purpose to exclude claim in Michigan

1984Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.’ (Emphasis supplied.) Absent an 'express provision’ excluding [a] particular grievance from arbitration’ or the 'most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim’, (emphasis supplied) the matter should go to arbitration.” Kaleva-Norman-Dickson, supra, pp 591-592 .

1980Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.’ (Emphasis supplied.) Absent an 'express provision excluding [a] particular grievance from arbitration’ or the 'most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim’ (emphasis supplied) the matter should go to arbitration.” KND School District, 393 Mich at 592 .

2015Absent an “express provision excluding [a] particular grievance from arbitration” or the “most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim”, . . . the matter should go to arbitration[.] [Id., quoting United Steelworkers of America v Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co, 363 US 574, 582-585 ; 80 S Ct 1347 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1409 (1960) (Emphasis in the original.)] No Michigan decision has addressed this precise issue, and though the language of the agreement as interpreted under the guideposts of Sch Dist No 6 would seem to resolve the issue in favor of defendants, some decisions from other jurisdicti

2015Absent an “express provision excluding [a] particular grievance from arbitration” or the “most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim”, . . . the matter should go to arbitration[.] [Id., quoting United Steelworkers of America v Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co, 363 US 574, 582-585 ; 80 S Ct 1347 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1409 (1960) (Emphasis in the original.)] No Michigan decision has addressed this precise issue, and though the language of the agreement as interpreted under the guideposts of Sch Dist No 6 would seem to resolve the issue in favor of defendants, some decisions from other jurisdicti

2016“Where an arbitration clause is broad and the particular grievance sought to be excluded is not expressly excluded by such clause, only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration can prevail.” Id.

2016We see nothing in article 15 that excludes an otherwise proper grievance from arbitration merely because the grievance mentions a statute or because analysis of a purported CBA violation may potentially implicate statutory provisions, and “[a]bsent an express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, or the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim, the matter should go to arbitration.” Kentwood Pub Sch v Kent Co Ed Ass'n, 206 Mich App 161, 164-165 ; 520 NW2d 682 (1994).

2016We see nothing in article 15 that excludes an otherwise proper grievance from arbitration merely because the grievance mentions a statute or because analysis of a purported CBA violation may potentially implicate statutory provisions, and “[a]bsent an express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, or the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim, the matter should go to arbitration.” Kentwood Pub Sch v Kent Co Ed Ass'n, 206 Mich App 161, 164-165 ; 520 NW2d 682 (1994).

2015One of the better cases discussing this issue is the South Carolina Court of Appeals’ decision in Vestry & Church Wardens of the Church of the Holy Cross v Orkin Exterminating Co, Inc, 356 SC 202; 588 SE2d 136 (2003).

1992Monroe Co Sheriff v FOP, Lodge 113, 136 Mich App 709, 715 ; 357 NW2d 744 (1984).

1992Monroe Co Sheriff v FOP, Lodge 113, 136 Mich App 709, 715 ; 357 NW2d 744 (1984).

1992In Kaleva, p 591, the Court, quoting from United Steelworkers of America v American Mfg Co, 363 US 564, 568 ; 80 S Ct 1343 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1403 (1960), stated: ,[W]hile the question whether a dispute is arbitrable is for a court, the judicial inquiry "is confined to ascertaining whether the party seeking arbitration is making a claim which on its face is governed by the contract.” Whether the moving party is right or wrong is a question of contract interpretation for the arbitrator. [Emphasis in original.] *341 In Kaleva, p 592, our Supreme Court further stated: Absent an "express provision exclud

1992In Kaleva, p 591, the Court, quoting from United Steelworkers of America v American Mfg Co, 363 US 564, 568 ; 80 S Ct 1343 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1403 (1960), stated: ,[W]hile the question whether a dispute is arbitrable is for a court, the judicial inquiry "is confined to ascertaining whether the party seeking arbitration is making a claim which on its face is governed by the contract.” Whether the moving party is right or wrong is a question of contract interpretation for the arbitrator. [Emphasis in original.] *341 In Kaleva, p 592, our Supreme Court further stated: Absent an "express provision exclud

1975In ordering Menasco to arbitrate the unsettled grievance, the Court said: "Although arbitration is a matter of mutual agreement between the parties, and they may choose to exclude certain areas of contention from the arbitration process, the standard set by the Court for finding a dispute non-arbitrable is a strict one: There must be either an 'express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration’ or 'the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration.’ [United Steelworkers of America v Warrior & Gulf Co, 363 US 574, 585 ; 80 S Ct 1347 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1409

1975In ordering Menasco to arbitrate the unsettled grievance, the Court said: "Although arbitration is a matter of mutual agreement between the parties, and they may choose to exclude certain areas of contention from the arbitration process, the standard set by the Court for finding a dispute non-arbitrable is a strict one: There must be either an 'express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration’ or 'the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration.’ [United Steelworkers of America v Warrior & Gulf Co, 363 US 574, 585 ; 80 S Ct 1347 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1409