Wrongful Termination Cases

ERNSTING v AVE MARIA COLLEGE Docket No. 265187. Submitted February 8, 2006, at Lansing. Decided March 6, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Katherine M. Ernsting brought an action in the Washtenaw Circuit Court against Ave Maria College, alleging that the defendant wrongfully terminated her employment, in violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq., after she participated in a United States Department of Education (DOE) investigation of the defendant. The court, Timothy E Connors, J., granted the defendant summary disposition, concluding that the plaintiffs claim did not involve activity protected under the WPA because the DOE is not a “law enforcement agency” and therefore is not a public body to which violations may be reported under the WPA. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held: The trial court erred by granting the defendant’s summary disposition motion. The definition of “public body” in the WPA includes law enforcement agencies. MCL 15.361(d)(u). While the WPA does not define “law enforcement agency,” the plain language of the statute indicates that the term includes federal agencies. Whether an agency is a law enforcement agency does not depend on whether the agency has the power to arrest when enforcing the law. The DOE and its Office of Inspector General have broad statutory authority to investigate and punish violations of civil and criminal laws relating to the operations of the DOE. The inspector general has access to documents and may issue subpoenas. The DOE may suspend eligibility for programs and impose civil penalties. Given these powers, the DOE is a law enforcement agency under MCL 15.361(d)(o). Because the plaintiff reported wrongdoing to a public body, she demonstrated that she was engaged in an activity protected under the WPA. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Zahra, J., dissenting, agreed that a federal law enforcement agency is a public body for purposes of the WPA, but disagreed that the DOE, with its Office of Inspector General, is a law enforcement agency. The term “law enforcement agency” refers to an agency that has as its primary purpose the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the jurisdiction. While the DOE has some limited law enforcement powers through its inspector general, its primary purpose is to implement the education policies of the United States government. The trial court’s judgment should be affirmed. Master and Servant — Wrongful Discharge — Whistleblowers’ Protection Act — Public Bodies — Law Enforcement Agencies. A federal agency, such as the Department of Education, that has broad authority to detect and punish violations of civil and criminal laws related to the agency’s operations is a law enforcement agency and, consequently, a public body for purposes of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (MCL 15.361[d][y]). Sommers Schwartz, P.C. (by Joseph A. Golden), for the plaintiff. Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C. (by Karl V. Fink, Francyne Stacey, and Claudia Rast), for the defendant. Before: WILDER, EJ., and ZAHRA and DAVIS, JJ. WILDER, EJ. In this action brought under the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WEA), MCL 15.361 et seq., plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). We reverse. i From September 10, 2001, to September 2003, plaintiff was employed by defendant as its director of public relations until her placement as special assistant to the president of Ave Maria College. She served in this position until her employment was terminated in July 2004. In a single-count complaint alleging wrongful termination, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the WPA by terminating her employment in response to her reports and participation in a United States Department of Education (DOE) investigation regarding defendant’s administration of title IV student financial assistance programs during the 2000 to 2001, 2001 to 2002, and 2002 to 2003 award years. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). Following a hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion. Rejecting plaintiffs reliance on Jacobson v Parda Fed Credit Union, 457 Mich 318; 577 NW2d 881 (1998), and Dolan v Continental Airlines/Continental Express, 454 Mich 373; 563 NW2d 23 (1997), the trial court determined that plaintiffs claim did not involve a report to a public body, as required by the WPA, concluding instead that the DOE is not a “law enforcement agency,” and therefore not a “public body” under the terms of the act: This Court is not persuaded that the Department of Education and its Office of Inspector General is [a] “law enforcement agency.” [Jacobson and Dolan] involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency, respectively. These two federal agencies possess not only the authority to investigate claims, but also the authority to make arrests. Plaintiff does not provide, and this Court has found, no authority given to the Department of Education to arrest. While it may... have the authority to investigate criminal action, it does not possess the authority to effectuate enforcement of the laws and therefore it is not a “law enforcement agency.” This conclusion is supported by the common meaning of the word “enforce”: 1. to give force to; urge 2. to bring about or impose by force 3. to compel observance of.[ ] [Emphasis in original.] Accordingly, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiff now appeals. ii This Court reviews de novo questions of law involving statutory interpretation and statutory construction. Michigan Muni Liability & Property Pool v Muskegon Co Bd of Co Rd Comm’rs, 235 Mich App 183, 189; 597 NW2d 187 (1999); Haworth, Inc v Wickes Mfg Co, 210 Mich App 222, 227; 532 NW2d 903 (1995). This Court also reviews de novo the trial court’s grant of summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561; 664 NW2d 151 (2003); Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 597 NW2d 817 (1999). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint; a court considers only the pleadings when deciding a motion brought under this section. Maiden, supra at 119. For purposes of reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), all well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and construed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. “A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims alleged are ‘so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possible justify recovery.’ ” Id., quoting Wade v Dep’t of Corrections, 439 Mich 158, 163; 483 NW2d 26 (1992). When deciding a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274, 278; 681 NW2d 342 (2004). Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C) (10) if the documentary evidence shows that there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183; 665 NW2d 468 (2003). A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue on which reasonable minds could differ. Id. hi Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff was not engaged in an activity protected under the WPA because the DOE is not a “public body” pursuant to MCL 15.361(d)(u). We agree. A We first consider whether a federal agency, as opposed to a state or local agency, may be considered a public body under the WPA. Plaintiffs whistleblower claim is brought under MCL 15.362, which states: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false, or because an employee is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry held by that public body, or a court action. [Emphasis added.] Activity protected under the WPA consists of (1) reporting to a public body a violation of a law, regulation, or rule, (2) being about to report such a violation to a public body, or (3) being asked by a public body to participate in an investigation. Roulston v Tendercare (Michigan), Inc, 239 Mich App 270, 279; 608 NW2d 525 (2000), citing MCL 15.362. To establish a prima facie case under the WPA, plaintiff must show that (1) she was engaged in a protected activity as set forth in the act, (2) defendant discharged her, and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the discharge. Roulston, supra at 279. MCL 15.361(d) defines a “public body” under the WPA as follows: “Public body” means all of the following: (i) A state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of state government. (ii) An agency, board, commission, council, member, or employee of the legislative branch of state government. (in) A county, city, township, village, intercounty, intercity, or regional governing body, a council, school district, special district, or municipal corporation, or a board, department, commission, council, agency, or any member or employee thereof. (iv) Any other body which is created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by or through state or local authority, or any member or employee of that body. (v) A law enforcement agency or any member or employee of a law enforcement agency. (vi) The judiciary and any member or employee of the judiciary. [Emphasis added.] When construing the provisions of a statute, the primary task of this Court is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature: This task begins by examining the language of the statute itself. The words of a statute provide “the most reliable evidence of its intent....” If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. No further judicial construction is required or permitted. Only where the statutory language is ambiguous may a court properly go beyond the words of the statute to ascertain legislative intent. [Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236; 596 NW2d 119 (1999) (citations omitted).] The WPA does not define “law enforcement agency.” In reliance on the rule of noscitur a sociis, which stands for the principle that a word or phrase is given meaning by its context or setting, Herald Co v Bay City, 463 Mich 111, 130 n 10; 614 NW2d 873 (2000), defendant argues that the Legislature implicitly intended to exclude federal law enforcement agencies from the definition of “public body” because subsections d(i) through (iv) expressly limit the definition of “public body” to include only state and local governmental entities. We cannot agree. “Unless defined in the statute, every word or phrase of a statute should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, and a dictionary may be consulted for this purpose.” Polkton Charter Twp v Pellegrom, 265 Mich App 88, 102; 693 NW2d 170 (2005). Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed) defines “law enforcement” as “[t]he detection and punishment of violations of the law. This term is not limited to the enforcement of criminal laws.” Clearly, the function of detecting and punishing violations of the law is not performed solely by state and local agencies, which is reflected in the express language of MCL 15.361(d)(u). Nothing in MCL 15.361(d)(u) demonstrates the Legislature’s intent that the term “law enforcement agency” is limited to state or local enforcement agencies. “ ‘[A] court may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself.’ ” Hill v Sacka, 256 Mich App 443, 447-448; 666 NW2d 282 (2003) (citation omitted). Had the Legislature intended to limit the term “law enforcement agency” to mean only state and local law enforcement agencies, it could have expressly so stated, as it did in subsections d(i) through (iv), and as it has done in other statutes. “The omission of a provision in one part of a statute that is included in another part of a statute should be construed as intentional, and provisions not included by the Legislature should not be included by the courts.” Polkton, supra at 103 (citations omitted). Our interpretation of MCL 15.361(d)(v) is further supported by the language of MCL 15.362, which unambiguously provides for the reporting of violations of state and local laws as well as a “violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of. . . the United States .. . .” “Statutes in pari materia are statutes sharing a common purpose or relating to the same subject. They are construed together as one law, regardless of whether they contain any reference to one another.” Omne Financial, Inc v Shacks, Inc, 460 Mich 305, 312; 596 NW2d 591 (1999), citing State Treasurer v Schuster, 456 Mich 408, 417; 572 NW2d 628 (1998). Because MCL 15.361(d)(u) and MCL 15.362 relate to the same subject, the WPA, and are thus read in pari materia, interpreting MCL 15.361(d)(c) in the manner advanced by defendant would render the language pertaining to the reporting of violations of federal laws in MCL 15.362 nugatory. Bageris v Brandon Twp, 264 Mich App 156, 162; 691 NW2d 459 (2004) (stating that constructions of statutes that would render any part of a statute surplusage or nugatory are to be avoided). Moreover, because MCL 15.361(d)(c) is unambiguous, we reject as unpersuasive defendant’s argument that the legislative history and House Legislative Analysis, HB 5088 and 5089, February 5,1981, reflect a legislative intent to limit the definition of “public body” to state and local agencies. It is well settled in Michigan that legislative analysis is a “generally unpersuasive tool of statutory construction,” Frank W Lynch & Co v Flex Technologies, Inc, 463 Mich 578, 587; 624 NW2d 180 (2001), particularly given that the analyses themselves carry a warning “ ‘that they do not constitute an official statement of legislative intent,’ ” Morales v Parole Bd, 260 Mich App 29, 43; 676 NW2d 221 (2003), quoting Lynch, supra at 588 n 7. In conclusion we hold that under the plain language of MCL 15.361(d), a federal agency may qualify as a law enforcement agency and, thus, as a public body under the WPA. B We next address whether the DOE, as a federal agency, qualifies as a law enforcement agency under the WPA. We initially note that the trial court erred by determining whether an agency is a law enforcement agency exclusively on the basis of whether the agency has arrest powers to enforce the law. An “arrest” is “[a] seizure or forcible restraint” or “[t]he taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority .. . .” Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed). In focusing exclusively on arrest powers, the trial court overlooked the settled principle that the Legislature designed the WPA to protect the public from unlawful conduct by corporations and governmental bodies. Anzaldua v Band, 457 Mich 530, 533; 578 NW2d 306 (1998), citing Dolan, supra at 378 n 9. It is axiomatic that a corporation or governmental body is not subject to the threat of arrest, and, as such, the power to arrest cannot be the sole factor in determining whether an agency is a law enforcement agency. Instead, we consider, as discussed earlier, the specific powers granted to the DOE to detect and punish violations of the law. The Department of Education is a department within the executive branch, 5 USC 101; 20 USC 3411, ensuring, among other things, that education issues receive proper treatment at the federal level, 20 USC 3402. Congress enacted the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 USC Appendix, 1 et seq., in order “ ‘to more effectively combat fraud, abuse, waste and mismanagement in the programs and operations of... departments and agencies.’ ” United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm v Fed Labor Relations Auth, 25 F3d 229, 233 (CA 4, 1994) (citation omitted). “To that end, Congress established in each specified governmental agency [including the Department of Education] an Office of Inspector General, as an ‘independent and objective unit,’ charging each unit with the responsibility of conducting and supervising audits and civil and criminal investigations relating to that agency’s operations.” Id., citing 5 USC Appendix, 4(a)(1). With regard to investigative powers, the DOE Inspector General is authorized to have access to all pertinent documents and persons, and is given broad subpoena powers pursuant to 5 USC Appendix, 6. In addition, under 31 USC 3803, the DOE Inspector General is also authorized to investigate allegations that an entity filed a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim with the DOE. “[A]fter reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing” the DOE is authorized to “suspend or terminate the eligibility status for any or all programs under this subchapter ... of any otherwise eligible institution” or “impose a civil penalty upon such institution of not to exceed $25,000 for each violation or misrepresentation.” 20 USC 1094(c)(3). Moreover, effective December 8,2003, § 6(e) was added to the Inspector General Act of 1978 by § 812(a) of the Homeland Security Act, PL 107-296, which authorized the DOE Inspector General and assistants to carry firearms, make arrests without warrants (on the reasonable belief that a felony has been committed), seek and execute warrants, search premises on probable cause, and seize evidence, with authorization from the United States Attorney General. 5 USC Appendix, 6(e). Given these statutory powers, we conclude that the DOE, as a federal institution, falls within the definition of “law enforcement agency” in the WPA. We respectfully disagree with the dissent’s view that the term “law enforcement agency” as more narrowly construed by this Court in In re Faketty, 121 Mich App 266, 271; 328 NW2d 551 (1982), is applicable here. In Faketty, this Court interpreted the meaning of the term “law enforcement agency” as it was used in the juvenile court rule that permitted the juvenile court to order the expunction of delinquency and neglect records of juveniles. JCR 1969,13. This Court held that the term “law enforcement agency” as used within that rule referred to agencies charged with the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state, and concluded that because the Department of Corrections had authority relating “solely to the administration of penal institutions, probation, pardons, paroles and commutations and other aspects of the department’s corrections functions,” it did not have the responsibility to enforce the general criminal laws of the state. Faketty, supra at 271. We first note that Faketty is not binding on this Court. MCR 7.215(J)(1). Moreover, Faketty is readily distinguished. For example, the WPA, by its plain language, is intended to protect an employee who “reports or is about to report... a violation or a suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule ... .” MCL 15.362 (emphasis added). As noted in Clonlara, Inc v State Bd of Ed, 442 Mich 230, 239;

FLANAGAN v COMAU PICO Docket No. 272305. Submitted February 6, 2007, at Detroit. Decided February 27, 2007, at 9:20 a.m. John Flanagan brought an action in the Oakland Circuit Court alleging wrongful discharge and breach of contract against Wisne Automation Engineering Company, which was his former employer, and others, after he was fired for his alleged involvement in a theft of company property. The trial court, Michael D. Warren, Jr., J., granted summary disposition to the defendants, applying Michigan law to determine that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a factual issue regarding whether his employment could be terminated for just cause only. The plaintiff appealed. In an unpublished opinion issued September 1, 2005 (Docket No. 253078), the Court of Appeals explained that if the employee handbook was a collective-bargaining agreement, then the case was likely governed by federal rather than state law. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the trial court to consider whether § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 USC 185(a), applied; whether the preemption defense could be or had been waived; and whether additional evidence would be necessary to resolve the case under federal law. On remand, the trial court, Rae Lee Chabot, J., granted summary disposition to the defendants, ruling that preemption under § 301 is a defense that the defendants had waived, and that the original motion for summary disposition was properly granted under Michigan law. The plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held: 1. Section 301 of the LMRA governs the plaintiffs claim because the claim requires interpretation of the employee handbook, which is a collective-bargaining agreement, and the defendants are in an industry affecting commerce. 2. The United States Supreme Court has held that § 301 preempts state law; accordingly, a party cannot waive the application of § 301 if that provision governs the dispute. The caselaw that the defendants cite for the contrary position is not binding and is distinguishable. 3. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over claims that are governed by § 301. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 1. Labor Relations — Labor Management Relations Act — Federal Preemption. Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempts state law with respect to a claim that requires interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement where the defendant is in an industry affecting commerce (29 USC 185[a]). 2. Labor Relations — Labor Management Relations Act — Federal Preemption — Defenses. A party cannot waive the application of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 USC 185[a]). 3. Labor Relations — Labor Management Relations Act — Federal Preemption — Jurisdiction. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over claims that are governed by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (29 USC 185[a]). Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, P.L.C. (by Eileen K. Husband), for the plaintiff. Plunkett & Cooney, PC. (by Ernest R. Bazzana), for the defendants. Before: KELLY, PJ., and DAVIS and SERVITTO, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this action for wrongful discharge and breach of contract, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to defendants under state law and pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10). Because the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 USC 141 et seq., specifically § 301, 29 USC 185(a), preempts plaintiffs claim, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings under federal law. I. FACTS According to plaintiffs complaint, he was hired in August 1984 by defendant Wisne Automation Engineering Company as a welder, and he eventually became a class I machine builder. In March 2001, a fellow employee asked plaintiff if he could use plaintiffs truck to haul some scrap wood from the workplace to his home. Plaintiff agreed. However, it was later discovered by the plant foreman, defendant James Haas, that the employee had actually loaded new boards, not scrap wood, onto plaintiffs truck. After an investigation, and a discussion with the director of labor relations, the plant manager, defendant George Bills, fired plaintiff. A grievance filed on plaintiffs behalf was denied. In February 2003, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and wrongful discharge against Wisne Automation, tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship against Haas and Bills, conspiracy to commit wrongful termination against all defendants, fraud against Wisne Automation and Bills, and innocent misrepresentation against Wisne Automation and Bills. Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing, in relevant part, that plaintiff failed to establish that he had a just-cause employment contract or a legitimate expectation of just-cause employment under Michigan law. Plaintiff filed a response to defendants’ motion. In his brief, he asserted that the employee handbook was a “union contract,” pursuant to which plaintiff could only be terminated for just cause. Plaintiff also argued that he had a legitimate expectation of just-cause employment. In support of his arguments, plaintiff also applied Michigan law. At a hearing, the parties again debated the question whether, considering the provisions of the employee handbook, Wisne Automation’s alleged past practice, and the representations allegedly made to plaintiff, there was a genuine question of material fact concerning whether plaintiff had a legitimate expectation of, or an express contract for, just-cause employment. The trial court took defendants’ motion under advisement. The trial court ultimately issued an opinion and order granting summary disposition to defendants on all counts. Concerning plaintiffs wrongful-discharge claim, the court applied Michigan law and determined that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether he had a legitimate expectation of just-cause employment or an express just-cause employment contract. In this Court, plaintiff appealed as of right the trial court’s order dismissing his claim for wrongful discharge and breach of contract. This Court, rather than addressing the issues presented on appeal, held that if the Wisne Automation Shop Employee Handbook is a collective-bargaining agreement, state law “would likely be preempted by § 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act (‘LMRA’), 29 USC 185(a).” Flanagan v Comau Pico, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 1, 2005 (Docket No. 253078), slip op at 2. This Court reversed and remanded, instructing the trial court to consider “whether § 301 applies, whether the preemption defense may [be] or has been waived, and whether additional evidence must be submitted to analyze the applicability and effect of federal labor law under the facts of this case.” Id. On remand, defendants filed a renewed motion for summary disposition, arguing that the issue whether § 301 preemption applied was irrelevant because defendant had affirmatively waived the “defense.” Defendants also argued that even if federal law did apply, it directed the court to apply state law. Plaintiff responded that § 301 cannot be waived and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his employment status under both the express-contract and legitimate-expectations theories. The trial court granted defendants’ motion, ruling that the § 301 preemption is a defense that defendants waived and that the original motion for summary disposition was properly granted pursuant to Michigan law on the ground that plaintiff failed to present any evidence of a just-cause employment relationship. II. ANALYSIS To resolve whether the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition pursuant to Michigan law, we must determine (1) whether plaintiffs wrongful-discharge claim is preempted by federal law pursuant to § 301 of the LMRA, (2) whether a party may waive the application of § 301, and (3) whether, if § 301 applies and may not be waived, the trial court has jurisdiction over the case. A. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561; 664 NW2d 151 (2003). Summary disposition is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if the documentary evidence submitted by the parties, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Veenstra v Washtenaw Country Club, 466 Mich 155, 164; 645 NW2d 643 (2002). B. DOES § 301 APPLY? Because resolution of this dispute requires interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement and defendants are in an industry affecting commerce, § 301 governs plaintiffs claim. Section 301(a) provides: Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act... may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties. [29 USC 185(a).] The United States Supreme Court has held that “an application of state law is preempted by § 301 of the [LMRA] only if such application requires the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement.” Lingle v Norge Div of Magic Chef, Inc, 486 US 399, 413; 108 S Ct 1877; 100 L Ed 2d 410 (1988); see also Betty v Brooks & Perkins, 446 Mich 270, 279-280; 521 NW2d 518 (1994). Plaintiff has alleged that, in discharging him, defendants breached the parties’ just-cause employment agreement. Specifically, plaintiff alleged: At all times relevant to this cause of action, the Plaintiff John Flanagan was employed under a just cause employment relationship pursuant to: (I) the ComauAVisne Employee Handbook, (ii) the oral representations of just cause employment by George Bills and (iii) Defendants^] policies practices and procedures for progressive discipline and termination for just cause only. Defendants dispute that the employment relationship was just-cause, asserting, rather, that it was at-will. Because plaintiffs claim involves the disputed assertion that the employee handbook sets forth a just-cause employment relationship, interpretation of the employee handbook is required. The question remains whether the employee handbook is a collective-bargaining agreement. In his prior appeal, plaintiff characterized the employee handbook as an employment contract to be analyzed under state contract law, while Wisne Automation characterized it as a unilateral expression of its policies, not a binding contract at all. Accordingly, the parties and the trial court analyzed the issues according to Michigan law governing individual contracts of employment and wrongful-discharge actions under Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579; 292 NW2d 880 (1980), and its progeny. However, the employee handbook is a collective-bargaining agreement. The document expressly states that its general purpose is to “set forth terms and conditions of employment and to promote orderly and peaceful relations for the mutual interest of the Employer . . . , the Employees, and Wisne Automation and Engineering Company Employees Association,” and further provides that the Wisne Automation and Engineering Company Employees Association is the “exclusive representative of the shop employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to wages, hours, grievances, benefits, and other conditions of employment. ” It also provides that all employees covered by the agreement “shall become members of the association as a condition of continued employment.” It further provides for a deduction of dues from all employees’ monthly pay. In numerous places, the employee handbook refers to itself as “this agreement.” As such, the employee handbook is clearly a collective-bargaining agreement. Therefore, considering plaintiffs claim and defendants’ stance, this dispute requires the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement. Next we consider whether defendants were engaged in an “industry affecting commerce” as defined in the LMRA. Section 501, 29 USC 142(1), defines “industry affecting commerce” as “any industry or activity in commerce or in which a labor dispute would burden or obstruct commerce or tend to burden or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce.” Wisne Automation is in the business of designing and manufacturing welding fixtures, automated systems, special machinery, and automated test systems for various companies in the automotive industry, including the Ford Motor Company. Wisne Automation concedes that it is regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 USC 1001 et seq., which is restricted to employees working in an industry affecting interstate commerce. Therefore, there is no legitimate question about whether Wisne Automation is involved in an “industry affecting commerce” as defined by the LMRA. Because this dispute requires the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement and defendants are in an industry affecting commerce, § 301 governs plaintiffs claim. C. CAN A PARTY WAIVE § 301? The next question is whether, as defendants contend, a party may waive the application of § 301. We hold that if a dispute is governed by § 301, a party may not waive its application. In Betty, supra at 276, our Supreme Court noted: The authority of Congress to preempt state law is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Gibbons v Ogden, 22 US (9 Wheat) 1; 6 L Ed 23 (1824). Whether a state claim is preempted by a federal statute “is, of course, a question of federal law.” Allis-Chalmers Corp v Lueck, 471 US 202, 214; 105 S Ct 1904; 85 L Ed 2d 206 (1985). “[W]here Federal questions are involved we are bound to follow the prevailing opinions of the United States supreme court.” Harper v Brennan, 311 Mich 489, 493; 18 NW2d 905 (1945). In considering whether state courts were free to apply state law when called on to enforce collective-bargaining agreements, the United States Supreme Court held: The dimensions of § 301 require the conclusion that substantive principles of federal labor law must be paramount in the area covered by the statute.... The possibility that individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law would inevitably exert a disruptive influence upon both the negotiation and administration of collective agreements. [Teamsters v Lucas Flour Co, 369 US 95, 103; 82 S Ct 571; 7 L Ed 2d 593 (1962).] See also Lingle, supra at 403-404. The Court reiterated this position in Lingle, citing Lucas Flour and Allis-Chalmers Corp v Lueck, 471 US 202; 105 S Ct 1904; 85 L Ed 2d 206 (1985), stating that if the resolution of a state-law claim depends upon the meaning of a collective-bargaining agreement, the application of state law (which might lead to inconsistent results since there could be as many state-law principles as there are States) is pre-empted and federal labor-law principles —necessarily uniform throughout the Nation — must be employed to resolve the dispute. [Lingle, supra at 405-406 (emphasis added).] Thus, to conclude that a party may waive the § 301 preemption and thereby avoid federal substantive law would be contrary to United States Supreme Court authority, would render § 301 meaningless, and would usurp the power of the United States Congress. Further, defendants have cited no support for their assertion that they are permitted to waive § 301. In support of their position that § 301 may be waived, defendants rely on federal cases and a case from another jurisdiction that applied federal law. First, defendants rely on Tolliver v Kroger Co, 201 W Va 509, 512; 498 SE2d 702 (1997), in which the plaintiff, who was subject to a collective-bargaining agreement that governed all employer-employee disputes, filed claims of gender discrimination, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against the defendant. After the trial court granted summary disposition of the claims of assault and battery and IIED on the basis that they were subject to resolution under the collective-bargaining agreement, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia sua sponte determined that the IIED claim required interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement, thus implicating § 301. Id. at 513-515. However, noting the defendant’s “failure to raise Section 301,” the court considered whether that preemption may be waived “when it is not argued at the trial court or appellate level[.]” Id. at 515. In so doing, the court noted two federal court opinions that had addressed waiver of the § 301 preemption. Id. In Johnson v Armored Transport of California, Inc, 813 F2d 1041, 1042-1043 (CA 9, 1987), a wrongful-discharge case, after the trial court reached a decision adverse to the defendant under state law, the defendant raised § 301 preemption on appeal. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant “waived the argument that section 301 preempts the state law wrongful discharge claim because the argument was not properly preserved in the district court.” Id. at 1044. In a footnote, the Tolliver court also noted that in Sweeney v Westvaco Co, 926 F2d 29, 40 (CA 1, 1991), the court held, “[I]n an appropriate case, a party can waive § 301 pre-emption; the parties do not have an absolute right to raise that argument at any stage they wish in the proceedings.” Tolliver, supra at 515 n 8. The Tolliver court distinguished the case before it on the ground that § 301 preemption was never raised. It went on to hold that failure on the part of a party to properly raise preemption under Section 301 ... , either before the circuit court or on appeal, constitutes a waiver of consideration and application of Section 301 preemption by this Court. . . . On the other hand, should a party fail to raise Section 301 preemption at the circuit court level, but properly raises and briefs the issue on appeal, the waiver rule will not bar consideration of the issue on the merits. [Tolliver, supra at 516.] Defendants suggest that this Court adopt a similar rule. However, in addition to the fact that these cases are not binding authority, we detect a significant distinction. In these cases, the § 301 preemption argument was raised after the defendant suffered an adverse ruling under state law. Under those circumstances, the federal appellate courts considered whether the defendant had waived the § 301 argument. In contrast to these cases, defendants in this case, who obtained a favorable ruling from the trial court under state law, are now (after this Court remanded for consideration of § 301) seeking to preserve the trial court’s ruling by contending that they “waived” application of § 301 by not offering it as a defense. Thus, even if this Court were required to follow these cases, their facts are distinguishable from the facts in this case. Additionally, plaintiff points out that in Apponi v Sunshine Biscuits, Inc, 809 F2d 1210 (CA 6, 1987), the defendant, in a second appeal, raised § 301 preemption for the first time. The court noted that ordinarily a failure to plead an “affirmative defense” results in a waiver of that defense. Id. at 1215. However, without determining that § 301 is an affirmative defense, it also held that § 301 “expresses a compelling policy in favor of uniform application of federal law in actions to enforce labor contracts, and, therefore, we decline to apply the waiver rule.” Id. While also not binding on this Court, this ruling appears to be more in keeping with the United States Supreme Court authority cited above. Therefore, pursuant to United States Supreme Court authority, we hold that if a dispute is governe