Res judicata; Collateral estoppel; Effect of an arbitration decision; Lumbermen’s Mut Cas Co v Bissell; Scope of the matter submitted to arbitration; Port Huron Area Sch Dist v Port Huron Educ Ass’n; Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Inc. (AAHOA)

Rejecting plaintiff’s claim that the decision of defendant-AAHOA’s board to remove him “from his position on the board was outside the scope of the matter submitted to arbitration,” the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that his action here was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel based on the arbitration panel’s decision. The Michigan Supreme Court stated in Lumbermen’s “that res judicata and collateral estoppel may still apply to preclude claims or issues when the prior judgment resulted from arbitration rather than a judicial proceeding[.]” But in Port Huron, it noted that “an ‘arbitrator can bind the parties only on issues that they have agreed to submit to him.’” Plaintiff contended that “because the AAHOA governing documents did not authorize the arbitration panel to remove [him] from the board without further discretionary ratification from the board[,]” res judicata and collateral estoppel did not preclude him “from litigating the propriety of his dismissal from the board.” Thus, the court had to “determine the scope of the matters actually submitted to the arbitrators’ authority.” It concluded that, “contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the relevant documents . . . specifically authorized the arbitration panel to issue a binding award—which did not require further board approval—removing plaintiff from his board position and rendering him ineligible for committee participation or board elections for a specified time. The Ethics and Enforcement Policy expressly provided that ethics complaints would be adjudicated by a panel of arbitrators to determine whether an ethics violation occurred, and the policy further stated that the arbitrators were authorized to decide that disciplinary action was necessary, including ‘Removal from position and timed ineligibility for committee participation or Board elections.’ Moreover, the policy expressly stated that the ‘arbitration panel’s determinations will be final and do not need to be confirmed or approved by the Board.’”