Court Opinion

ID: 9686556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:55:20.473663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:20.171445
License: Public Domain

W. R. Peterson, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result herein solely because the facts indicate that (1) the issues and remedies which defendants seek to pursue simultaneously before MERC and the arbitrator are identical, and (2) defendants invoked the jurisdiction of MERC before filing the demand for arbitration.1 I cannot concur in the view that rights secured through collective bargaining would be unenforceable through arbitration, itself contractually secured, merely because one party might file a related grievance with MERC. Detroit *733Fire Fighters Ass’n v City of Detroit, 408 Mich 663; 293 NW2d 278 (1980), noted in the majority opinion, merely holds that when MERC’s jurisdiction is invoked, it cannot defer decision pending arbitration as is done under the federal "Collyer-Spielburg” doctrine.

 See Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Ass’n v Detroit, 399 Mich 449; 249 NW2d 121 (1976), and Broward County Paraprofessional Ass’n v McComb, 394 So 2d 471 (Fla App, 1981).