Member claims against a union related to seniority loss; Duty of fair representation (DFR); Goolsby v Detroit; Promissory estoppel; Tortious interference with a business relationship; Hope Network Rehab Servs v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n; Statute of limitations; Effect of a bankruptcy court ruling; In re Detroit (Bankr ED MI); Breach of contract claims against an employer; Detroit Fire Fighters Association Local 344 (DFFA); Collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

The court held in one of these two cases on appeal that the union defendants were entitled to summary disposition on plaintiff-Brown’s DFR, promissory estoppel, and tortious interference with a business relationship claims. In the other case, it held that the City defendants were entitled to summary disposition of Brown and plaintiff-Ferguson’s breach of contract claims. Plaintiffs were City firefighters and members of defendant-DFFA. They went on “duty disability retirement” due to injuries before the 2014 CBA became operative. That CBA “affected the seniority status of firefighters who had taken duty disability retirement” and was incorporated into the City’s plan entered in its bankruptcy case. Plaintiffs’ suit asserted “claims primarily related to their loss of seniority.” On appeal, in Docket No. 371453, the court rejected the union defendants’ statute of limitations argument as to Brown’s DFR claim. But it held that the trial court erred in denying them summary disposition because his demotion did not breach the CBA given that “seniority was a part of the selection process for the promotion, and Brown had no seniority” when he returned to work after an 18-year absence. Further, because his “DFR claim involved the seniority provisions of the 2014 CBA, it should have been dismissed pursuant to the bankruptcy court’s ruling.” The court also held that the trial court erred in not dismissing his promissory estoppel claims. He was “not entitled to relief by recasting his” dismissed just cause claim as one for promissory estoppel. In addition, the union defendants were entitled to summary disposition on his tortious interference claim because he failed to show that their “conduct was wrongful per se.” As to Docket No. 371516, Ferguson’s contract breach claim against the City defendants failed because he did not “provide any support for his contention that [their] failure to return him to work within 25 years of his anniversary date was disciplinary.” His promissory estoppel claim was the same in substance as his dismissed just cause claim (a ruling he did not appeal), and Brown’s promissory estoppel claim against these defendants failed for the same reason as the one against the union defendants did. Reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting the union defendants summary disposition in Docket No. 371453 and the City defendants in Docket No. 371516.