Court Opinion

ID: 9701067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:01:22.523847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:18.162981
License: Public Domain

COOPER, P.J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority that we should affirm the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in defendants’ favor. I write separately, however, as I do not want any of the gratuitous comments in the majority’s lengthy analysis to be considered rulings or dicta in this case. The resolution of this case is, in fact, very simple — we do not have jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court must enter a clear *413and affirmative order remanding this dispute for grievance arbitration that includes the union defendants.
Our review of an arbitration award is very limited. As noted by the majority, we may only examine jurisdictional issues; review the evidence to determine whether the arbitrator’s order was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record; and determine whether the award was procured by fraud or collusion.1 Plaintiffs asked the trial court, and this Court on review, to interpret undefined terms and provisions in the DPCOA and DFFA collective bargaining agreements, including the parity provisions. However, those interpretations are within the purview of a 1969 PA 312 arbitration. No other comment is necessary.
I also agree with the majority that we must remand to allow the trial court to clarify its order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition. While inartfully worded, it appears that the trial court intended to impose a restraining order to prevent the modification of the board composition without an agreement among all affected parties or a resolution from the arbitration panel.

 See MCL 423.241.