An unnamed, female Michigan State Police trooper (Trooper A) was terminated after a string of incidents at an event sponsored by the Michigan State Police Troopers Association (MSPTA). At the event, Trooper A was intoxicated and allegedly “wedged her fingers into the anal crevice of a coworker while he was walking next to his wife,” which caused him to jump forward, at which point Trooper A tried to grab his genitals. Trooper A struck a second male coworker in the genitals, which was caught on surveillance video. She was also caught on video attempting to grab the genitals of a third male coworker.
Trooper A was suspended with pay pending an internal investigation. The internal investigation was paused due to an intervening criminal investigation, and Trooper A was charged with several counts of assault and battery, as well as two more serious charges of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. The trooper ultimately served 21 days in jail for several counts of assault and battery, in exchange for the dismissal of the criminal sexual charges. After the sentencing, the Michigan Department of State Police held an administrative interview with Trooper A, and ultimately chose to terminate her employment.
The MSPTA filed a grievance, and Trooper A was reinstated by an arbitrator. Among other things, the Arbitrator agreed with the MSPTA that termination was too severe because other employees had not been terminated for off-duty misconduct while intoxicated, and Trooper A otherwise had a good record with no prior discipline. The Department challenged the Arbitrator’s award in court, arguing that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by ordering the reinstatement.
The Department argued that the Arbitrator improperly “substituted her judgment for that of the employer where the employer was given discretion by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement” and that the reinstatement would violate public policy because troopers “are statutorily required to be of good moral character.” The trial court vacated the arbitration award, concluding that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by mitigating Trooper A’s punishment after agreeing with the Department that her conduct violated the code of conduct and there was just cause for some amount of discipline. MSPTA appealed.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the Arbitrator did not exceed her authority. It rejected the Department’s argument that the CBA constrained the Arbitrator to decide whether just cause for discipline existed, not whether the discipline was proportionate to the offense.
The Court explained that under prevailing labor law, an arbitrator has the authority to mitigate a penalty unless the relevant CBA provides otherwise. In this case, the CBA expressly granted the Arbitrator the authority to decide whether there was just cause to support Trooper A’s termination. There was no language indicating that Trooper A’s conduct was a terminable offense not subject to arbitral review, so the Arbitrator did not exceed her authority in determining that the termination was excessive and ordering Trooper A’s reinstatement.
Michigan Department of State Police v. Michigan State Police Troopers Association, No. 363241, 2023 WL 9007696 (Ct. App. Mich.).