Craig Petersen wins grievance against Department of Labor and Economic Growth.

Craig Petersen, the former director in the workers' compensation system, has prevailed in a grievance he brought against the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. Petersen had brought the grievance when his position was abolished. The "case summary" of the grievance decision issued on June 16, 2006 reads as follows:

The grievant demonstrated through circumstantial evidence that his position was abolished for partisan political reasons or, at a minimum, for reasons other than administrative efficiency. Article 11, section 5 of the Michigan constitution requires that positions be established and abolished solely for reasons of administrative efficiency. Since that was not the case here, the grievance is granted. The grievant is to be restored to his former position and is to be made whole for all losses in compensation and in fringe benefits that he has suffered in the interim. The grievance is granted.

This civil service decision may be appealed within 28 days by the Department of Labor and Economic Growth.

See full grievance decision

New Supreme Court Order in Stokes v DaimlerChrysler

The Supreme Court has issued an order in Stokes. It orders that the Stokes decision from the Appellate Commission is “STAYED pending resolution of the appellate proceedings, and note{s} that Boggetta v Burroughs Corp, 368 Mich 600 (1962), remains controlling authority until reversed by this Court.”

This means that for the time being the Stokes decision is inapplicable to all proceedings. And, the Boggetta reference means that pre-trial discovery is once again the rule. Therefore, as had been the case before Stokes was released by the Appellate Commission, you can when appropriate ask the Magistrate to compel pre-trial meetings with vocational consultants and ask the Magistrate to compel answers to interrogatories. You should also indicate to the Magistrate and opposing counsel that the application of Sington as described by the Commission in Stokes is also not presently applicable.

The Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal prior to a Court of Appeals decision but did direct the Court of Appeals to grant our application for leave to appeal there “and issue a decision on the appeal before October 1, 2006.” The Court of Appeals has faxed us an order saying that the case will be orally argued there in August.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was 4-3.