Opinion
SC 165825 SC 165826COA 357955 COA 357956
09-20-2024
ALLEN PARK RETIREES ASSOCIATION, INC. and JANICE K. PILLAR, Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF RUSSELL PILLAR, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF ALLEN PARK, Defendant-Appellant, and JOYCE A. PARKER, Defendant. DALE COVERT, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF ALLEN PARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Wayne CC: 14-003826-CZ, CC: 18-004458-CK
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice, Brian K. Zahra, David F. Viviano, Richard H. Bernstein, Megan K. Cavanagh, Elizabeth M. Welch, Kyra H. Bolden, Justices
ORDER
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 18, 2023 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Viviano, J. (dissenting).
At issue is whether the parties' collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) provide a durational term for retiree healthcare benefits that extends beyond the general durational clauses of the CBAs. Given the CBAs' language and this Court's discussion of CBAs in Kendzierski v Macomb Co, 503 Mich. 296 (2019), I am concerned that the Court of Appeals majority may have misconstrued these agreements. Specifically, as the Court of Appeals dissent explained, Kendzierski favorably cited Serafino v Hamtramck, 707 Fed.Appx. 345 (CA 6, 2017), which rejected the plaintiff's argument "that phrases such as 'until that retired employee attains the age of sixty-five,' 'shall be eligible for,' and 'continuous' indicate an intent to vest benefits for life." Serafino, 707 Fed.Appx at 354. Rather, Serafino held that such language only provides retirees with healthcare benefits" 'until they reach age 65 or are eligible for Medicare or Medicaid OR UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THIS AGREEMENT WHICHEVER IS SOONER.'" Id. In other words, Serafino "concluded that rather than indicating any intention that the retiree benefits vest, the provision served only to' "guarantee[] benefits until the agreement expires, nothing more.'"' Kendzierski, 503 Mich. at 321, quoting Serafino, 707 Fed.Appx. at 352. The CBAs in the present case contain language that is similar to the agreements in Serafino, so the question is whether the Court of Appeals should have likewise concluded that the CBAs here do not provide retiree healthcare benefits beyond the general durational terms of the CBAs. I would grant leave to consider that issue, so I respectfully dissent from the Court's order denying leave.