Court Opinion

ID: 9733640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:12:40.381475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:42.794065
License: Public Domain

Wahls, J.
(dissenting). In this case, I am of the opinion that the question whether plaintiff received the employee handbook and was thus aware of and subject to defendant’s arbitration policy presented a question of material fact for the fact-finder’s determination. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
In addition to his response to defendant’s motion for summary disposition, plaintiff presented his own sworn affidavit in which he argued that he never received an employee handbook and was unaware that his sole remedy, following discharge, was arbitration. In response, defendant argued that plaintiff’s sworn factual statements, in his complaint, established plaintiff’s knowledge of and familiarity with the employee handbook. However, in rebuttal, plaintiff argued that while he was told about the general terms of employment in the employee handbook, i.e., that defendant would terminate plaintiff only upon just cause, through other employees, plaintiff never received or viewed the actual handbook. Further, plaintiff argued that his reference to an "employee guide” (not an "employee handbook”) in the complaint was not so clear, intelligent, and unequivocal as to constitute knowledge of the employee handbook in its entirety. Notably, plaintiff’s complaint does not cite *39or reference any specific sections or paragraphs of defendant’s employee handbook.
A motion for summary disposition on the ground that there is no general issue of material fact tests the factual support for a claim. Leitch v Switchenko, 169 Mich App 761, 765; 426 NW2d 804 (1988). Before granting a motion for summary disposition made pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10), the court must consider the affidavits and the pleadings as well as all other evidence, and be satisfied that it is impossible for the claim to be supported at trial because of some deficiency that cannot be overcome. Schippers v SPX Corp, 186 Mich App 595, 596; 465 NW2d 34 (1990). Courts are liberal in finding that a genuine issue exists, giving all benefits of doubt and resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Slaughter v Smith, 167 Mich App 400, 403; 421 NW2d 702 (1988).
MCR 2.116(G)(4) provides that "an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleading, but must, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Thus, unlike the plaintiff in Morganroth v Whitall, 161 Mich App 785; 411 NW2d 859 (1987), who failed to file any response to the defendant’s summary disposition motion and did not come forward with evidence to support a finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed, in this case the plaintiff’s claim could not be defeated on the ground that he based his opposition to defendant’s summary disposition motion on the mere allegations and denials in his pleadings.
The majority argues that if the plaintiff is entitled to rely on the handbook in support of his claim that he is a just-cause employee, then he is also bound by the other terms of the just-cause *40policy in the handbook, namely, that he is subject to the terms of the arbitration policy stated therein. I disagree.
A provision in an employment contract which provides that an employee shall not be discharged except for cause is legally enforceable whether the provision is an express agreement, oral or written, or is the result of an employee’s legitimate expectations grounded in an employer’s policy statements. These legitimate expectations may be grounded in an employer’s written policy statements as set forth in a manual of personnel policies. Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579, 598-599; 292 NW2d 880 (1980); Renny v Port Huron Hosp, 427 Mich 415, 428; 398 NW2d 327 (1986).
While an employer need not establish personnel policies or practices, where an employer chooses to establish such policies and practices and makes them known to its employees, the employment relationship is presumably enhanced. The employer secures an orderly, cooperative and loyal work force, and the employee the peace of mind associated with job security and the conviction that he will be treated fairly. No preemployment negotiations need take place and the parties’ minds need not meet on the subject; nor does it matter that the employee knows nothing of the particulars of the employer’s policies and practices or that the employer may change them unilaterally. It is enough that the employer chooses, presumably in its own interest, to create an environment in which the employee believes that, whatever the personnel policies and practices, they are established and official at any given time, purport to be fair, and are applied consistently and uniformly to each employee. [Toussaint, supra, p 613. Emphasis added.]
A plaintiff is not required to know the specific *41terms of a just-cause termination clause in an employee handbook; only knowledge of the employer’s policy and its applicability to the plaintiff is required. See Rasch v East Jordan, 141 Mich App 336, 345; 367 NW2d 856 (1985). Therefore, in this case, plaintiffs claim is not defeated solely bécause he had general knowledge of defendant’s just-cause termination policy.
While Michigan’s public policy favors arbitration in the resolution of disputes, it is well settled that arbitration is a matter of contract. Grand Rapids v Fraternal Order of Police, 415 Mich 628, 634-635; 330 NW2d 52 (1982). An arbitration agreement is a contract, requiring the mutual assent of the parties, by which all the parties agree to forego their rights to proceed with a court action and, instead, to submit their disputes to a panel of arbiters. Horn v Cooke, 118 Mich App 740, 744; 325 NW2d 558 (1982), Arbitration is a matter of contract, and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration an issue which he has not agreed to submit. John Wiley & Sons, Inc v Livingston, 376 US 543, 546-547; 84 S Ct 909; 11 L Ed 2d 898 (1964); United Steelworkers of America v Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co, 363 US 574, 582; 80 S Ct 1347; 4 L Ed 2d 1409 (1960); Arrow Overall Supply Co v Peloquin Enterprises, 414 Mich 95, 98; 323 NW2d 1 (1982); Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Dist No 6 v Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers' Ass’n, 393 Mich 583, 587; 227 NW2d 500 (1975); Omega Construction Co, Inc v Altman, 147 Mich App 649, 655; 382 NW2d 839 (1985). Grosse Pointe Farms Police Officers Ass’n v MERC, 53 Mich App 173, 176-177; 218 NW2d 801 (1974).
Except where a compulsory arbitration is provided by statute, the first step toward the settlement of a difference by arbitration is the entry by *42the parties into a valid agreement to arbitrate. An agreement to arbitrate is a contract, the relation of the parties is contractual, and the rights and liabilities of the parties are controlled by the law of contracts. [Id., p 177 (quoting 5 Am Jur 2d, Arbitration & Award, § 11, p 527).]
Thus, the threshold inquiry in determining whether a matter is subject to arbitration is whether an arbitration agreement exists. Roberts v McNamara-Warren Community Hosp, 138 Mich App 691, 694; 360 NW2d 279 (1984). The burden is on the defendant to show that plaintiff knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to court access. Id.; Moore v Fragatos, 116 Mich App 179, 186; 321 NW2d 781 (1982).
In this case, plaintiff claimed in his supporting affidavit that he did not receive an employee handbook, and did not have knowledge of the arbitration agreement contained therein. Whether plaintiff is subject to the arbitration agreement is a question of material fact in this case. Where the truth of a material factual assertion of a movant’s affidavit depends on the affiant’s credibility, there inheres a genuine issue to be decided at trial by the trier of fact and a motion for summary disposition cannot be granted. Brown v Pointer, 390 Mich 346, 354; 212 NW2d 201 (1973). Close factual questions are the stuff of which trials are made and are not properly subject to disposition on motions for summary disposition. Lewis v Metropolitan Life Ins Co, 397 Mich 481, 484; 245 NW2d 9 (1976).
In sum, giving the benefit of every reasonable doubt to the plaintiff and resolving all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, I am not satisfied that it would be impossible for plaintiff to support his claim at trial. Summary disposition is never proper when an issue of material fact is present, and it is an overuse of appellate authority to make *43what amounts to findings of fact on appeal. See Pine Ridge Coal Co v Cronin, 41 Mich App 255, 258; 199 NW2d 876 (1972); Kratochvil v Grayling, 367 Mich 682, 687; 117 NW2d 164 (1962); Warren Tool Co v Stephenson, 11 Mich App 274, 303; 161 NW2d 133 (1968).