 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cherry Growers3/3/2000
FOR PUBLICATION
9:25 a.m.
In these consolidated cases, all involving the same three parties, we are presented issues of jurisdiction and statutory construction under the Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act, MCL 290.701, et seq.; MSA 12.94(101) et seq., to determine whether Cherry Growers, Inc. (CGI) is subject to the mandatory bargaining and arbitration provisions of the act. We hold that jurisdiction in this matter rests with the Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Board (AMBB) rather than the circuit court. We affirm the AMBB's determination that CGI is subject to mandatory bargaining and arbitration under the act as a "handler" of agricultural commodity. We, therefore, grant the complaint of the Michigan Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Association (MACMA) for enforcement of the arbitration decision.
I.
This controversy arises over provisions in the Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act (hereafter the AMBA or the act) that require a "handler" of agricultural commodity to bargain with the accredited association, in this instance, MACMA, to establish minimum prices and terms for a handler's purchase of agricultural commodity, in this instance, process apples, from Michigan producers. The underlying facts of this controversy are succinctly set forth in the circuit court's decision and order, as follows:
This dispute arose in 1998 when the Plaintiff and the Intervening Defendant [MACMA] could not reach agreement regarding "support" or "acceptance" of a price for apples. The Intervening Defendant invoked the arbitration provisions of the Act. The Plaintiff sought clarification from the Defendant's [AMBB] administrator regarding the ostensible requirement that a cooperative association be forced to negotiate with an accredited association [MACMA]. The Plaintiff was advised initially by the administrator that it need not negotiate with the Intervening Defendant for purchases made from its own [CGI's] members. Thereafter, Plaintiff decided to purchase only from its own members. The Intervening Defendant nonetheless persisted in its demand that Plaintiff submit to arbitration. The Plaintiff refused and asserted that as a cooperative association, it was statutorily defined not to be a "handler" and was not subject to the bargaining and arbitration provisions of the Act. In an about face from its earlier position, the Defendant Board informed Plaintiff through its administrator that Plaintiff was considered a "handler" when it takes delivery of more than the contract amount of product from one of its members and that the amount of the product above the cooperative contract amount is subject to the bargaining provisions of the Act.
A.
The parties' dispute over the act's bargaining requirements resulted in simultaneous administrative agency and circuit court actions to resolve the matter. The AMBB notified CGI that it was subject to mandatory bargaining and arbitration. Pursuant to the act's arbitration provisions, MCL 290.716; MSA 12.94(116), the AMBB established a joint settlement committee (hereafter the JSC or the committee) to arbitrate the dispute. CGI claimed that it was exempt from arbitration, and, therefore, the JSC lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.
CGI filed a complaint in Grand Traverse Circuit Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), enjoining the JSC arbitration hearing. However, CGI took no further action and the TRO expired. The JSC resumed the administrative proceedings and renoticed the arbitration hearing for November 23, 1998. CGI contested the jurisdiction of the JSC and did not attend the hearing. The JSC concl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|