Appeal from Ingham, James T. Kallman, J.
Bronson, P. J., and McGregor and R. M. Maher, JJ.
1. Civil Rights -- Civil Rights Commission -- Constitutional Law -- Investigatory and Enforcement Powers -- Legislative Control.
The constitutional provision which established the Civil Rights Commission gives broad investigatory and enforcement powers to the commission, but it also provides for legislative control over the manner in which these powers may be exercised (Const 1963, art V, § 29).
2. Civil Rights -- Civil Rights Commission -- Complaints -- Limitation Period -- Discriminatory Discharge.
Complaints filed with the Civil Rights Commission must be filed within 90 days of the alleged act of discrimination; therefore, the Civil Rights Commission was barred from the consideration of four complaints against an employer alleging discriminatory discharge where the complaints were filed almost five months after the discharge of the employees.
3. Civil Rights -- Civil Rights Commission -- Employee's Remedies -- Employment Discrimination -- Grievances -- Limitation Period.
The independent source of the various remedies available to an employee subjected to alleged discrimination precludes the Court of Appeals from holding that the pursuit of one remedy by filing a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement tolls the 90-day limitation period for filing complaints with the Civil Rights Commission.
4. Courts -- Court Rules -- Superintending Control -- Administrative Tribunal -- Civil Rights Commission -- Other Remedies -- Limitation Period.
An order of superintending control should not be issued if another plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available to the party seeking the order; however, this does not require a judicial "hands off" policy towards an administrative tribunal acting without authority; where the Civil Rights Commission erred in its ruling on the preliminary question of its power to act upon complaints filed after the 90-day statutory limitation period and the ruling came 2-1/2 years after the plaintiff raised the question by a motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals does not view an appeal from the final order of the Civil Rights Commission, after what probably would be lengthy and costly proceedings, as a "plain, speedy, and adequate" means to correct a preliminary error (GCR 1963, 711.2).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
Complaint by Chrysler Corporation for a mandatory order of superintending control against the Civil Rights Commission. The order was granted, directing the defendant to dismiss four cases, then pending before it, involving the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Plaintiff sought and was granted an order of superintending control by the Ingham County Circuit Court. The order directed defendant Civil Rights Commission (CRC) to dismiss four cases, involving plaintiff, then pending before it. Defendant appeals this order.
On October 17, 1970, four former employees of plaintiff filed complaints with the CRC. All alleged racially motivated discharge by plaintiff on May 26, 1970. The same employees had filed union grievances on June 5, 1970, claiming wrongful discharge. The grievances did not raise the issue of ...