*1 v OAKLAND COUNTY MILTON Opinion of the Court Compensation Remedy 1-. Workmen’s —Statutes—Exclusive Provi- Applicability. sion — exclusive-remedy Compensation section of The the Workmen’s employee’s against Act to an constitutes a bar his em- ployer injuries falling purview for industrial within the (MCLA 418.301). 418.131, Compensation Remedy 2. Workmen’s —Statutes—Exclusive Provi- Applicability—Contracts—Breach Employment sion — Contract. by employee physical A claim an injuries employer’s alleged mental created of an breach contract and for violation of the governing merit cannot be classified as claim meaning injuries within industrial of the Workmen’s Com- pensation provi- Act and is not barred (MCLA 418.301). 418.131, sion Compensation Contracts—Multiple Rights 3. Workmen’s — —Mul- tiple Actions. plaintiff, attempting fact that a allocate his claims employer appropriately compensation an between a workmen’s contract, and a action sought civil action breach of compensation remedy simultaneously the workmen’s destroy separate identity with the civil contractual for which no could be in the awarded workmen’s action or the civil bar action. [1] [2] [3] [4] 58 Am Workmen’s 58 Am 58 Am Workmen’s 58 Am Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Workmen’s References Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation Points §§ § § § Headnotes 407. 64 et 193,198, et seq. seq. 250. App 279 op by O’Hara, the Result Employment—Contracts—Damages *2 — 4. —Unpaid Wages Right to Trial. — damages plaintiff employee to a trial of issue of is entitled A unpaid wages, unpaid accruing against for an over- clearly beyond time, of the Work- beneñts and other employee where the has Act even also men’s compensation beneñts. for workmen’s ñled a claim Oakland, Thorburn, James S. Appeal 7, 1973, at February Lansing. Division Submitted 13550.) 31, 1973. (Docket Decided October No. Rodney Oakland Complaint Auditors, Board of County the Oakland County, Appeal County, Board the Personnel superintending control for an order and others hearing allegations on compel a overtime, wages and and unpaid of the merit rules for violations discharge. Accelerated wrongful and re- appeals. Reversed and Plaintiff defendants. manded. Underwood, Jr.), M. Otis Scupholm (by
Kuhn & on plaintiff Allen, Hayward Counsel, P. and Robert Civil Deatrick, Whitlock, Hays, and Jack C. Armand P. Counsel, for defendants. Assistants Civil Fitzgerald Bronson, J., and P. Before: O’Hara,* JJ. Milton, insti-
Bronson, plaintiff, Rodney P. J. Oakland, defend- County tuted suit * Appeals by Justice,-sitting Supreme Court of on the Former pursuant in 1968. assignment art as amended § Const Milton v Oakland Opinion op the Court employment rights ant, for violation of his se- system. cured defendant’s merit Defendant filed judgment upon a motion the basis had filed a workmen’s remedy. claim which constituted trial granted judge plain- motion, defendant’s appeals right. tiff as a matter of judge summarily disposed trial Since the of this only case, facts available are those which through parties’ filtered from the briefs lower Although plaintiff’s initiatory court record. date of contested, we find that he was promoted Landscape Super- to the classification visor in 1968. Plaintiff contends that his immedi- superior, Superintendent ate of Lands and promoted Division, Grounds and he assumed request recognition *3 these duties. Plaintiff’s of responsibilities promotion his or increased formal upon by upon was acted never defendant. Based plaintiff alleges these events either overtime for the additional that he is entitled to he
hours worked satisfy responsibili- these duties increased wages job ties or back commensurate performing. he was classification defendant While plaintiff appointed Superintend- concedes that ent of was plaintiff’s responsi- Grounds, denies plaintiff performed bilities concerned lands or the functions he claims. relationship parties
The between the subse- quently plaintiff deteriorated when suffered mus- fatigue, cular fassiculation of the muscles his legs, depression arms and and mental mixed with creating anxiety a nervous disorder. Plaintiff re- admittedly ceived medical treatment and was un- perform able to work and duties responsibilities. attempt In an recover for plaintiff disabilities, these pensation filed a workmen’s com- plaintiff’s During period claim. this App deducted work, plaintiffs defendant absence annual leave. leave and When sick accumulated exhausted, defendant was dis- leave plaintiffs its service. him from charged challenged his plaintiff dis- On June appeal with Personnel filing an charge by hearing, the conclusion At Appeal Board. Thereafter, was denied. appeal plaintiffs the Oakland Circuit instituted (1) alleging (2) a violation of the merit performed, duties extra from defendant’s deduction resulting rules during time illness leave sick and annual with- him a leave absence granting than rather (3) done, wrongful customarily pay as is out by filing a motion responded discharge. Defendant upon plain- the basis that claim was his exclu- tiffs workmen’s approval of judge’s the circuit It remedy. sive present stage for the sets motion that this raised single significant issue perceive We whether Work- to be for our consideration provides Compensation Act men’s answer damages. We alleged plaintiffs believing that negative, in the question this sought disposition summary which haste with of the Workmen’s purpose obscured Act. current section of *4 adopted Act verbatim 1969 during the predecessor1 its language of as follows: reenactment exist, this act liability under conditions of "Where as compensation benefits recovery to the 1 411.4; MSA 17.144. MCLA Milton v Oakland 283 shall be the
provided remedy in this act exclusive against employer.” 418.131; MCLA MSA 17.237(131). constitutes Since act liability exist, where the conditions section 301 appropriately liability controls the attachment of following provision: personal employee, injury arising "An who receives a * * * ,”2 of his employment out of and in the course 17.237(301). added.) 418.301; (Emphasis MCLA MSA quid pro quo Moreover, § 141 evidences the of the act employer the abolition defenses available to an exchange for the elimination of the employee’s tort common-law action employer. Co, Cf. v Ford Motor Hebert 285 Mich (1938). 607; 281 374 NW cursory Little more than a review these ele- necessary mental sections of the act are to reach the conclusion that section employee’s constitutes a bar to an employer purview injuries falling for industrial within the Sheppard Michigan of the act. In v Na- (1957), Bank, 577; tional 83 614 NW2d purpose the Court articulated the of the act as providing compensating a method of workmen for injuries upon industrial relating the basis of trade risks industry charged part to the as a Similarly, Crilly the cost to it. Ballou, 308; 91 NW2d (1958), stated: consuming public, public private, "The charity, ” (Empha- injuries.
must foot the bill for work-incurred added.) sis language adopted predecessor This was likewise without from its change. 412.1; See MCLA MSA 17.151. *5 App 279 50 Mich 284 op Thus, with the obvious we are struck designed Act is Compensation to com mental4 work-related pensate physical3 inju ries.
A various claims in plaintiffs review of his civil reveal defendant combination damages physical injuries or mental created breach of the alleged employment defendant’s governing violation of the merit sys- contract plaintiffs It beyond question tem. is claims falling category, proved, within this latter can- injuries not as industrial within be classified meaning of the Workmen’s Act. plaintiffs alleged injuries for muscle fatigue While depression and mental fall within the act as his remedy, plaintiff judicial has compensation, review of his claims additional improper discharge, and violation of the merit-sys- tem The distinction between rules. damages arising injuries industrial relationship which are contrac-
tual in nature is undeniable.
Our
have found the
bar
exclusive-remedy
courts
challenged
inapplicable
injury
when the
sustained in the course of the
or the
v
Crawley
is not
under the
injury
compensable
Corp,
General Motors Truck
503;
259 Mich
244
Co,
(1932);
Byrne
Equipment
Clark
143
302
NW
and Moore v Fed-
167;
(1942);
4
509
Mich
NW2d
Stores, Inc,
Department
eral
556;
33
190
App
(1971); Panagos
v North Detroit Gen-
262
NW2d
Hospital,
eral
554; 192
542
App
35 Mich
NW2d
(1971).
inap-
bar is
Similarly,
Plaintiff
plicable
founded in contract.
(1934).
Co,
166;
Marman v Detroit Edison
268 Mich
O’Hara, J. gap unbridgeable the trial what between be an (or deciding least what he judge this case at in was deciding) raised and the issues he was considered following colloquy Witness on this plaintiffs counsel. the court between haven’t asked We [plaintiff’s "Mr. Leib counsel]: receive that he could in this lawsuit relief one bit of Compensation. through Workmen’s isn’t the issue. Forget that. That about "The Court: recov- your on Workmen’s You’re bound are not con- gives you. We ery cerned with the statute whatever any trying are not that. We the issue with We are concerned Compensation cases. terminating, wrong as to what’s 'fired’, any the services word don’t like the you function. perform their employee who can’t terminating the question of only not "Mr. Leib: It’s in which manner your Honor. It’s the employment, terminated. they have a agreed that You have "The Court: function? perform the if he can’t to terminate No, agree I with that. can’t "Mr. Leib: mean some- It would inconceivable. "The Court: It’s also, and, Compensation, collect Workmen’s one could App 50 O’Hara, nothing. Now, County pay collect full do you do any any authority know of of the 50 states of position? that union would take that "Mr. Leib: Your Honor. Leib, you got "The have any Court: Mr. authority on proposition?
that No; none, your "Mr. Leib: Honor. you
"The Court: time do get How much want to it? question "Mr. Leib: The whether a man can be illness, terminated because for that reason alone? "The already Court: No. You have he conceded can’t perform the function. now, saying
"Mr. Leib: I’m not I’m saying at the time was terminated he could not work: That’s true.
"The Court: He could not work. correct;
"Mr. Leib: That’s because illness. right. so, "The Court: All Because of illness. And it’s your position they person terminate *7 employment their perform because illness they cannot (Emphasis supplied.) their function?” say least To the court and counsel were not communicating. I was, don’t fault know whose does not affect issue here as I under- it. stand complaint alleges
Insofar as the damages against entitled to for un- paid wages, unpaid overtime, and other benefits clearly beyond scope Compensa- proverbial tion Act benefits he is to entitled his day in court. To in this extent I am full accord Judge voting join Hence, with I in Bronson. granting judgment. vacate order employer’s right plaintiff’s As to to terminate inability perform because of his required position agree services I judge. proceed- trial ings I would remand for further suggest pretrial conference, an additional v Oakland O’Hara, issues as between the to delineate order employer’s right to termi- review plaintiff’s right plaintiff’s nate support proofs claim for of his present damages. money