QIS INC V INDUSTRIAL QUALITY CONTROL INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
QIS, INC., d/b/a QUALITY INDUSTRIAL
SERVICES, INC.,
FOR PUBLICATION
June 24, 2004
9:10 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 246486
Livingston Circuit Court
LC No. 99-017209-NZ
INDUSTRIAL QUALITY CONTROL, INC.,
TARA RUSH, TRACEY BARNETT, and
TAMMY DAUGHERTY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Official Reported Version
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and O'Connell and Donofrio, JJ.
O'CONNELL, J.
Plaintiff appeals by leave granted from the trial court's order granting defendants'
summary disposition motion. We affirm. This case arose when a manager for plaintiff called
together certain union employees, the individual defendants1 here, and informed them that he
would withhold their paychecks until they either signed a noncompete agreement or refused.
The manager also explained that refusal would result in termination. The defendants signed the
agreement. After they stopped working for plaintiff, however, they arguably violated the written
agreement by starting a new business, the corporate defendant, which engages in manufacturing
similar to plaintiff.
The trial court initially granted summary disposition to defendants because it found that
the noncompete agreement irreconcilably conflicted with a collective bargaining agreement that
totally governed defendants' employment. We reversed that decision in an unpublished opinion,
explaining that the noncompete agreement did not fatally conflict with the collective bargaining
1
For ease of reference, the term "defendants" refers collectively to defendants Rush, Barnett, and
Daugherty, and does not include the corporate defendant.
-1-
agreement.2 However, we remanded the case without reaching the issue whether the agreement
was supported by mutual consideration. On remand, the trial court held that plaintiff did not
present the noncompete agreement until after defendants began their jobs, and plaintiff could not
dismiss them from their employment without just cause. Under these circumstances, the trial
court held that defendants did not receive adequate consideration for altering their employment
contract, so the agreement was void. We agree.
Mere continuation of employment is sufficient consideration to support a noncompete
agreement in an at-will employment setting. Robert Half Int'l, Inc v Van Steenis, 784 F Supp
1263, 1273 (ED Mich, 1991). It follows that defendants also received sufficient consideration if
continuation of their employment hinged on signing the agreement. Because defendants were
"just cause" employees, however, the issue is whether defendants' refusal to sign the noncompete
agreement would amount to "just cause" for their termination. We agree with the trial court that
the refusal to enter into an agreement outside the collective bargaining agreement's parameters
would not constitute just cause for termination.
An employee who joins a union designates the union as his negotiating agent and yields
to it all of his bargaining authority. Hartley v Brotherhood of Railway Employees, 283 Mich
201, 206; 277 NW 885 (1938); Quinn v Police Officers Labor Council, 456 Mich 478, 482-483;
572 NW2d 641 (1998). Commensurate with that designation is the principle that an individual
employee may properly refer all issues of contract negotiation and modification to the union.
Should the employer attempt to condition employment on obligations outside the union contract,
an employee may rightly suggest that the employer negotiate the proposal with the union agent.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the union or plaintiff intended the contractual phrase
"just cause" to include an employee's refusal to individually agree to an obligation independent
from the union contract.
An opposite interpretation of "just cause" would significantly erode the union's ability to
protect its members from employers who would foist on them individual agreements that do not
conflict with the collective bargaining agreement but nevertheless create new, more expansive,
and even repugnant obligations.3 Employers could also use such an interpretation of "just cause"
to dilute completely a union's bargaining power by constantly forcing individual agreements and
modifications under threat of termination. Therefore, while we confirm our earlier opinion that
employees have the right to enter into an agreement consistent with but separate from the
collective bargaining agreement, their refusal to contract with their employer on an individual
basis, apart from the union contract and without the union's participation, does not constitute
2
Unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 6, 2002 (Docket
No. 228157).
3
We note that plaintiff used this tactic in this case, and risked violating MCL 408.472 as a result.
-2-
"just cause" to terminate their employment. It follows that the noncompete agreement was not
supported by mutual consideration, and plaintiff may not enforce it.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O'Connell
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
-3-
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.