FARMINGTON PUB SCHLS V FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION ASSN

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, UNPUBLISHED July 24, 1998 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 200433 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 96-531289-CL FARMINGTON TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee. Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Bandstra and J. B. Sullivan*, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order confirming an arbitration award. We affirm. On appeal, plaintiff first argues that the circuit court applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing the arbitrator’s award. We disagree. A review of the record reveals that the circuit court was keenly aware of, and applied, the proper legal standard. Plaintiff next argues that the arbitrator’s award reinstating Jane Lavine violates a well-defined and dominant public policy to provide safe and competent transportation to students riding school buses. We disagree. As a general rule, judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision is narrowly circumscribed. Gogebic Medical Care Facility v AFSCME Local 992, 209 Mich App 693, 696; 531 NW2d 728 (1995). As an exception to the general rule of judicial deference, courts may refuse to enforce an arbitrator’s decision when it is contrary to public policy. Id. at 697. This exception is limited to situations where the contract, as interpreted, would violate some explicit public policy that is well­ defined and dominant. Such a public policy must be ascertained by reference to laws and legal precedent, and not from general considerations of supposed public interest. Id. Here, Lavine committed a civil infraction, MCL 257.1857(5); MSA 9.3557(5). Although we do not condone her behavior, we do not find it to be so egregious that reinstatement to her position would violate a well­ defined and dominant public policy. See City of Lincoln Park v Lincoln Park Police Officers Ass'n, * Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ 176 Mich App 1, 7-8; 438 NW2d 875 (1989). Accordingly, judicial review of the arbitrator’s award is not permitted. Affirmed. /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Richard A. Bandstra /s/ Joseph B. Sullivan -2­