In December 2022, the City of Detroit notified the Detroit Police Officers Association (DPOA) that it would begin considering the disciplinary records of union members when determining their eligibility to take the 2023 promotional examinations for the ranks of sergeant and detective. The City issued personnel orders outlining this new eligibility criterion and the associated appeal process.
When police officer Latoya Chavies applied to take the March 2023 promotional exam, she was informed that she was ineligible because of her disciplinary history. Her appeal of this decision was denied. The DPOA grieved the denial. The City defended its action by citing Article 6(A) of the CBA, which granted the City broad managerial rights. The matter proceeded to binding arbitration as required by the CBA, and the arbitrator found for the DPOA, relying on the fact that Article 6(A) did not contain any language that explicitly permitted the City to use an officer’s disciplinary history as a criterion for eligibility to take a promotional examination.
The City escalated the matter to the circuit court, filing a complaint to vacate the arbitration award. The DPOA counterclaimed, seeking confirmation of the award. The trial court ultimately denied the City’s motion to vacate, granted the DPOA’s motion for summary disposition, and confirmed the arbitration award, leading to the City’s next appeal.
The Court of Appeals of Michigan held that the trial court correctly denied the City’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and properly granted the DPOA’s motion to confirm it. The Court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is “extremely limited” and that a court may not engage in contract interpretation, which is the arbitrator’s role. The City argued that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by making a determination on an unfair labor practice under the Public Employment Relations Act, a matter over which the Michigan Employment Relations Commission has exclusive jurisdiction.
However, the Court found the City’s argument unpersuasive.
After reviewing the arbitrator’s opinion, the court concluded that the arbitrator “did not find that the City engaged in a ULP.” Instead, the arbitrator’s references to PERA were limited to acknowledging that promotion eligibility was a bargainable subject. The core of her decision was an interpretation of the CBA itself, specifically finding that Article 6(A) contained “no language permitting the City to review and assess an applicant’s disciplinary history when determining eligibility to sit for a promotional examination.” Because the arbitrator was “arguably construing or applying the contract,” her award was within her authority and binding on the parties.
City of Detroit v Detroit Police Officers Ass’n, 2025 WL 2618363 (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).