WALLED LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT BD V MICHIGAN EDUCATIO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE WALLED
LAKE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
UNPUBLISHED
January 30, 2001
Plaintiff/CounterdefendantAppellee,
v
MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT
PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION, WALLED LAKE
ESP #1, and MEA/NEA,
No. 210787
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 97-546820-CL
Defendant/CounterplaintiffsAppellants.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J. and Kelly and Collins, JJ.
Kelly, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the circuit court and reinstate the arbitrator’s
decision.
The circuit court found that the arbitrator had contractual authority to modify the
discharge to a suspension, citing article XV, part A, subsection 5 of the collective bargaining
agreement:
It shall be the function of the arbitrator, and he/she shall be empowered except as
his/her powers are limited below, after due investigation to make a decision in
cases of alleged violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of any provision of
this Agreement or any other rule, order or regulation of the Board relating to
wages, hours, terms or conditions of employment.
The circuit court correctly found the arbitrator had the power to interpret article XI of the
collective bargaining agreement to call for a suspension. The circuit court found that “the
arbitrator was within her contractual authority in amending the bus driver’s dismissal.”
However, the circuit court failed to follow established case law requiring strictly circumscribed
review of arbitration awards and substituted its own judgment as to what constituted public
policy to reverse the award. CF, Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School District No 6 v Kaleva-
-1-
Norman-Dickson School Teachers’ Ass’n, 393 Mich 583; 227 NW2d 500 (1975). The United
States Supreme Court likewise has spoken on the controlling principal in United Paperworkers
Int’l Union v Misco, Inc, 484 US 29, 37-38; 108 SCt 364; 98 L Ed 2d 286 (1987)(citations
omitted):
Because the parties have contracted to have disputes settled by an arbitrator
chosen by them rather than by a judge, it is the arbitrator’s view of the facts and of
the meaning of the contract that they have agreed to accept. . . . So, too, where it is
contemplated that the arbitrator will determine remedies for contract violations
that he finds, courts have no authority to disagree with his honest judgment in that
respect. . . . But as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying
the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced
that he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.
[Citations omitted].
Here, the majority sanctions a public policy that bars mitigation and prohibits
rehabilitation; a public policy so draconian it seems offensive to civilized ideals.
Here the arbitrator concluded:
Smith is a thirteen-year employee with no discipline on her record. This is her
first offense. The Manual expresses the School’s active support for rehabilitation.
The SA professional’s evaluation found no evidence of abuse, but rather
concluded she used marijuana. That finding would seem to permit a reasonably
optimistic outcome for her being able to abstain totally.
Reviewing courts should refuse to second guess an arbitrator under cover of public policy. Cf.
City of Saginaw v Saginaw Fire Fighters Ass’n Local 422 IAFF, 130 Mich App 401; 343 NW2d
571 (1983).
I would reverse.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.