Hopkins v. City of Midland
404 NW2d 744, 158 Mich. App. 361 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's submission of a contract-based grievance to arbitration does not preclude a subsequent lawsuit asserting independent statutory rights under the Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act or constitutional free speech claims. A prima facie case for retaliation under the Whistle-blowers' Protection Act does not require the denial of a contractual right.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a plumbing cross-connection inspector for the defendant City of Midland, complained to the Michigan Department of Labor in May 1982 about safety violations at the city's water plant.
- In June 1982, the state investigated and issued a safety citation to the defendant city.
- That same month, the city eliminated plaintiff's inspector position for budgetary reasons, forcing him to take a lower-paying job as an engineering aide.
- Plaintiff then addressed the Midland City Commission, publicly questioning the 'integrity and backbone' of city supervisors regarding the budget and personnel changes.
- In 1983, the city created a new position, plumbing/heating/mechanical inspector, which combined plaintiff's former duties with others.
- Plaintiff, though qualified, applied for the new position but was passed over for other candidates on two separate occasions.
- The head of the city's building department, who made the hiring decision, admitted he was aware of plaintiff's critical statements before the city commission and that they probably had an 'unfavorable influence' on his decision.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff's union filed grievances alleging the city violated the collective bargaining agreement by failing to promote him.
- The grievances were submitted to arbitration.
- On November 16, 1983, an arbitrator denied the grievances, finding no violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
- Plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit in Midland Circuit Court (trial court) against the defendant city.
- Plaintiff's complaint alleged a violation of the Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act (Count I) and retaliation for exercising his right to free speech (Count II).
- The circuit court granted summary disposition for the defendant city, holding that no retaliation could occur unless a contract right was denied.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's grant of summary disposition to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's prior submission of a contract-based grievance to arbitration, which results in an adverse decision, preclude a subsequent lawsuit in court for claims arising under the Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act and for violations of constitutional free speech rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepherd, J.
No. An employee's pursuit of a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement does not bar a subsequent lawsuit to enforce separate, independent statutory and constitutional rights. The Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act (WPA) creates a judicially enforceable civil action with remedies that exceed the typical scope of labor arbitration. Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent like Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. and McDonald v. West Branch, the court reasoned that rights created by legislatures to protect public policy, such as those in the WPA, are distinct from contractual rights created by a collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator's competence is in the 'law of the shop,' not the 'law of the land,' and a union may choose not to pursue an individual's statutory claims in arbitration. Therefore, neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel from the arbitration decision prevents the plaintiff from litigating his WPA and free speech claims in circuit court.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that statutory rights, particularly under the Whistle-blowers’ Protection Act, exist independently of contractual rights found in collective bargaining agreements. By preventing arbitration decisions on contract grievances from precluding subsequent statutory claims, the court ensures that the public policy goals of protective legislation are not subverted by the collective bargaining process. This strengthens the position of individual employees who report violations of the law, affirming that they have a right to their day in court regardless of the outcome of a union grievance. The case also clarifies the legal framework for WPA claims in Michigan, aligning it with federal anti-discrimination law standards.
