American Federation of State Employees, Council 25 v. Hamtramck Housing Commission
290 Mich. App. 672
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Per Curiam; plaintiff appeals a circuit court order denying summary disposition and dismissing its complaint for arbitration due to laches/timeliness; court held laches precluded arbitration but opinion reverses.
- Arbitration duty arises from contract; presumption of arbitrability favors submitting timeliness questions to arbitrator in absence of explicit contract exclusion.
- CBA arbitration clause requires arbitration for unresolved grievances fully processed through the grievance procedure and limits arbitrator to interpretation/enforcement of the contract.
- There is no explicit exclusion of timeliness from the arbitrator’s scope in the clause.
- Court concludes timeliness and laches are for the arbitrator to decide; the matter is remanded to compel arbitration rather than have the court resolve arbitratability issues.
- Contract expiration alone does not determinatively bar arbitration absent explicit language; right to arbitrate may survive expiration for disputes that vest during the contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides timeliness of arbitration? | Timeliness should be for the arbitrator. | Court should decide laches/waiver based on contract and timing. | Arbitrator decides timeliness/la ches. |
| Does the CBA cover timeliness as arbitrable? | Arbitration clause includes timeliness. | Timeliness may be outside the clause's scope. | Presumption of arbitrability requires arbitrator to decide. |
| Does contract expiration bar arbitration? | Rights vesting during term survive expiration; dispute arbitrable. | Expiration could bar, if contract language excludes. | Absent explicit language, expiration does not determinatively bar arbitrability. |
| Do procedural issues belong in court or arbitration? | Court should decide procedural issues. | Procedural questions belong to arbitration. | Procedural questions belong to arbitrator; remand for arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amtower v William C Roney & Co (On Remand), 232 Mich App 226 (1998) (preserves arbitrability questions for arbitrator; summary-arbitration parity cited)
- Ottawa Co v Jaklinski, 423 Mich 1 (1985) (right to grievance arbitration survives contract expiration for rights that vest during term)
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc v Livingston, 376 US 543 (1964) (reserving procedural issues for courts would hinder arbitration)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc v Communications Workers of America, 475 US 643 (1986) (ambiguity resolved in favor of arbitration; presumption of coverage)
- Northern California Dist Council of Hod Carriers v Pennsylvania Pipeline, Inc, 103 Cal App 3d 163 (1980) (right to arbitrate vests when grievance arises; enforceable even if not demanded)