*1 Renny v Port Huron 415 RENNY PORT HURON HOSPITAL (Calendar 6). 3, Argued No. 74884. Docket June No. Decided 30, 1986. Rehearing December 1206. denied Mich brought wrongful discharge Karen an action for St. the court, against Hospital. Clair Circuit Court Port Huron The Corden, J., judgment jury James T. entered on a the verdict for plaintiff. Appeals, Gillis, P.J., The Court H. J. and T. M. JJ., Kaufman, unpublished N. Burns and J. in an affirmed (Docket 68824). opinion per appeals, curiam No. The defendant alleging allowing jury error the trial court the to deter- employee mine as a matter of fact the defendant’s hand- employment permitted book established an contract which discharge cause, only just allowing jury for and in the consider whether the decision of a board which upheld plaintiff’s discharge binding. final and opinion by joined by Cavanagh, In an Justice Chief Justice Archer, Supreme Williams and Justices Levin Court held: question 1. employment of the existence of a contract of permitted discharge just only which cause is one of for fact jury employer policies where the establishes written procedures discharge employees, for the does ex- but pressly employees retain the to terminate at Awill. private employer judicial cannot insulate itself from review discharge establishing by unilaterally of an dispute employees required method of resolution to which are to submit. 2. employee expressly an griev- Where consents to submit a joint employer-employee grievance ance to a board established employer knowledge resulting with the that the decision binding, will be final and the decision will final unless a procedures court employed by finds as matter of law that the comport elementary board did not fairness. case, properly In this ques- the trial court submitted the _3. References 2d, 61, seq. Am Jur Labor and Labor Relations 920 et §§ 2d, seq. Am Jur Master and Servant 43§§ et Discharge See annotations in Index under Annotations Employment From or Office. 427 Mich jury, just-cause of a contract to of the existence tion permit presented trial to sufficient evidence provided existed. The defendant that such a contract conclude optional establishing employees handbook with a penalties, disciplinary procedure violations and and a list of *2 express including discharge. was included that its No statement plaintiff relied on the employees at will. The were terminable griev- handbook, policies defendant followed the in the and the procedure. ance presented to enable the to evidence also 4. Sufficient discharged just plaintiff not for cause that the had been find discharge binding hearing was not final and the and that Although comport elementary with fairness. it did not because grievance grievance agreed plaintiff to the to submit her the final the of the board was and understood that decision board specific procedures binding, objected in her to the she and grievance, procedures in the not described or enunciated formal testimony the services director did The handbook. process. plaintiff’s of lack of due The rebut the claim adequate plaintiff provided with notice before the was not specific hearing identity regarding the witnesses and the provided opportu- allegations against fair her. was she Nor her, having against nity denied the been rebut the evidence hearing, present present during rights witnesses of to be choosing, present of her work record. and to evidence Although grievance procedure question af- whether elementary question fairness was a of law forded jury, it to the was not should not have been submitted which jury’s requiring in the error reversal. Nor was there error damages. determination Affirmed. Brickley joined by Justices Boyle, Riley, dis- Justice enforcing senting, stated that the circuit court erred in not employee grievance of the board which decision agreed contractually accept binding as the final and resolu- grievance. voluntary participation in tion of her Her the arbi- hearing procedural object and failure to to the fairness tration hearing precluded challenging of the her from later the en- procedural resulting on broad forcement adverse decision grounds. fairness Discharge — — 1. Master Just Cause. Servant question employment of the existence of a contract of which discharge permitted just only cause is one of fact for the employer policies proce- jury where the establishes written discharge expressly employees, for the does not dures but Port Huron op the Court will; employees private retain the to terminate employer judicial cannot insulate itself from review of the discharge employee by unilaterally establishing of an a method dispute employees required resolution which are to sub- mit. Finality — op — 2. Master and Servant Grievance Procedures Due Process. Decisionsi— employee expressly Where an consents to submit a ato joint employer-employee board established employer knowledge resulting with the that the decision will be binding, final and will decision be final unless a court finds procedures employed by as a matter of law that the board comport elementary did not fairness. Huegli, (by Parrish & Mitchell Richard F. Jr.) Huegli, plaintiff. for the (by Cross, Wrock, Miller & Vieson Dan W. Chandler) for the defendant. brought against J. Plaintiff suit Cavanagh, de- *3 hospital wrongful discharge. jury fendant for plaintiff $100,000 found for damages. and awarded her in appeal,
In this Port Huron contends that the trial court committed error re- quiring allowing jury reversal in the to determine Employee as a matter fact whether the Hand- employment allowing book established an contract discharge only "just hospital for cause.” The fur- ther contends that the trial court erred allow- ing jury the to consider whether the decision of upholding plaintiff’s discharge the board binding. was final and properly We find that trial court submitted question just-cause just-cause jury. of a contract to the question
The existence of a contract is jury employer of fact for the where establishes policies procedures by written which to dis- charge employee, expressly an but does not retain employees to terminate at will. Further- 427 Mich Opinion of the Court private employer insulate itself more, a cannot discharge by employee’s judicial of an from review dispute establishing unilaterally reso- a method employee must submit. lution which expressly employee However, has con- where complaint joint employer- to a to submit a sented employee the em- board established resulting knowledge ployer deci- that the with binding, be final the decision shall is final and sion that the a matter law the court finds as unless procedures elementary comport with did not used finds, the merits If the court so fairness. jury if, may to the determine be submitted case in just fact, fired for cause. was for sufficient evidence find that there was We Although just-cause jury contract. the question to find grievance procedure afforded whether question plaintiff elementary of law was a fairness jury, to the not have submitted which should been requires find, We reversal. we find no error which discharge hearing plaintiff’s jury, that as did the binding comport as it did not not final and was elementary Furthermore, there was fairness. for the to find sufficient evidence discharged just cause. had been
I. FACTS employed registered nurse Plaintiff was as a hospital. 18, 1980, defendant On June working circulating Operating as a nurse in Room registered Mary hospital. nurse, 2 at Another charge Operating Brown, 2 for the Room *4 operations, aides, nurses, and week. Between the cleaning responsible the room orderlies were aseptic assure conditions. plaintiff operation,
At of the the end second suggested nurse, Zechiel, scrub Marion should Port Huron Opinion of the Court patient take her coffee break. Plaintiff took the recovery returned, When room. she she saw that Mrs. Zechiel was still in the room. Plaintiff that she told her testified Mrs. Zechiel to take designated coffee break at the time or she would get cleaning one. Plaintiff believed completed. had been
Mrs. Zechiel testified that ordered stop cleaning operating to helping room as it was not According
"our to Mrs. cause.” Zechiel’s complaint regis- testimony, and trial several unhappy having tered nurses were to do about formerly assigned work to aides. Mrs. Zechiel re- plaintiffs nothing. sented comment said but She completed doing what she was left the room. patient brought
When third into the operating room, two scrub nurses and light were unable to determine if the handles operating changed. above the table had been The nurses assumed that the handles were contami- operation, At nated. plaintiff the conclusion of third Mary Brown if asked Mrs. Zechiel she changed light had handles. Mrs. Zechiel could changed not remember whether she had han- following day, dles or not. Brown filed an report operating manager, incident room required Tyjewski, hospital policy. Paul as Tyjewski Brown testified at trial that asked her attempted sabotage operating if she had procedure. having room Brown denied done so question. was shocked at Both Brown and Tyjewski respon- testified that Brown full assumed sibility as head nurse for the incident. Brown also plaintiff attempted testified that neither she nor blame Mrs. Zechiel for the incident. questioned by Tyjewski
Brown was not further representative hospital or plaintiff until after discharged. She was not as a called *5 415 427 Mich 420 Opinion of the Court discharge hearing although plaintiffs witness operating present when in room she had been plaintiff spoke at to Mrs. Zechiel. Brown testified to plaintiffs comment overheard trial that she not re- but could Zechiel her coffee break about was "so as the statement the exact words member Tyjewski that She also testified unremarkable.” lounge meeting 24 on June in the nurses’ called plaintiffs that the rumors to assure the staff operating firing room were the incident in the over unfounded. Tyjewski called Zechiel testified
Marion agreed day 19, incident. She after the on June day following him at his office the to meet the incident. Her state about submit statement alleged had where nurses incidents ment several specified sepa hospital policy. She two undermined including separate nurses, two rate incidents with plaintiff. that a She also claimed the incident working against group people were small 1 by Tyjewski. system teamwork instituted new 20,1980 June (getting helping in a room times when I have been Several case) help my ready told was not for the next I have been needed. day helping specifically I I remember one when was R.N.’s "open Townley’s up” “Total” cases and Bev for one Dr. nurses, said, circulating already two what Bowns are "We here, have [sic] you doing Marion?” week, Then on I a "second scrub nurse” in this Wed. was (I helping clean the room cleaned the O.R. #2. When I handles, tables, etc.), light lights & off the took off the washed "Marion, said, you help- Renny you really Karen know aren’t cleaning ing any by us in here between cases! There are RN’s cleaning doing it, not us.” & aides should ended, I the suction bottle & was When the next case cleaned go light I told to to lunch. I did not take off the handles & did case, go not clean between because I left the room Dupuis Mary & room & lunch. getting ready Brown Marsha were I for the next case when left. Zechiel, Marion L. R.N. conclusion, though In I will add I have felt as there are Port Huron op the Court Friday, Tyjewski 20, On June called Tyjewski his office. told she had employee. intimidated another Plaintiff denied this allegation expressed Tyjewski concern that singling her out due to recent conflicts be- Tyjewski Tyjewski suspended tween plaintiff and herself. *6 pay.
with He told her to return to his Monday. plaintiff office on When returned Mon- day, Tyjewski discharged her without further dis- discipline noting cussion. He handed her a form being discharged that she was for "deliberate re- striction of work.” step grievance
In accordance with two of the procedure by hospital established Em its ployee plaintiff speak Handbook, went to with the Employee Assistant Services, Director of Mr. Yuille. Yuille testified at trial that of a mediator. Prior that his role was meeting
to his
with
group
people
working against
a small
who have been
[sic]
system
They
hope
our new
of team-work in the O.R.
seem to
it
doesn’t work.
Step
One:
your grievance
your
supervisor
with
immediate
Discuss
days
you
within* three
after the incident. If
are not satisfied
this,
your grievance
with the results of
take
to the next
supervisory
your department.
level—if one exists in
(Note:
Two,
Begin
Step
your grievance
with
if
concerns
action.)
disciplinary
Step Two:
your grievance
One,
Step
If
your
is not settled in
submit
grievance
(within
writing
Employee
days
Services
three
incident,
your grievance
disciplinary
after the
tion).
if
involves
ac-
grievance
form,
grievance report
Your
should be written on a
Employee
available from
Services.
Employee
representative
An
try
your
Services
will
to resolve
grievance through
days.
counsel and advice within* two
If the
grievance
resolved,
mutually
proceed
Step
is not
Three.
Step Three:
working days
your request,
Within* 5
the Director of
Employee
meeting
Employee
Services will schedule a
Grievance Board.
another When Tyjewski to in refused interest to inform her firing, plaintiff indicated an rescind pursuing before the board.3 (3 employees panel of six You will be able select group supervisory employees non-supervisory) of ten three from a (five non-supervisory) supervisory who and five have Employee Services from list selected the Director been of qualified volunteers. investigate thoroughly hear the facts of The Board will tie,
your If there is a case and then vote secret ballot. Employee Services will also vote. Director days posted after the will be within* three These results *7 hearing. Board binding, it final unless was The decision of the Board is and necessary Employee Director of Services to break a tie the case, you you vote and can are not satisfied with the results. In Step proceed to Four. Step Four: Step appeal your grievance you must In order to to Four appeal Employee to written Services within* submit three second posted. days the Board’s has been Note: after decision you, appeal final if the Director of Em- This available ployee voted to break the Board’s tie vote. Services meeting A the and Execu- with Executive Director Associate (pending availability) Director their will be scheduled for tive appeal). you days you have within* five after submitted the Administration, your meeting you had After have with their (in days: given you writing) will is, within* This decision two cases, binding. in and decision all final Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays. * Excludes National and Handbook, excerpt, pp [Employee 18-20.] Employee procedure Board is available to An Grievance v Port Huron Opinion of the Court step In with accordance of the three procedure, plaintiif Scheib, met with Mr. the Vice Employee Services, President of who informed her procedures about the board. Mr. griev- Scheib also as the served chairman the explained ance board. Plaintiif testified that Scheib process by which she could choose the six employee-employer joint members of the board. He explained also would of a he vote case tie vote and that decision the board was final and binding. Plaintiff claims told that Scheib her that present, she could not have counsel could not see complaint against her, and would be in- identity formed of the fying of the other witnesses testi- hearing. present at She not be could during testimony other witness or during opening Mr. Scheib’s remarks. plaintiff’s
Mr. Scheib testified trial that disci- pline slip only was the notice she received. He employees stated that were not allowed to hear opening testimony remarks or the of other you as a fair and effective means to work resolve related complaints problems. By using procedure’s and series of progressive steps, you your supervisors, upon four Employee Services, can call Board, Employee Grievance and Admin- your you istration to evaluate case and decide whether or not fairly. procedure have you been treated You can use the when feel a work decision related is not consistent established hospital policies practices, including those outlined Handbook. may things discipline, transfer, Grievances include such as selection, job posting assignment holiday unfair of vacation or time, personal denied, request that was You etc. cannot use procedure appeal hospital’s decisions related responsibility employees, and assignment to determine the number and conduct, to establish rules of to determine the hours days work, times, starting wages quitting benefits, etc. procedure cases, steps. involves a series of four In most *8 begin Step action, concerning disciplinary with In One. cases begin Step [Employee Handbook, p Two. 18.] Mich op the Court complaint the read Plaintiff would have witnesses. hearing testify could on own to her at the aggrieved employee the first wit- was behalf. only if the be called back board ness and would hearing testimony questions further after had witnesses. other plaintiff objected to could not recall if
Scheib prior during any ing procedures to or hear- requested present. He if she counsel be or opening to the not his remarks com- could recall given copy a mittee or whether was transcripts complaint or time. No records kept, discharge hearing and the committee are finding. no makes plaintiff could ask testified that
While Scheib witnesses, not if he could recall board to call right. However, he of this had informed may the board’s no consent, be called without witnesses appearance before witness’s voluntary. An has no board is testimony or rebut a witness’s or cross-examine any closing summary statements. make grievance on June submitted a formal Plaintiff plaintiff’s grievance July 1, 25, 1980, On 1980.4 panel selected. which she had considered plaintiff, Tyjew- heard three witnesses: The board hearing, complainant ski, Zechiel. After the uphold plaintiff’s to one to board voted five firing.
founded
tion
this
full and
this accused
I
expect my
signed
I was
occurence to be
of work
act,
fair
and untrue.
discharged
statement
etc. The other R.N. in
treatment
action),
on
job
6-18-80 in
to be returned to
was not
at 1000 on
against me;
removed
I
in the future from Mr.
questioned.
O.R. #2.”
from
given
6-23-80,
seeing
my
room,
me,
These
for "deliberate restric
record.
(with
privilege
(who
party
Tyjewski.
charges are
back
was witness
Also,
accusing
pay),
I
reading
expect
also
un
me
*9
425
v Port
Huron
of
Court
wrongful
Plaintiff
suit in
filed
circuit court for
discharge
Employee
on the basis that defendant’s
just-cause contract,
Handbook established a
that
firing
defendant had breached this contract
plaintiff
just
cause,
without
and that the
procedure
binding
final
as it denied
plaintiff
process.
plaintiff.
due
found for
hospital appealed
Defendant
the circuit court’s
Appeals
plaintiff
decision. The Court of
found that
just-cause
submitted sufficient
con-
evidence of a
question
go
jury.
tract
allow the
Cross,
579;
Toussaint v Blue
880
408
292
Mich
NW2d
(1980).
Appeals
The Court of
found further
alleged
that, as
had
process
question
unfair,
there existed a
of fact
judicial
which entitled
to seek
on
review
Ring
the merits
of
claim. Breish v
Screw
(1976); Fulg-
Works,
586;
397 Mich
II. JUST-CAUSE CONTRACT
Plaintiff testified that she was hired in Decem-
required
ber
time,
1975. At that
she was
un-
dergo
program
a one-week orientation
in-
page-by-page
Employee
cluded
review of the
including
employees,
plaintiff,
Handbook. All
signed
acknowledgment
agreement
and
clause
at the end of the book. The handbook was revised
5Unpublished opinion per
Appeals,
curiam the Court
decided
(Docket
68824).
21, 1984
June
No.
(1985).
as follows: Agreement
Acknowledgement copy acknowledge I I have received privileges Handbook, my which outlines Employee Port Huron responsibilities as and Hospital. fully the contents I understand have read handbook, rules *10 agree by I to abide this and I don’t regulations and it outlines. [Handwritten:] agree, abide. but will understanding it was
Plaintiff testified go employee not let an would hospital in the guidelines established following the without follow expected to She stated that she handbook. expected and policies in the handbook to hospital do same. griev- for a provided
The Handbook Employee to re- effective means as a "fair and ance board This complaints problems.” and related solve work procedure employ- to which mandatory not a also included to handbook ees had submit. The unions. hospital’s philosophy about defendant is no need firmly We believe that there con- Hospital. Huron Proof our at Port unions history prosperous lies in our viction continuous bargaining agree- operations collective without in our for excellence ments with unions. We strive directly relationships dealing fairly and work with of a third people, without the interference you, We as party. furthermore believe speak for and employee, yourself must free to comments, suggestions, prob- and openly to discuss administration, and supervisor, your lems with other therefore, will, strongly hospital staff. We attempts Hu- oppose organizing at Port all union legal channels. Hospital through proper ron and Hospital Port Huron Court any There was no evidence trial to show directly indirectly, involvement, creating grievance procedure although employ- ees did may volunteer sit on the It board. grievance procedure be inferred that unilaterally hospital established defendant parties,” including did involve "third third-party neutral decisionmaker such as an arbi- trator. following
The handbook also contained the state- policy: ments
Management Rights Hospital right retains manage the sole operate Hospital. includes, This but is not to, right limited the lay the sole and exclusive to decide assignment hire,
number and off, of employees; to discipline, discharge, transfer, assign, and and promote employees; starting and to determine quitting employees. working days times and and hours for all rights subject These are only regulations and restrictions outlined in this Em- ployee Handbook. The has the sole and exclusive cifically administer spe- all matters not expressly Handbook, covered in *11 limitations, implied without or otherwise.
Conclusion policies The in Employee this Handbook are
comprehensive, circumstances and by but no means cover all you might
situations encounter while an you employee Hospital. Port Huron When questions have that are not in answered handbook, please feel free to discuss them with Handbook, Employee [Employee pp Services. 28 and 43.] hospital Defendant claims that is handbook a that, were, not contract it if did not sign the in contract a manner that indicated her 427 Mich op the Court Moreover, contract. even
intent to be bound a contract between if the handbook does establish plaintiff hospital, hospital re- defendant employees at will to terminate served the management rights clause. under its 684, Lynas 687; Farms, 279 Mich In v Maxwell (1937), this held that contracts Court 273 NW gener- may permanent employment or for life for ally at the will of be terminable be construed to distinguishing party fea- absence of either provisions, tures, in addition consideration or This Court clarified to be rendered. the services provi- distinguishing features, what constituted sions, in Toussaint or additional considerations supra, Cross, Blue 598-599. provid- provision employment contract
A discharged ing that an shall be except legally whether cause is enforceable express agreement, written, or as result oral or grounded expectations employee’s legitimate of an legiti- employer’s policy These in an statements. grounded employ- expectations may in an mate be policy forth in the written statements as set er’s personnel policies. Id. manual of employ- employer is enter into still free to will and without ment contracts terminable at assigning prospec- may require employer cause. An acknowledge they employees tive serve pleasure company. Moreover an the will or employer per- pre- obligation is under no to establish policies practices. However, it sonnel sumed that the employee,
employer, as well as establishing clearly benefits from defined em- relationship. supra, ployment Toussaint, 610-612.7 just-cause employer’s of a contract based on the The existence require policy procedure does not evidence statements of obligation. Thus, mutuality may enforceable even the contract statement, employer signed policy though party neither has *12 v Port Huron Opinion of the Court employer employees Where an has informed personnel policies subject are to unilateral changes by employer, employee has no expectation legitimate any particular policy However, will remain in force. it is reasonable for expect employees policies in to force at given applied uniformly time bewill to all. If in policy there is effect a to for dismiss cause only, employer may depart from that
policy obligation simply at whim he under because was no place. policy to institute the first Having policy, presumably announced the with a obtaining improved to employee view the benefit of improved attitudes and quality behavior force, promise work the employer may not treat its illusory. [Toussaint, supra, as 619.] employer agreed discharge Where an has an employee just only, for cause its decision to termi- employee subject judicial nate the The employee review. jury decides as a matter of fact whether the discharged
was for cause. While the may opinion not substitute its for that of the employer’s, may it determine whether the em- ployee specific committed the misconduct for firing pretex- fired, which he was whether the discharge tual, whether the reason amounted good employer cause, or whether the was selec- tively applying enough the rules. It is not that an employer good acted faith or not unreason- pp Id., able. 621-624.
By establishing grievance procedure an internal employer may judicial avoid review.
Additionally, employer perils can avoid the may unilaterally policy employee, amend his without notice to the specific employee job and there is no reference to the in the Moreover, necessary statements. it is not that an know of employer’s policies prior being Toussaint, supra, hired. 614-615. *13 Mich 415 Opinion of the Court by providing for an alternative of assessment agreement A dispute of written method resolution. discharge only term to for definite or indefinite binding could, provide for example, for
for cause damages. cause on the of and arbitration [Toussaint, issues supra, p 624.] provided Handbook was Employee Defendant’s orientation, explained during employees, to new revised employees, periodically all and signed by to read expected were Employees employer. become familiar with and carefully the handbook hospital maintained While the its contents.8 right discharge employees, to sole restric- regulations to the subject expressly provided for the handbook. tions disciplinary a list of provided The handbook pro- each.9 It also for penalties violations and the 8 Welcome happy Hospital. you are Port Huron We Welcome to sincerely hope your joined association staff and and have our mutually long We will do our beneficial. with us will be very to best make it so. bring you your of to bedside Whether or not duties important "providing job goal patients, your equally of to our and care with kindness and the sick with the best comfort improving.” compassion always tion of in the You will share satisfac- — perform important helping to an human service. you working hospital, its will introduce This handbook conditions, policies employees. You will learn that affect expect you. expect us what we from what to from and carefully familiar with its Read this handbook and become material, you questions any have about contents. Should your supervisor Employee Services. discuss them with will, course, altered, continually as revised and Policies needed, provide employees. interest of all for best glad May your you you new have success in We are are here. position. McKinley
C. W. Executive Director Code Personnel Conduct people produc- society that allow Just as must have laws every organization tively safely together, must have live Port Huron Opinion of the Court optional grievance procedure. vided There is express no statement within the handbook that employees were still terminable at the will of the hospital. rights management While the clause im- plies employer policies could revise its unilaterally, presented there was no evidence hospital any trial that defendant had altered operation. codes and rules to ensure its effective Such codes are individual, rights intended restrict the but rather protect all, rights including patients. to define and When rules are corrected. This purpose our broken, pointed discipline.” the infraction must be out and process is called "constructive *14 program you improving your perfor- is to in aid mance. Listed below are violations of our Code of Personnel Conduct. you acts, you subject yourself discipli- When nary commit these reprimand, ranging reprimand, action from verbal written suspension pay, discharge, depending without and immediate upon specific past your offense record. Group I following disciplinary Violations of the will rules be cause for prescribed actions as below. reprimand up including First Offense—Verbal to and written reprimand. reprimand up including Second Offense—Written to and suspension pay. without suspension Disciplinary up including Third to and Offense— discharge. Discharge. Fourth [Violations enumerated.] Offense— Group II following Violations work rules can as serious as Group depending upon
violations of rules in stances. III the circum- Accordingly, violations of these rules will be cause disciplinary prescribed dependent action as below and will be upon the seriousness of the offense. reprimand up First including Offense—Written dis- charge. [Violations enumerated.] Group III following Violations will work rules be considered discharge offense, except
cause for for the first under the most extenuating [Employee circumstances. [Violations enumerated.] Handbook, pp 7-10.] Mich 415 Opinion of Court plaintiff policies upon Indeed, relied. which hospital any suggestion fire an could express despite will statements policy evidence of its change and without handbook imply was a handbook would sham. policy on state- that she relied
Plaintiff testified signing handbook, in the In ments handbook. acknowledged read and under- that she had she abide its rules. its contents would stood Apparently, agree poli- with all of the she didn’t required book, however she was cies hospital object to the did not do Defendant so. signed until she her handbook manner plaintiff in which wrongful discharge almost filed suit for hospital years fact that defendant two later. The grievance procedure with followed the upon just-cause contract existed evidence that a legitimately relied. had which
III. THE FINALITY RULE employer could avoid Toussaint held that employee’s termination review of an estab- dispute lishing an alternative method resolution *15 binding on the of cause such as arbitration issue important damages. However, it concur. is and to note that Toussaint tial, tor, We impar- suggested using an third-party namely decisionmaker, an arbitra- significantly from and that differs arbitration hospital. procedure established defendant resulting Moreover, even the from arbi- decisions joint hearings, tration, em- administrative ployer-employee result committees established as a bargaining, not immune from of collective are judicial limited review. argues hospital volunta-
Defendant that v Port Huron op the Court rily submitted her to the board and should not now be able to claim binding the decision of the board is not final or the basis of "fairness.” Defendant characterizes on plaintiff’s just-cause acts as a reformation of the judicial contract to allow for review when an griev- satisfied with the result of proceedings. ance disagree. joint
We Plaintiff does not claim that a employer-employee board could never return fair argues procedures decision. She estab- hospital provided opportu- lished nity defendant no for the board to do so in this case as properly unable defend herself. Under plain- necessary circumstances, these it is not allege part tiff bias on the of the board or its individual members.
A. ARBITRATION parties agreement Where an have to arbitrate that conforms with statute, the arbitration compel may party court to submit a claim to 3.602(B)(2).10 arbitration. MCR The arbitrator sets place hearing may the time and ad- journ good it cause.11The arbitrator swears to to fairly hear and make a consider all matters submitted just according award or his her best understanding. The arbitrator administers oaths may subpoenaed witnesses.12 A witness at- hearing may deposition tend a submit a for use as evidence in accordance with the court rules.13 party represented by Each has a to be 600.5040-600.5065; MSA 27A.5040-27A.5065. 10 MCL MCR MCR MCR 3.602(E). 3.602(F); 3.602(D). 600.5001-600.5035; MCR 2.506. MSA 27A.5001-27A.5035 and MCL *16 Mich 415 427 Opinion Court may Finally, an arbitration award be attorney.14 following for the reasons: vacated fraud, (a) procured corruption, by the award means; undue or other . (b) by partiality an arbitrator evident there was arbitrator, neutral, corruption of an appointed as a party’s rights; prejudicing a or misconduct (c) powers; or or her exceeded his the arbitrator (d) hear postpone refused the arbitrator cause, refused showing of sufficient ing on a or oth controversy, to the hear evidence material erwise conducted tially hearing prejudice substan rights.[15] party’s discharge hearing in It is obvious the procedural case did not afford present provided statutory arbitra- by that are protections with the However, recently agreed Court tion. of a that a decision Supreme States Court United committee joint employer-employee as that the same deference granted should Fulghum v arbiter. independent afforded Service, 89; 424 Mich 378 NW2d United Parcel (1985). griev- their Fulghum,
In submitted plaintiffs committee es- to a joint employer-employee ances bargaining agreement. by tablished collective plaintiffs’ firing, upheld committee When discharge, defa- wrongful plaintiffs brought suit mation, and infliction of emo- privacy, invasion of found a matter tional distress. The lower court as process comported of law that plaintiffs fairness” and that were "elementary factual determinations made bound Court appealed to the grievance tribunal. Plaintiffs 3.602(G). 14MCR 3.602(J). 417-418; Gavin, 407, 331 NW2d DAIIE v 416 Mich 15 MCR 769.9(1). 1963, (1982), citing court rule GCR former Port Huron op *17 the Court Appeals which held that federal law established a strong policy in favor of deference to this method dispute resolution. a collective-bargaining agreement
Where
pro-
by
disputes
vides a method
solved,
which
are to be re-
strong
there
policy
is a
in favor of defer-
ence to that method of resolution. Hines v Anchor
Freight, Inc,
554;
Motor
1048;
424 US
96 S Ct
47 L
(1976).
Ed 2d 231
This policy
only
can
be effectu-
ated "if the
by
parties
means chosen
for settle-
ment of their differences under a collective bar-
agreement
gaining
given
full play.” United
Co,
Steelworkers of America
Mfg
v American
564,
(1960).
566;
1343;
US
80 Ct
4 L
S
2dEd
Indeed, the
Supreme
United States
Court has held
joint
management-labor griev-
the decisions
committees,
ance
such
employed
as was
in this
case, are
entitled
the same
as
deference
independent
decisions of
arbitrators. General Driv-
ers,
Helpers,
Warehousemen &
Local Union No 89
Co, Inc,
517;
v Riss
789;
&
372 US
83 Ct
L
S
9 Ed
(1963).
2d 918
Although
Supreme
recognized
Court
an ex-
ception
Title
finality
to the rule of
in the
context
employment
VII
claim in
discrimination
Al-
Co,
exander v
36;
Gardner-Denver
415 US
94 S Ct
1011;
(1974),
Fulghum can be distinguished present from 427 Mich op the Court represented Fulghum plaintiffs were case. hearing appeal. discharge
by at the the union employer-employee joint estab- committee was The lished negotiated not, there- contract and was Importantly employer also, there fore, controlled. grievance procedures finding that was no Finally, elementary it is clear fairness. lacked Fulghum of these the decisions that even from judicial may subject re- to limited committees view.
B. FAIRNESS ELEMENTARY adjudicative either an ad determination An *18 may by be or arbitration tribunal ministrative plain procedural grounds.16 challenged aWhere on process alleges lacked ele tiff mentary ceedings. the pro may the fairness, court review the question mandates labor law on The Federal judicial system Allowing preclusion within the and issue claim recognition rendering assumption the that the court and on the rests court have dure, proce jurisdiction, or identical rules of the similar same "equal judicial dignity.” The nature of the initial tribunal and may permitted scope preclusion. Relitigation when be affects the quality significant of the limitations on the extensiveness there are by procedures the courts. followed two comparison quality is a of the and inten- essential issue The litigate, opportunity to and the incentive of the to siveness litigate, nity nity were matter opportu- litigation compared original to the in the as opportu- question litigation. prior If the the and incentive in second litigate claim or issue in to the and incentive substantially had have existed the the same as would forum, procedural adjudicated been in the second application prerequisites of the rules res exist for normal procedures
judicata. comparison on the should focus The procedures simply practical aspects matters of form. For tive or arbitration tribunal nevertheless on of the involved and example, proof-taking in an administra- relatively may may informal but be substantially present permit parties to through might the more formal same evidence that be adduced Judgments, procedures of courts. [Restatement characteristic 2d, 83, p § 265.] v Port Huron Opinion op the Court judicial "final” on the review of a decision aggrieved complaint employee’s merits an step grievance proce- barred unless the final of the inadequate provide procedurally fair dure is decision. to a Works, Ring supra, Screw 588.] [Breish The essential elements to fair necessary adjudi- in proceed- cation administrative and arbitration ings are:
1) Adequate persons by notice to who are to be bound adjudication; 2) present arguments to evidence and argument opportunity by the fair the to rebut evidence opposing argument;
3) A formulation of issues of law and fact in terms of application respect specified parties rules concerning transaction, situation, or,status; specific 4) specifying point A proceeding rule in the when and, rendered; a final decision is 5) procedural may necessary Other elements as question. ensure a means to determine the matter by complexity These will be determined matter must of the question, urgency with which the matter opportunity parties be resolved and the legal obtain evidence and formulate contentions.17 We do not believe procedure, lacking elements, in these unilaterally established employer subject revision time employer, ensures fair- *19 ness. Plaintiff did consent to submit her claim to the board after her conversations with the Assistant Director and Director of Employee Services. She understood that the decision of the joint employee-employer board was final and bind- However, ing. plaintiff objected to the specific pro- being cedures used both formal and in her complaint before this Court. These are 83(2) 2d, 84(3)(b). Judgments, Restatements §§ 427 Mich the Court
procedures not or enunciated that were described testimony Moreover in the handbook. plain- Employee Director did not rebut Services proce- the unfairness of as to tiffs assertions dures. provided plaintiff that was not
It is clear hearing adequate who the notice before against the com- her and what were witnesses plaintiff plaint alleged. specifically While undoubt- Tyjewski edly would that Zechiel and assumed testify, to be called. did know who else was she right present plaintiff given the to evi- Nor was testimony Mary or her Brown as the dence such Refusing plaintiff the to work records. own hearing present during her a fair denied be opportunity against her. the evidence rebut proce- elementary in the fairness This lack plaintiff the mer- utilized entitled to submit dures jury if, fact, her claim to the determine its of jury just entitled fired for cause. The was she was fact, had, in com- determine whether specific she misconduct for which was mitted firing pretextual, fired, whether was applying employer selectively was whether rules. As the handbook established "deliber- for which ate restriction of work” was plaintiff offense subject jury fired, could be this was not review. conclude that there was evidence
We
sufficient
submitted
trial for the
to conclude that
plaintiff had not
fired for
been
"deliberate work
firing
pretextual,
restriction,” or that
employer
selectively applying
the rules.
IV. DAMAGES
alleges
hospital
Defendant
suffered
past dámages
or no
entitled to
little
was not
*20
439
v Port Huron
Dissenting
Opinion
Riley, J.
damages.
arguments
future
Defendant bases its
on
holding
earlier decisions of this Court
that future
damages may
employment
not be awarded under
contracts terminable at will. Sax v Detroit G H &
(1902); Mallory
Co,
M R
129
502;
Mich
did not at defen- hospital. expenses dant Defendant testified to due necessity to loss of health insurance and the commuting. longer eligible addition, In she was no pay previously for the overtime that she had re- working ceived for additional hours at defendant hospital. jury properly plaintiffs was instructed on
duty mitigation. There was sufficient evidence for the to conclude that had in fact damages damages suffered and that the amount of $100,000.18 We no find error. Affirmed.
Williams, C.J., JJ., Archer, and Levin and J. Cavanagh, concurred with (dissenting). respectfully J. I Riley, I dissent. would hold that the circuit court erred in not enforcing employee grievance the decision of plaintiff contractually agreed board which to ac- cept binding as the final and resolution of her persuaded with the defendant. I am majority’s upon Fulghum reliance v United (1985), Service, Parcel 424 89; Mich 378 472 NW2d Ring and Breish Works, 586; Screw 397 Mich 248 18This would approximately damages have amounted to $4000 twenty-five years over two age sixty- until reached retirement years. Mich Riley, J. Dissenting (1976), holding that the arbitral for its NW2d contractually unenforcea- in this case decision proce- hearing lacked *21 the arbitration ble because misplaced. Furthermore, I "fairness,” is dural participation plaintiffs volitional hold would object hearing, to and failure the arbitration in the hearing, pre- procedural of "fairness” challenging of enforcement from her cluded procedural resulting broad on adverse decision grounds. "fairness”
i plaintiff, discharged hospital The defendant of registered restriction nurse, for "deliberate productivity 23, Plaintiff 1980. June on work” grievance contractual of the herself chose to avail procedure filing by defendant, a written offered challenging propriety grievance her termi- of being fully in- 25, 1980. After June nation on agreed plaintiff procedure, formed about binding” of arbitration the "final and submit grievance employee grievance by board, the her by be selected of which would members employee Plaintiffs volunteers. from a list grievance employee by heard object July 1, procedure did not 1980. Plaintiff board on the conduct rendering hearing prior deci- of its to the board’s discharge upholding "deliberate re- her for sion striction of rendered this action for productivity. After the board work” decision, commenced its adverse discharge. wrongful motion The trial court denied defendant’s summary judgment assertion on the basis of its panel employee the decision of arbitration binding,” agreement, judicial was, "final and mutual The trial and entitled to enforcement. v Port Huron Dissenting Opinion Riley, J. court ruled that whether the arbitral decision was binding” to the "final and was to be submitted along plaintiff’s jury with the merits of breach jury in contract action. The plaintiff’s returned a verdict $100,000 in dam- favor and awarded ages. Appeals rejected each of the The Court allegations appeal by error, on defendant’s challenged rulings right, affirmed each of the upheld court, in the trial verdict plaintiff’s favor.
n argues first, it Defendant as did the Court of Appeals, denying that the trial court erred its summary judgment motion for contractually on the basis of the
enforceable decision of
*22
grievance
ruling
instead,
and,
in
that
the
board
the "final
enforcement of that decision as
and
binding”
plaintiff’s
of
breach of contract
resolution
claim was a factual determination to be submitted
Appeals
jury.1
to the
Court of
held that
The
grievance
contractual enforcement of the
board
properly
jury.
decision was
Court
submitted to the
The
required
that
reasoned
was
grievance
procedure,
determine whether the
board
to which
and the defendant had consented
dispute,
in the submission of their
was "fair” as a
factual
in
matter
order to determine
whether
binding.”
decision was "final and
The Court of
Appeals
Ring
Works,
relied on Breish v
Screw
supra,
Fulghum
Service,
and
v United Parcel
130
(1983),
App
support
375;
Mich
reliance on Breish erroneous. affirmance was its decision for Breish, federal in the context of In noted we " a method by adjustment law that labor '[f]inal to be the is declared upon parties agreed settlement method for desirable " ” 'can effec- . .’ policy . disputes parties if means chosen tuated only under a collective of their differences settlement ” Id., full agreement given play.’ is bargaining v Ameri- of America United Steelworkers (quoting Co, 564, 1343; 4 L Ed Mfg 566; 80 S Ct can 363 US held, however, excep- [I960]). 2d 1403 We in which a rule” exists cases "finality tion to the representation of fair duty union its breaches step final of the contractual when the the individual inadequate provide procedure on the merits fair decision procedurally a grievance proce- step of his claim. The "final” in Breish was the decision of the individual dure over union members to strike employee’s fellow that a "strike vote” deci- We held grievance. his of the substance adjudication sion as the final "for plaintiffs unsatisfactory claim procedure placed reason that such a essential claim plaintiffs those the substance 'adjudging’ unacceptable posi- conflict of interest legally Id., 603. Because final decision tion.” discharged was wrongfully whether posi- "in a conflict of interest adjudged by persons tion,” was "inade- procedure we held that such . . . kind of fair deci- quate provide merits *23 Id., sion.” 604. Breish, not involve present
Unlike case does representation, a union’s of fair or duty anything deci- analogous even to a "strike vote” remotely sion as the final of the substance adjudication plaintiffs grievance. 443 v Port Huron Riley, J. Dissenting Opinion Fulghum supra, Service, 424
In v United Parcel 92-93, the decision of an em- Mich we held given grievance ployee the same is to be board independent judicial that afforded an deference as general acceptance expressing arbiter, of the our regard: policy in that federal pro- collective-bargaining agreement "Where re- disputes are to be vides a method which solved, strong policy in favor of defer- there is a Anchor of resolution. Hines v ence to that method 1048; Inc, 554; 47 L Freight, 424 96 S Ct Motor US (1976). policy only be effectu- 231 This can Ed 2d ated 'if the means chosen ment of their differences parties settle- by the under a collective bar- given play.’ full United Steel- gaining agreement Co, Mfg 363 America v American US workers of 564, (1960). 1343; 566; 4 L Ed 80 S Ct 2d Indeed, Supreme has held the United States Court management-labor griev- joint the decisions of committees, employed as was ance case, such as the are entitled to the same deference independent arbitrators. General Driv- decisions of ers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Local Union No Inc, Co, 517; 789; 9 L & 372 US 83 S Ct Ed v Riss 2d (1963). recognized "Although Supreme Court exception finality to the rule of in the context of a in Al- employment Title VII exander v Gardner-Denver discrimination claim Co, 36; 415 US 94 S Ct (1974), 1011; application 39 L Ed 2d it has no Here, finding to this case. of the plaintiffs committees that is not one seek avoid magnitude statutory of constitutional tion; construc- rather, simple question clearly it is a of fact competence within the commit- See, also, States, Ivery 686 F2d 410 tees. v United (CA 6, 1982), Jones, J., concurring.” especially [Quoting App 130 Mich 377-378.] Fulghum, In concluded that the "final and we binding” management-labor joint decision *24 415 427 Mich
444 Dissenting Opinion Riley, J. judicial en- was entitled to committees grievants on the issue of whether forcement additionally, discharged held, We for cause. were that the grievance committee final decision of the precluded employees’ actions for common-law of emotional and intentional infliction defamation distress, estoppel. pursuant to the doctrine of collateral a favored "It that arbitration is is well-settled resolving disputes that courts labor means of reviewing the merits of arbitration refrain from considering Port its enforcement.” award when PHEA, 143, 426 Mich Huron Area School Dist (1986). legal basis for this 150; 393 811 NW2d "grounded policy judicial in is con- deference agreement to arbitrate and decision as 'final and tract: to the contractual accept the arbitral ” binding.’ present case, Id., 150. In the alleged corruption, partiality, or other has not impropriety part employee arbitra- on the proce- panel.2 tion Whether a broad assertion recognized ground "unfairness” for va- dural is opposed cating decision, as to asser- an arbitral procured by corruption, tions that the decision was fraud, means, there was or other undue or partiality, corruption, misconduct, on evident the Unlike the limited in ance quate plaintiffs grievance. part panel, questionable. of the arbitration
exception "finality to the rule” step griev- Breish, the final the contractual procedure present case was not inade- provide a "fair” decision on the merits of supra, 161, Dist, In Port Huron Area School we 2 Additionally, argued I would note that it has not been procedure public policy required plain contractual tiff to into under violated because it forego judicial remedies or that the contract was entered (3d Williston, ed), 1725, pp 910-916. duress. Contracts § Productions, 193; Ferentz, Lafayette Dramatic Inc v Mich (1943). NW2d 57 v Port Huron Riley, J. Dissenting Opinion party voluntarily agrees noted that "[a] who specific grievance may submit to arbitration precluded challenging 'arbitrability’ from later grievance.”3 present case, of that In the voluntarily agreed to submit her to the binding griev- final and ance decision of the *25 having fully of board after been informed the procedure. The issue concerned submitted whether discharged properly she was consistent with her employment By contract of mutual with the defendant. grievance consent, the board had jurisdiction to determine that issue which involved plaintiff the of factual determination whether was discharged for "deliberate of restriction work.” finding grievance plain- the
The of which board sought any tiff to avoid did not involve established exception finality.41 to rule of the would hold that agreement participate her to in the contractual grievance procedure, participation her through board, the of final decision the without objecting any procedures to of of the which she fully precluded plaintiff informed, was lenging from chal- proceeding
the "fairness” after re- ceiving emphasize an unfavorable I decision. would plaintiff originally grievance consented to the procedure alleged procedure and has not to deviated extent from that to which she had consented. majority’s analysis undermines this state’s
policy encouraging private resolution of disputes. Employers labor would not be inclined to 3 Llanes, 113; See American Motorists Ins Co v 396 Mich 240 NW2d (1976). Participation See proceedings also Anno: in arbitration as objections arbitrability, waiver of to 33 ALR3d 1242. wrongful-discharge Plaintiffs action involved same issues by employee grievance board; which were decided did it not any independent claim, and, statutory involve expressly because the defendant discharge plaintiff reserved the for "deliberate work,” contrary "just requirement restriction of no cause” could implied. 427 Mich by Dissenting Opinion Riley, <7. resulting agree are awards if the to arbitration employees. binding In on their them, not on but contractually plaintiff present case, was not compelled final to submit voluntarily binding contracted arbitration; she "elementary majority’s discussion of so. The do and issue the context "claim fairness” within preclusion” in this case to the issue is unrelated contractually bound whether and the defendant to which she arbitral decision mutually agreed to be bound. the circuit court erred
I would conclude enforcing decision as board agreed parties contractually of law. The matter pre- that decision and be bound challenging grievance proce- from later cluded contractually agreed as "un- dure to which she Thus, I reverse the decision of fair.” would Appeals for dis- this action and remand Court disposition My it would make of this issue missal. *26 remaining unnecessary to address issues. Brickley JJ., Riley, Boyle, concurred with J.