Court Opinion

ID: 9739021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:07:22.765187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.673269
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the circuit court properly vacated the arbitrator’s award on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded his powers.
When employment is set by contract for a definite term, it is generally assumed that the employee can only be discharged for good cause. Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579, 611; 292 NW2d 880 (1980), reh den 409 Mich 1101 (1980). An employer and employee may expressly agree that the employee may be discharged at any time for no reason, but this rule is generally applied to contracts for an indefinite period of employment. Id., p 612, n 24. Statements by an employer that the employee would remain employed so long as he did the job may be used to prove that the employment contract required just cause for discharge. Id., p 597. If the employer effects a personnel policy which states that employees will be discharged only for just cause, this practice may be used to prove that just cause was required to discharge the employee. Id., pp 597-598.
Here there was conflicting evidence regarding whether plaintiff’s employment contract permitted termination only for good cause or at will. Plaintiff’s contract specified that his employment was for a three-year term. Plaintiff testified that a board member informed him that he would remain employed so long as he did his job. Also, defendant had promulgated a personnel policy which indicated that employees must be given a reason for *506their discharge. This evidence indicated that plaintiff could only be discharged for good cause. However, the contract also stated that plaintiff could be terminated at the board’s pleasure, and provided for sixty days severance pay, which indicated an employment contract terminable at will.
Where there is conflicting evidence over whether a contract allows discharge only for cause, this creates an issue of fact for the trier of fact. Toussaint, pp 620-621; Schipani v Ford Motor Co, 102 Mich App 606, 612; 302 NW2d 307 (1981). Such a fact question exists despite express contract language providing for termination at will. Schipani, supra. The evidence producéd created a factual dispute to be resolved by the trier of fact. Fact finding is within an arbitrator’s powers. DAIIE v Gavin, 416 Mich 407, 444; 331 NW2d 418 (1982). The arbitrator did not exceed his powers by acting as fact, finder in this case.
I would reverse the circuit court and reinstate the arbitration award in favor of plaintiff.