Motion to vacate an arbitration award; Judicial review of arbitration awards; City of Ann Arbor v American Fed’n of State Cnty & Mun Employees Local 369; Whether an arbitrator exceeded his or her powers; MCL 600.5081(2)(c); Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA); Public Employment Relations Act (PERA); Detroit Police Officers Association (DPOA); Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC); Unfair labor practice (ULP)

The court affirmed confirmation of a labor-arbitration award, holding the arbitrator acted within her contractual authority by interpreting the CBA and did not decide a PERA ULP issue. Plaintiff-city announced it would consider officers’ disciplinary histories when deciding eligibility to sit for the 2023 Sergeant and Detective promotional exams. Officer C was deemed ineligible and the DPOA filed a grievance under the parties’ 2022–2027 CBA. After a hearing, the arbitrator ruled for the DPOA. The city sued to vacate, arguing the arbitrator exceeded her powers by deciding PERA issues reserved to MERC and that the award violated public policy. The trial court denied the city’s motion and confirmed the award. On appeal, the court first rejected the city’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by finding a PERA violation, explaining that “she did not find that the [c]ity engaged in a ULP” and that her passing PERA references merely recognized that promotion-eligibility rules could be a bargaining subject. The court also rejected the city’s claim that public policy required vacatur because the award intruded on MERC’s exclusive jurisdiction, noting the arbitrator’s decision was “clearly grounded upon her interpretation of the CBA, which is plainly within the purview of her authority under Article 8 of the CBA.”