 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oimas v. Tradewinds Aviation7/19/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Meter, JJ.
These consolidated cases arise out of plaintiff David Oimas' employment with and subsequent termination from defendant Tradewinds Aviation, Inc. by defendant owner Richard Nini (hereinafter 'defendant,' collectively, unless otherwise specified). In docket number 247762, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant on his whistleblower protection claim. In docket number 248409, defendant appeals as of right the trial court's denial of its motion for case evaluation sanctions. In docket number 255789, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's dismissal of his petition to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Docket No. 247762
A. Plaintiff's Whistleblower Protection Claim
1. Collateral Estoppel Effect of Arbitrator's Findings of Fact
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on his whistleblower protection claim. We disagree. We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).
The employment agreement between the parties provided that "should either [party] terminate [plaintiff's] employment . . . and, in connection therewith, any controversy shall arise as to whether or not there was good cause for such termination, such controversy shall be resolved solely and exclusively by the submission of said controversy to arbitration . . . ." The employment agreement "constitute the entire agreement among the parties hereto in connection with the subject matter hereof," and "supersede any and all other agreements, either oral or written, among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof." Further, the agreement provided that it could "not be modified orally," and that "no modification [would] be effective unless in writing and signed by all the parties."
The arbitration provision of the employment agreement provided that a court could render judgment on the arbitration award; therefore, the arbitration constitutes statutory arbitration, governed by the Michigan arbitration act, MCL 600.5001 et seq. Hetrick v Friedman, 237 Mich App 264, 268-269; 602 NW2d 603 (1999); Dohanyos v Detrex Corp (After Remand), 217 Mich App 171, 174; 550 NW2d 608 (1996).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on the basis that the arbitrator's findings of fact had collateral estoppel preclusive effect on his whistleblower protection claim. We review de novo as a question of law the applicability of collateral estoppel. McMichael v McMichael, 217 Mich App 723, 727; 552 NW2d 688 (1996). "Collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue in a subsequent, different cause of action between the same parties when the prior proceeding culminated in a valid final judgment and the issue was actually and necessarily determined in the prior proceeding." Id. Similarly, the principle of collateral estoppel applies to factual determinations made during arbitration proceedings. Porter v Royal Oak, 214 Mich App 478, 485; 542 NW2d 905 (1995).
Here, the parties entered into an employment agreement which expressly provided that plaintiff's employment could not be terminated except for good cause, and that all controversies arising as to whether good cause for termination existed would be resolved exclusiv
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.
|
|