2011‑6, asserting res judicata/collateral estoppel from the ALJ and the 2011‑20 arbitration. The union sued to compel arbitration; the circuit court ordered arbitration. The city appealed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether grievances 2011‑1 and 2011‑6 are within the CBA arbitration clause Union: grievances concern "application, meaning, or interpretation" of CBA staffing provisions and are arbitrable City: generally conceded arbitrability but argued preclusion bars arbitration Court: grievances are on their face within arbitration clause; arbitrability gateway satisfied
Whether res judicata/collateral estoppel preclude arbitration Union: preclusion is a procedural defense for the arbitrator to decide City: prior ALJ and arbitrator decisions preclude relitigation; court should decide gateway issue Court: application of preclusion is a procedural question for the arbitrator; doubt resolved for arbitration
Whether alleged unenforceability of staffing provisions voids the arbitration agreement Union: unenforceability of specific provisions does not void the arbitration clause or entire CBA City: staffing provisions legally unenforceable, so no binding arbitration obligation Court: enforcement attack is on substantive provisions not the arbitration clause; arbitration clause remains valid
Whether the CBA (and duty to arbitrate) terminated by the 2011 layoffs Union: CBA (and arbitration clause) remained effective until proper notice in May 2013; layoffs, at most, affect merits for arbitrator City: layoffs constituted notice/termination so no obligation to arbitrate Court: termination is a merits/substantive issue for arbitrator; arbitration clause not shown terminated pre‑grievances

Key Cases Cited

  • Madison Dist Pub Sch v Myers, 247 Mich App 583 (discusses standard that arbitrability is a question of law)
  • In re Nestorovski Estate, 283 Mich App 177 (existence and enforceability of arbitration agreement are judicial questions)
  • Bienenstock & Assoc, Inc v Lowry, 314 Mich App 508 (procedural questions about arbitration are for arbitrator absent contract provision)
  • American Federation of State v Hamtramck Housing Comm, 290 Mich App 672 (court vs arbitrator allocation on arbitrability issues)
  • Ottawa Co v Jaklinski, 423 Mich 1 (court's inquiry in compel‑arbitration action limited to gateway arbitrability)
  • Fromm v Meemic Ins Co, 264 Mich App 302 (courts should not interpret contract beyond determining arbitration applies)
  • Bennett v Shearson Lehman‑Am Exp, Inc, 168 Mich App 80 (procedural matters arising from dispute are for arbitrator)
  • Altobelli v Hartmann, 499 Mich 284 (merits of dispute belong to arbitrator when arbitration clause governs)
  • 36th Dist Court v AFSCME Local 917, 295 Mich App 502 (question whether contract was terminated is ordinarily for the court)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Afscme Local 1128 v. City of Taylor
Court Name: Michigan Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jan 19, 2017
Docket Number: 328669
Court Abbreviation: Mich. Ct. App.