Case ID: mich-app_171/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE v LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHAPTER OF THE MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (ON REMAND)
    Docket No. 106282.
    Submitted February 1, 1988, at Lansing.
    Decided June 17, 1988.
    Leave to appeal applied for.
    A teacher was discharged from his employment by Lansing Community College for allegedly smoking marijuana with students from his class. The teacher’s union, Lansing Community College Chapter of the Michigan Association for Higher Education, filed a grievance, contending that the dismissal was not for good cause as required by the collective bargaining agreement. The matter was submitted to binding arbitration. The arbitrator found that the teacher had smoked marijuana with students but that such conduct did not constitute good cause to discharge the teacher. The school filed an action in Ingham Circuit Court seeking to vacate the arbitrator’s award. The court, James T. Kallman, J., vacated the award on the bases that the award was beyond the arbitrator’s authority and was contrary to public policy. The union appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the award was within the authority of the arbitrator and that the award did not violate any well-defined public policy. 161 Mich App 321 (1987). The school sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for reconsideration in light of United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO v Misco, Inc, 484 US —; 108 S Ct 364; 98 L Ed 2d 286 (1988).
    On remand, the Court of Appeals held:
    
    The prior holding of the Court of Appeals is consistent with the holding of the United States Supreme Court in the United Paperworkers case.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Arbitration — Arbitration Awards — Appeal — Public Policy.
    A court, when reviewing an arbitrator’s award, may overturn the award if the underlying contract, as interpreted by the arbitrator, violates a well-defined and dominant public policy.
    
      References
    Am Jur 2d, Arbitration and Award §§ 145,167 et seq.
    
    Appealability of judgment confirming or setting aside arbitration award. 7 ALR3d 608.
    
      
      MacLean, Seaman, Laing & Guilford (by Charles R. MacLean), and Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz (by Robert C. Claus, Paul L. Gleeson, and Bruce R. Alper), of Counsel, for plaintiff.
    
      White, Beekman, Przybylowicz, Schneider & Baird, P.C. (by James A. White), for defendant.
    Before: Kelly, P.J., and Sullivan and Sawyer, JJ.
   ON REMAND

Per Curiam.

This matter was remanded from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO v Misco, Inc, 484 US —; 108 S Ct 364; 98 L Ed 2d 286, 302 (1988). As stated by Justice White:

In [W R Grace & Co v Rubber Workers], we recognized that "a court may not enforce a collective-bargaining agreement that is contrary to public policy,” and stated that "the question of public policy is ultimately one for resolution by the courts.” [461 US 757, 766; 103 S Ct 2177; 76 L Ed 2d 298 (1983).] We cautioned, however, that a court’s refusal to enforce an arbitrator’s interpretation of such contracts is limited to situations where the contract as interpreted would violate "some explicit public policy” that is "well defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained 'by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.’ ” [Emphasis in original.]

After reviewing this case in light of United Paperworkers, we reaffirm our prior holding.