Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v. City of Pontiac

753 N.W.2d 595, 482 Mich. 1, 2008 Mich. LEXIS 1403, 184 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2811

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: July 23, 2008
• Docket: Docket 132916
• Status: Published

Opinions

YOUNG, J.

The issue in this case is whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it issued a prehminary injunction preventing defendant city of Pontiac from implementing its plan to reduce a budget shortfall by laying off members of plaintiff Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376. We hold that the circuit court abused its discretion. Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of establishing that irreparable harm would result if the injunction did not issue, and even supposing plaintiff satisfied its initial burden, it failed to carry its burden in hght of defendant’s contrary proffered evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and vacate the circuit court order granting the prehminary injunction.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff and defendant are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that was in effect from June 1, 2002, to June 30, 2004. Although the parties did not agree to a new CBA when that agreement expired, the existing agreement continued to govern the parties’ relationship after June 30, 2004, because under its own terms the agreement was automatically extended until a new contract was negotiated or ordered.¹

In 2005 and 2006, defendant faced serious budget shortfalls that it sought to address in part by laying off 28 firefighters. Plaintiff maintained that the layoff plan and the manner in which defendant intended to implement it violated the terms of the CBA² and constituted an unfair labor practice.

On June 16, 2006, plaintiff filed a verified complaint in the Oakland Circuit Court seeking a preliminary injunction against defendant’s proposed layoffs pending the resolution of an unfair labor practice charge, collective bargaining, or interest arbitration.³ Several days earlier, plaintiff had filed an unfair labor practice charge against defendant with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC). The verified complaint alleged that the proposed layoffs would necessitate a dramatic reorganization of the fire department and that this reorganization threatened firefighter safety. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the layoffs would increase response time to a fire emergency, which would allegedly allow fires to escalate, making them more difficult and more dangerous to extinguish. Moreover, plaintiff claimed that this problem would be compounded by the smaller number of firefighters present at the scene of a fire.

The circuit court ordered defendant to show cause why the injunction should not be granted. On June 28, 2006, the court conducted a hearing on the prehminary injunction. However, the court took no witness testimony at the hearing. Plaintiff relied on the assertions in its verified complaint, and defendant submitted several affidavits to counter plaintiffs allegations. One affidavit particularly pertinent to this case was submitted by the chief of the Pontiac Fire Department, Wilburt McAdams.

In his affidavit, McAdams addressed many of plaintiffs allegations that the proposed layoffs threatened firefighter safety. The affidavit noted that the “great majority” of calls received by the fire department are medical runs rather than fire runs. McAdams contended that minimum staffing levels would be maintained at all times and that in the event staffing reached critically low levels, firefighters would only respond to fires and not medical runs, which would be handled by private ambulance services.

McAdams further averred that firefighter safety at the site of a fire would not be jeopardized by the layoffs. The department’s remaining 89 firefighters would continue to adhere to basic safety protocols such as the “incident command system”⁴ and the “two in, two out” rule.⁵ Moreover, the affidavit asserted that the number of firefighters at the scene of a fire would be unaffected. McAdams claimed that the number of firefighters on each rig would actually increase from three or four to four firefighters. Finally, McAdams averred that the fire department would continue to follow all state and local workplace safety rules and regulations and it would continue to participate in mutual aid programs where nearby communities would lend their firefighters if assistance were required.

In a written opinion issued on June 30, 2006, the circuit court granted the preliminary injunction after ruling that plaintiff satisfied the four traditional elements for injunctive relief.⁶ The court found that both the laid-off firefighters and those who would remain faced a threat of significant, irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. With respect to the laid-off firefighters, the court found that they would “los[e] their jobs, salary and benefits and create a current hardship that cannot be compensated even if a subsequent arbitration decision would award those laid off a reinstatement of their positions and back wages.” As to the remaining firefighters, the court found that they

may be irreparably harmed since a reduction in the workforce and the closing of several City fire stations would result in a significant increased risk of harm for the remaining firefighters. Fewer firefighters would be available to respond to fires and the closing of stations caused by the [layoff] would result in the firefighters having to cover a larger territory. The remaining firefighters would thus not be able to respond as quickly as they used to[,] which means that they would be faced with fires that have increased in intensity or size and as a result are more dangerous.

Defendant appealed the circuit court’s order to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the preliminary injunction in a split, unpublished decision.⁷ The majority held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the injunction, particularly its findings that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm and that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. The dissenting member of the panel argued that the trial court abused its discretion because plaintiff did not meet its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm. With respect to the laid-off firefighters, the dissent noted that injunctive relief was inappropriate to remedy economic injuries. With respect to the remaining firefighters, the dissent observed that in view of defendant’s proffered evidence that the layoffs would not jeopardize firefighter safety, the record did not support the trial court’s conclusion to the contrary.

Defendant filed an application with this Court seeking leave to appeal, which we granted.⁸

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court’s decision to grant injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion.⁹ We have recently offered the following articulation of the abuse of discretion standard. There are circumstances where a trial court must decide a matter and there will be no single correct outcome; rather, there may be more than one reasonable and principled outcome.¹⁰ The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside this range of principled outcomes.¹¹

ANALYSIS

The Court of Appeals has succinctly stated that “ ‘[i]njunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that issues only when justice requires, there is no adequate remedy at law, and there exists a real and imminent danger of irreparable injury.’ ”¹² In the context of labor disputes, this Court has observed that “it is basically contrary to public policy in this State to issue injunctions in labor disputes absent a showing of violence, irreparable injury, or breach of the peace.”¹³ This Court recently reiterated the longstanding principle that “a particularized showing of irreparable harm ... is... an indispensable requirement to obtain a preliminary injunction.”¹⁴ The mere apprehension of future injury or damage cannot be the basis for injunctive relief.¹⁵ Equally important is that a preliminary injunction should not issue where an adequate legal remedy is available.¹⁶

MCR 3.310 governs the procedure for issuing a preliminary injunction. According to MCR 3.310(A)(1), unless otherwise provided by statute or court rule, an injunction may not be granted without a hearing. At this hearing, “the party seeking injunctive relief has the burden of establishing that a preliminary injunction should be issued ____”¹⁷ If a court grants preliminary injunctive relief, a trial on the merits must be held within six months of the injunction issuing, except for good cause or a stipulation from the parties to extend the time.¹⁸ Given the extraordinary nature of injunctive relief, our court rules contemplate expeditious resolution of the underlying claim or claims once a preliminary injunction issues.

With these general precepts in mind, we must consider whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. The first half of the circuit court’s irreparable-harm analysis centered on its belief that the layoffs would inflict considerable financial hardship on the laid-off firefighters. We agree with the Court of Appeals dissent that this alleged injury is not irreparable and not the proper subject of injunctive relief. There exists an adequate legal remedy for laid-off firefighters. If the layoffs violated the CBA or constituted an unfair labor practice, MERC or a grievance arbitrator can award back pay, order reinstatement, or provide another remedy to make the laid-off firefighters whole.¹⁹ Granting extraordinary equitable relief to remedy these economic injuries is unnecessary and inappropriate because they can be remedied by damages at law.²⁰

In the second half of its irreparable-harm analysis, the circuit court found that the layoffs would deplete the number of available firefighters, which would increase the remaining firefighters’ workload and lengthen their response time, which in turn would require firefighters to fight larger, more intense, and more dangerous fires. Thus, firefighter safety would be jeopardized. To support this chain of logic, the circuit court appeared to adopt without reservation plaintiffs factual assertions.

However, while plaintiffs argument that staffing decisions might affect firefighter safety is appealing as a general proposition, upon closer scrutiny, plaintiff alleged nothing more than an apprehension of future injury or damage. Indeed, the circuit court could only speculate that the firefighters “may” have been irreparably harmed by the layoffs. Neither plaintiff nor the circuit court detailed how the remaining firefighters faced real and imminent danger from the layoffs rather than future, speculative harm. Under established principles governing injunctive relief, plaintiffs verified complaint, standing alone, failed to make a particularized showing of irreparable harm. Thus, plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof from the outset.

In reaching this conclusion, we do not trivialize the dangers accompanying firefighting. However, because firefighting is a dangerous job, every managerial decision in the abstract might touch on a safety issue. A mere apprehension of reduced safety by the union is insufficient grounds for a court to grant equitable relief. Otherwise, the extraordinary nature of a preliminary injunction would be trivialized. Plaintiff bears the responsibility of submitting sufficiently persuasive evidence that particular, irreparable harm will result if an injunction does not issue.

Further, even if we assumed arguendo that plaintiff initially succeeded in demonstrating particularized, irreparable harm, it failed to carry its burden of proof in the face of contrary evidence submitted by defendant that specifically refuted plaintiffs allegations. For instance, in response to plaintiffs allegation that the number of firefighter personnel at a fire scene would be limited and reduced to unsafe levels, Fire Chief McAdams stated that the number of firefighters present at a fire would not be reduced by the layoffs and that the number of firefighters in each rig would increase from three or four to four. And McAdams averred that additional, outside support was available, if needed. For instance, because the “great majority” of calls to which the fire department responded were medical runs, private ambulance services, rather than firefighters, would be used to respond to those calls if the department was functioning at its minimum daily staffing level. Thus, the firefighters would remain available to fight fires. Also, because the department participated in mutual aid programs with the fire departments of neighboring communities, additional firefighters from other communities could be called on for assistance. Moreover, safety protocols, such as the “two in, two out” rule and the incident command system, would remain in place at the scene of every fire. Defendant submitted evidence that it would maintain the same number of firefighters at the scene of a fire, would retain existing policies to protect the health and safety of firefighters, and would use outside resources to ensure that a minimally staffed fire department did not overburden firefighters with medical runs at the expense of fighting fires. Simply put, plaintiffs nonspecific allegations of irreparable harm were refuted by the more specific, sworn statements in Fire Chief McAdams’s affidavit.

In the face of this conflicting evidence that blunted the force of plaintiffs safety allegations, it behooved plaintiff to do more than rely on its initial factual allegations. Plaintiff did not do so. Thus, for this additional reason, it failed to carry its burden of demonstrating irreparable harm under MCR 3.310(A).

We are not second-guessing the circuit court’s discretion to substitute the outcome we prefer. For reasons that are unclear, the circuit court in its written opinion granting the preliminary injunction seemed to credit only plaintiffs allegations and did not at all consider defendant’s contrary evidence. Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof to make a particularized showing of irreparable harm and also failed to maintain this showing in the face of defendant’s contrary evidence. A grant of a preliminary injunction under these circumstances falls outside the principled range of outcomes. Thus, the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted the injunction. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and vacate the circuit court order.²¹

Reversed; preliminary injunction vacated.

TAYLOR, C.J., and CORRIGAN and MARKMAN, JJ., concurred with Young, J.

1 Article VII, Section 12 of the CBA provided: “This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2004, and it shall he extended automatically thereafter on a daily basis until a new contract is negotiated or ordered.”

2 Plaintiff relied on Article EX, Section 7.D.4 of the CBA, which provided in pertinent part that “[djuring the duration of the Agreement, there will be no layoff of bargaining unit personnel....” Defendant relied on other portions of the CBA that seemed to presume that defendant could lay off union members. For instance, Article EX, Section 9 set forth advance notice requirements for layoffs such as “[i]f workers are to be laid off, a fourteen (14) day notice shall be given of the date when their services shall no longer be required.”

3 The complaint alleged four counts: (1) breach of the CBA; (2) unfair labor practice for failure to bargain under the public employment relations act (PERA); (3) city charter violation; and (4) health and safety violation.

4 According to the affidavit, the incident command system prohibits a firefighter from entering a burning structure unless, after a careful assessment of the fire, an incident commander permits entry.

5 According to the affidavit, under this rule, a firefighter cannot enter a structure that is on fire without being accompanied by another firefighter and two firefighters remain stationed outside the structure.

6 In Michigan Coalition of State Employees Unions v Civil Service Comm, 465 Mich 212, 225 n 11; 634 NW2d 692 (2001), this Court noted that besides the demonstration of irreparable harm, the three additional factors in a preliminary injunction analysis are (1) whether harm to the applicant absent such an injunction outweighs the harm it would cause to the adverse party, (2) the strength of the moving party’s showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits, and (3) harm to the public interest if an injunction is issued.

With respect to these three remaining factors, the circuit court in the present case concluded (1) that the balance of harm favored plaintiff notwithstanding defendant’s financial difficulties, (2) that plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and (3) that the public faced less harm if the injunction issued than if it did not.

7 Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v City of Pontiac, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 30, 2006 (Docket No. 271497).

8 478 Mich 903 (2007). The grant order asked the parties to address

(1) whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction with respect to the breach of contract claim (count 1) and the unfair labor practice claim (count II), and (2) if the circuit court had jurisdiction: (a) whether it abused its discretion in issuing an injunction to prevent layoffs based on alleged irreparable harm to the laid-off employees; (b) whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support its claim of an increased risk of harm to the firefighters who would not be laid off; and (c) whether the plaintiff is likely to prevail on its breach of contract and unfair labor practice claims.

With respect to the first question in our grant order, we agree with the parties that the trial court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction in aid of MERC’s jurisdiction to decide unfair labor practice charges. MCL 423.216(h).

9 Michigan Coalition, 465 Mich at 217.

10 Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006).

11 Id.

12 Kernen v Homestead Dev Co, 232 Mich App 503, 509; 591 NW2d 369 (1998), quoting Jeffrey v Clinton Twp, 195 Mich App 260, 263-264; 489 NW2d 211 (1992).

13 Holland School Dist v Holland Ed Ass’n, 380 Mich 314, 326; 157 NW2d 206 (1968).

14 Michigan Coalition, 465 Mich at 225-226.

15 Fenestra Inc v Gulf American Land Corp, 377 Mich 565, 601-602; 141 NW2d 36 (1966); Dunlap v City of Southfield, 54 Mich App 398, 403; 221 NW2d 237 (1974) (“[l]t is well settled that an injunction will not lie upon the mere apprehension of future injury or where the threatened injury is speculative or conjectural.”). See also Royal Oak School Dist v State Tenure Comm, 367 Mich 689, 693; 117 NW2d 181 (1962) (injunctive relief inappropriate where there is no proof that the party would suffer irreparable injury).

16 Grand Rapids Electric R Co v Calhoun Circuit Judge, 156 Mich 419, 422; 120 NW 1004 (1909).

17 MCR 3.310(A)(4).

18 MCR 3.310(A)(5).

19 See, e.g., MCL 423.216(b).

20 Thermatool Corp v Borzym, 227 Mich App 366, 377; 575 NW2d 334 (1998). Plaintiff relies on this Court’s dictum in Michigan State Employees Ass’n v Dep’t of Mental Health, 421 Mich 152, 168; 365 NW2d 93 (1984), that “[w]e do not hold that the absence of usable resources and of obtainable alternative sources of income with which to support one’s self and one’s dependents, coupled with the prospect of destitution, serious physical harm, or loss of irreplaceable treasured possessions, could never support a finding of irreparable injury in aui appropriate case.” We doubt whether the Michigan State Employees Ass’n Court was correct that this is an adequate basis to support a finding of irreparable injury, but, in any event, the record in this case does not support plaintiffs reliance on it.

21 The trial court ruled, and the Court of Appeals majority agreed, that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its underlying claims. Because plaintiff failed to prove that it would suffer irreparable harm from the layoffs, we take no position on whether plaintiffs could successfully prove a breach of the CBA or an unfair labor practice.