A Michigan State Police Trooper was intoxicated at a Michigan State Police Troopers Association (MSPTA) event and engaged in serious misconduct. Surveillance video showed the trooper placing her fingers into the “anal crevice” of a male coworker, striking another coworker in the genitals, and attempting similar contact with others. She was criminally charged with two counts of assault and battery and two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-IV). The trooper pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor two assault counts in exchange for dismissal of the CSC-IV charges and served 21 days of a 30-day jail sentence. After a departmental investigation and administrative interview, MSP determined she violated Code of Conduct provisions on deportment, obedience to law, and compliance with orders, and terminated her employment in August 2021.
The MSPTA grieved the termination, and under the governing collective bargaining agreement, the matter was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator agreed that the trooper violated policy, but concluded there was not just cause for termination. The arbitrator emphasized that the conduct occurred during a single incident fueled by excessive intoxication, was not premeditated, occurred off duty and out of uniform, and that the trooper had an otherwise good record with no prior discipline. The arbitrator found that the MSP should have used progressive discipline, and therefore sustained the grievance, ordered reinstatement, reduced the penalty to an unpaid suspension, and awarded back pay.
MSP asked the court to vacate the award, contending the CBA gave the MSP sole discretion to determine the level of discipline once just cause for rule violations existed, and that reinstatement violated public policy requiring state troopers to be of “good moral character.” The trial court agreed the arbitrator impermissibly “substitute[d] her judgment” for MSP’s discretion under the CBA and vacated the award without reaching the public policy arguments. The MSPTA appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Court of Appeals explained that under applicable Michigan law, judicial review of a public sector employment grievance arbitration award is “narrowly circumscribed” and limited to whether the award “draws its essence” from the CBA. It held the trial court erred by stepping beyond this role and substituting its own judgment for that of the arbitrator. The CBA expressly allowed arbitration of “a claim of suspension, discharge, or demotion without just cause,” and provided that “[i]f the arbitrator reinstates an employee after discharge, the employee shall receive back pay and other benefits.” Unlike cases where CBAs mandated discharge for specific offenses, this agreement did not require termination for criminal or code violations. By failing to define what acts constitute just cause for discharge, “the parties left the decision to the arbitrator.” Because the arbitrator was deciding whether there was just cause for the specific sanction of discharge, she acted within her authority, and the trial court should not have second-guessed her findings.
The Court also rejected MSP’s public policy argument. Michigan law provides for a narrow “public policy” exception to the ordinary, narrow scope of review of grievance arbitration awards. This exception applies only where enforcement of a grievance arbitration award would violate an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy. MSP argued that such an exception was warranted here due to the statutory requirement that troopers be of “good moral character.” MSP also raised the reputational impact of the conduct. The Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that although the trooper’s conduct was “highly unbecoming,” it would be “a fairly large leap of logic” to infer that this misdemeanor conduct, committed while drunk at an after-hours event, established lack of good moral character. The Court also explained that the MSP’s reputational concerns did not rise to the level of a of clearly defined public policy issue that would warrant vacating the award.
Because the arbitrator’s award was supported by the CBA and no public policy barred enforcement, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of an order enforcing the award.
Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Michigan State Police Troopers Ass’n, 349 Mich App 458 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2023).
This article appears in the March 2026 issue of our monthly newsletter, Public Safety Labor News.
Also in the March 2026 issue:
- Indiana Sherriff’s Lieutenant’s Coerced Resignation Claims Restored
- Chicago Firefighter Promotion Lawsuit Diverted To Arbitration
- Constitutional Challenge To North Carolina’s Giglio Statute Allowed To Proceed
- Sheriff’s Threats To Arrest Union Leaders Over Alleged “Blue Flu” And Sick-Leave Home Visits Found Unlawful
- City’s Unilateral Fire Deployment Change Not Trigger For Mandatory Bargaining
- Post-Arbitration Staffing Change Found To Repudiate Police CBA
- Nevada Police Arbitration Award Enforced Despite Employer Appeal
- Arbitrator’s Award Of Holiday Pay During Disability Leave Enforced On Appeal
- Illinois Labor Board Punts Constitutional Challenge To Ban On Supervisory Bargaining