1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL P. TYLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MGM GRAND DETROIT, LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-14261 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

 / 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MGM GRAND DETROIT LLC’S RULE 12(C)

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [6]

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action in state court on October 21, 2014. 

Defendant removed the action to this Court on November 5, 2014. On January 22, 

2015, Defendant filed a Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [6].1

 

Plaintiff filed a Response [7] on February 3, 2015, and Defendant filed a Reply [8] 

on February 16, 2015. Plaintiff seeks to vacate an award issued in an arbitration 

 

1

 Defendant styled the motion as a “Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment.” The 

Court treats this motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), rather than a motion for summary judgment under 

Rule 56, because there are no matters outside of the pleadings for the Court to 

consider. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). 

2:14-cv-14261-AJT-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 103
2 

between Plaintiff’s labor union, UAW Local 7777, and Defendant. The arbitrator 

held that Plaintiff’s termination by Defendant did not violate Defendant’s 

collective bargaining agreement with the union. Plaintiff claims that the arbitrator’s 

misconduct, based in fraud and deceit, warrants vacating the award under 

Michigan Compiled Laws § 691.1703 and/or the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 

§ 1 et seq. 

Defendant argues that this action should be dismissed because Plaintiff does 

not have standing to challenge the arbitration award under Section 301 of the 

Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, which governs 

actions involving labor contract violations. “The general rule in LMRA actions is 

that an individual employee has no standing to file an action against her employer 

without also filing suit against her union for breach of the [collective bargaining 

agreement].” Aloisi v. Lockhead Martin Energy Systems, 321 F.3d 551, 556 (6th 

Cir. 2003). Here, Plaintiff concedes that he makes no such claim against his union. 

Instead, Plaintiff contends that the LMRA does not govern this action 

because his Complaint does not allege a labor contract violation, but instead 

alleges a violation of the Federal Arbitration Act. Plaintiff’s argument is 

misguided. Plaintiff challenges the arbitrator’s ruling that his termination did not 

violate the collective bargaining agreement between his employer and his union. 

2:14-cv-14261-AJT-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 104
3 

Plaintiff’s challenge is therefore within the scope of the LMRA. See, e.g., Aloisi, 

321 F.3d at 556 (“This court and other circuits have repeatedly held that claims 

involving rights created by a [collective bargaining agreement] are governed by the 

LMRA.”). 

Plaintiff additionally argues that he has standing to challenge the arbitration 

award because he has invoked the exceptions to Section 301 of the LMRA for 

fraud and deceit, and because his continued involvement in the arbitration process 

makes him a party to the arbitration. However, these arguments lack merit. An 

individual employee represented by a union in an arbitration is not a party to the 

arbitration. See, e.g., Aloisi, 321 F.3d at 558. The exceptions allowed under Section 

301 only afford these individual employees recourse in the event that the union 

does not provide fair representation. See id. Absent a claim against UAW Local 

7777, Plaintiff lacks standing to seek to vacate the arbitration award. 

Plaintiff’s union has not sought to vacate the arbitration award. Plaintiff has 

not claimed that the union failed to provide adequate representation. For these 

reasons, Plaintiff lacks standing to seek vacatur. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

[6] is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

2:14-cv-14261-AJT-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 105
4 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

Dated: July 2, 2015 Senior United States District Judge 

2:14-cv-14261-AJT-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 106