The case of Util. Workers Union of Am. Local 436-A v. E. Ohio Regional Wastewater Auth., 2017-Ohio-7794, can be characterized as a case of “buyer’s remorse” by a union who was dissatisfied with an arbitration award involving an employee who was terminated for failing a drug test.
During arbitration, the union successfully argued that the employer terminated the employee without cause for testing positive to marijuana use because the employer unilaterally imposed a drug and alcohol policy without negotiating it with the union. While the arbitrator sustained the grievance in favor of the employee, the arbitrator declined to reinstate the employee and limited back pay and benefits to the period prior to the employee’s retirement. This meant that the employee only received back pay and benefits for a period of approximately two months.
The union sought to modify the arbitration award, arguing that the remedy sought by the union was for the employee to be returned to work – not for back pay.
The union’s attempt to modify the arbitration award ultimately made its way to an Ohio appellate court.
The appellate court rejected the union’s argument noting that “[t]he case at bar does not involve the submission of one cause of action to the arbitrator with the arbitrator entering damages on a different cause of action.” Utility Workers at ¶ 21. “In the absence of language restricting the arbitrator to award a particular remedy, the arbitrator has the implicit authority to fashion a remedy in making the award, even where the CBA is silent on the topic of remedial authority.” Utility Workers at ¶ 22.
The case demonstrates that, if the parties wish to limit the authority of an arbitrator to fashion a remedy in making an arbitration award, they must put specific language in the collective bargaining agreement limiting that authority or, at the very least, explicitly limit the remedies sought when submitting the issue to the arbitrator. Otherwise, the parties may also suffer from buyer’s remorse when receiving an arbitration award.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.