We found that claims such as Brown's were not specifically excluded from arbitration in the Agreement and since we could not say with positive assurance that the arbitration clause was not susceptible of an interpretation that covered the claim, the issue was a proper subject of arbitration. In so ruling, we relied upon the language of the Supreme Court in Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School District No 6 v Kaleva-Norman-Dickson Teachers' Association, 393 Mich. 583; 227 N.W.2d 500 (1975)." 74 Mich. App. 206, 207-208; 254 N.W.2d 41 (1977).

" Arbitration is a matter of contract. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School District No. 6 v Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers' Ass'n, 393 Mich. 583; 227 N.W.2d 500 (1975). In the present case, the parties entered into a collective bargaining agreement under the authority of the public employment relations act (PERA).

While the question of arbitrability is to be determined by the court, the judicial policy of sharply limiting the scope of the court's consideration of this question is undisputed. In Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School District No 6 v Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers' Association, 393 Mich. 583, 592; 227 N.W.2d 500, 504 (1975), the Supreme Court adopted the language of United Steelworkers of America v Warrior Gulf Navigation Co, 363 U.S. 574, 582-583; 80 S Ct 1347, 1353; 4 L Ed 2d 1409, 1417-1418 (1960), to guide lower courts in determining whether a dispute should go to arbitration: "`An order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.

ANALYSIS “Arbitration is a matter of contract.” Kaleva–Norman–Dickson Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Kaleva–Norman–Dickson Sch. Teachers' Ass'n, 393 Mich. 583, 587, 227 N.W.2d 500 (1975). Accordingly, when interpreting an arbitration agreement, we apply the same legal principles that govern contract interpretation.

ANALYSIS “Arbitration is a matter of contract.” Kaleva–Norman–Dickson Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Kaleva–Norman–Dickson Sch. Teachers' Ass'n, 393 Mich. 583, 587, 227 N.W.2d 500 (1975). Accordingly, when interpreting an arbitration agreement, we apply the same legal principles that govern contract interpretation.

Defendant contends and the trial court agreed that her dispute with plaintiff as to the scope of her coverage is arbitrable under their contract; plaintiff insists otherwise. The scope of arbitration is determined by the contract between the parties; whether an issue is arbitrable or not is a matter for judicial determination. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School District No 6, Counties of Manistee, Lake Mason v Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers' Association, 393 Mich. 583, 587; 227 N.W.2d 500 (1975), Brown v Holton Public Schools, 397 Mich. 71, 74; 243 N.W.2d 255 (1976). But the scope of a court's consideration whether an issue is arbitrable is sharply limited.

A. PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION Because "[a]rbitration is a matter of contract," Kaleva-Norman-Dickson Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson Sch. Teachers’ Assoc. , 393 Mich. 583, 587, 227 N.W.2d 500 (1975), "when interpreting an arbitration agreement, we apply the same legal principles that govern contract interpretation," Altobelli , 499 Mich. at 295, 884 N.W.2d 537. Our goal in interpreting a contract is to "ascertain the intent of the parties at the time they entered into the agreement."

We must interpret and enforce clear and unambiguous language as it is written.Kaleva–Norman–Dickson Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Kaleva–Norman–Dickson Sch. Teachers' Ass'n, 393 Mich. 583, 587, 227 N.W.2d 500 (1975).Miller–Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr., Inc., 495 Mich. 161, 174, 848 N.W.2d 95 (2014).

We must interpret and enforce clear and unambiguous language as it is written.Kaleva–Norman–Dickson Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Kaleva–Norman–Dickson Sch. Teachers' Ass'n, 393 Mich. 583, 587, 227 N.W.2d 500 (1975).Miller–Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr., Inc., 495 Mich. 161, 174, 848 N.W.2d 95 (2014).

In this area of the law, cases are factually varied; thus, distinguishing features must be taken into consideration when assessing the value of out-of-state cases. For example, the dissent discusses at length Kaleva-Norman-Dickson SchoolDistrict No. 6 v. Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School Teachers'Association, 393 Mich. 583, 227 N.W.2d 500, 501 (1975), post at 221, 854 A.2d at 364, which dealt with a probationary teacher who was informed in writing by the local board of education that her contract would not be renewed for the following year. That decision involved an arbitration provision much more broadly worded than the one in this case.