Dispute over vacation time payout; Principle that contract principles apply to collective bargaining agreements (CBAs); Kendzierski v. Macomb Cnty.; Contract interpretation; Greenville Lafayette LLC v. Elgin State Bank; Arbitrability; Fromm v. Meemic Ins. Co.

The court held that the Court of Claims properly granted summary disposition of plaintiff’s claim for unpaid vacation time in favor of defendant-employer. Plaintiff originally brought his action in small claims court. Defendant removed it to the Court of Claims, which then dismissed it on the basis that plaintiff failed to adhere to the grievance procedure outlined in the CBA, which included an arbitration agreement. It also noted that dismissal was proper on the basis that he did not file a notice of intent with the Court of Claims within one year of the claim’s accrual. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the Court of Claims erred by granting defendant’s motion for dismissal because the dispute at issue, which he framed as a calculation error, did not fall within the scope of the CBA. He claimed that “because he was not terminated, but rather laid off, [the] payout was ‘voluntary’ and therefore outside of the scope of the CBA.” However, whether the payment was required because of termination or was provided voluntarily, “the CBA would continue to apply.” As such, the Court of Claims “did not err by determining that plaintiff’s claim was subject to the terms of the CBA and thus was subject to dismissal because of plaintiff’s failure to follow the required grievance procedure.” The court also found no support for plaintiff’s suggestion that an alleged informal grievance process he went through was sufficient to establish an actual grievance. “By failing to engage the proper procedure, plaintiff did not reach the level of action whereby the [union] would be able to request arbitration.” Moreover, nothing in the CBA suggested defendant “had any requirement to suggest arbitration. The grievance process requires the ‘aggrieved employee’ to initiate the process and escalate it as necessary.” Plaintiff’s failure to pursue the CBA’s process was sufficient to warrant dismissal. Affirmed.