 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Calabrese v. Tendercare of Michigan Inc.6/3/2004
FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff alleged that defendants wrongfully terminated her employment because she refused to fire employees for engaging in unionizing activities. Defendants appeal by leave granted the trial court's partial denial of their motion for summary disposition arguing that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts plaintiff's claims and the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. We reverse.
1. Basic Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff was hired as an administrator at Wayne Total Living Center (WTLC), a nursing home facility operated by Tendercare of Michigan, Inc. Craig Schuler was plaintiff's supervisor. Approximately four months into plaintiff's employment, Schuler met with plaintiff, showed her a list of nineteen employees and advised her to fire them. According to plaintiff:
[Schuler] wanted to meet to discuss this list that he had of nineteen employees that were involved in the union activity and because the next day they were doing a formative picketing in front of the buildings, he wanted these people terminated. He said it had to come in sections to take out so many per each segment basically, because you didn't want to do them all at one time. The first person that had to go was Ethel Kitchen.
Plaintiff immediately protested, stating that to terminate these employees for their participation in union organization efforts was unethical and illegal. Schuler responded that "it needed to be done."
One month later, because plaintiff had not fired anyone on the list, Schuler met with plaintiff and again stated that he wanted Kitchen fired. Plaintiff in turn reiterated that this could not be done. After a heated discussion, in which Schuler stated that plaintiff was no longer needed if she could not fire Kitchen, plaintiff pushed her keys across the desk, gathered her belongings and left WTLC. Afterward, she sent a certified letter to Schuler, which read: " ou stated 'you did not need me anymore.' I am under the impression that you fired me with no documentation for reasons of performance. . . ." Plaintiff received no response.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint against defendants alleging wrongful discharge, tortious interference with business relations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She specifically alleged that defendants terminated her employment because she refused to fire employees for legal unionizing activities. Defendants succeeded in having the case removed to federal district court on the basis that the claims were predicated on federal law. Plaintiff then moved the federal district court to remand her claims to state court arguing that the claims arose solely under state law. The federal district court remanded the case to Wayne Circuit Court on the basis of plaintiff's representation that the claims were based only on Michigan law and the court's own determination that plaintiff claimed "that her termination was in violation of Michigan public policy." After remand, defendant moved for dismissal on the basis that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the NLRA preempted plaintiff's claims that defendant engaged in unfair labor practices. With regard to plaintiff's claims of wrongful discharge and tortious interference, the trial court denied defendants' motion, ruling that the claims were not preempted by the NLRA. Defendants appeal this ruling.
II. Standard of Review
Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Travelers Ins Co v Detroit Edison Co, 465 Mich 185, 205; 631 NW2d 733 (2001).
III. Analysis
A. Plaintiff's Claims are Pre
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|