Kristofor C Harrison v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
328303
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- Plaintiff (Harrison) was employed by Blue Cross Blue Shield subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and was fired after an internal investigation for alleged regulatory violations.
- The union grieved; the grievance proceeded to arbitration where the arbitrator found discharge violated the CBA but imposed 90 days’ suspension and awarded reinstatement with back pay subject to offsets (90-day suspension, other earnings, workers’ compensation).
- Employer rehired Harrison but disputed the information needed to calculate the back pay (requested tax returns; Harrison provided W-2s and paystubs and said he had not filed returns).
- Harrison sued in circuit court seeking confirmation and enforcement of the arbitration award; trial court sua sponte questioned subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed without prejudice.
- The court concluded it would need to interpret the arbitrator’s award, make factual findings about offsets and required documentation, and calculate a monetary award—tasks reserved to the arbitrator—so the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide the contested back-pay calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm and enforce the arbitration award | Harrison: MCL 691.1683(2) and MCR 3.602(I) allow a court to confirm an arbitration award and enter judgment | Blue Cross: Court would be forced to interpret the award, resolve factual disputes about offsets/documentation, and compute back pay—functions for the arbitrator | Court: No jurisdiction to adjudicate the contingent/back-pay calculation because that would require factual findings, contract interpretation and fashioning a remedy reserved to the arbitrator |
| Whether the award was ‘‘clear and specific’’ such that simple confirmation/judgment was possible | Harrison: The award is enforceable and confirmation is proper | Blue Cross: Award lacks a definite dollar amount or method for calculation; enforcement would require factfinding | Court: Award not sufficiently definite; cannot be judicially calculated without overstepping judicial deference to arbitrator |
| Whether state law permitting confirmation defeats jurisdictional limits when calculation disputes exist | Harrison: Uniform Arbitration Act and court rule permit confirmation and entry of judgment | Blue Cross: Those provisions permit confirmation only when no subsidiary factual determinations are required | Court: Statute/rule permit confirmation but do not authorize courts to resolve contingent claims or make new findings of fact created by an award |
| Whether federal FAA authority requires a different result | Harrison: Federal arbitration principles support confirmation | Blue Cross: Federal law also limits judicial inquiry into merits and factual findings | Court: Federal authority is consistent; courts cannot adjudicate merits of contingent claims created by awards |
Key Cases Cited
- SEIU Local 466M v. City of Saginaw, 263 Mich. App. 656 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (arbitrator is sole factfinder; courts may enforce clear and specific awards but not adjudicate contingent claims created by an award)
- Armco Employees Indep. Fed’n v. Armco Steel Co., 65 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 1995) (a court may enforce a clear, specific award but may not adjudicate merits of a contingent claim created by a past award)
- Ann Arbor v. AFSCME Local 369, 284 Mich. App. 126 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (courts are narrowly circumscribed in reviewing arbitration decisions and cannot review arbitrator’s factual findings)
- Port Huron Area Sch. Dist. v. Port Huron Ed. Ass’n, 426 Mich. 143 (Mich. 1986) (arbitration is a favored means for resolving labor disputes; judicial deference to arbitrators)
- United Steelworkers v. Am. Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1960) (federal courts may not weigh the merits of a grievance or reexamine arbitrator’s function)
- Mich. State Employees Ass’n v. Dep’t of Mental Health, 178 Mich. App. 581 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989) (court lacks authority to fashion its own remedy when reviewing an arbitrator’s decision)
Affirmed.