In the case of Wright State Univ. v. Fraternal Order of Police, 2017-Ohio-854, an Ohio appellate court found that an arbitrator did not exceed his authority under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) when the arbitrator reduced the discipline imposed by the university on a campus police officer.
The case involved a campus police officer who provided incorrect information – i.e., lied – to his supervisor regarding his co-worker’s late arrival for work. When confronted, the police officer readily admitted that he provided incorrect information. The university terminated the officer’s employment. The officer challenged the termination. And the arbitrator determined that the university had just cause to discipline the officer for making an untrue statement but that it lacked just cause to terminate his employment.
The university sought to vacate the arbitrator’s award, asserting that once the arbitrator determined there was just cause to determine that the police officer committed an offense the arbitrator’s inquiry ended. The Ohio appellate court disagreed, concluding that the “arbitrator was entitled to review the level of discipline imposed in this case and to determine whether [the university] had just cause for the level it chose. Since the arbitrator had that power [* * *] his decision drew from the essence of the CBA.” Wright State at ¶ 23.
Of practical concern for school officials, the Ohio appellate court suggested possible language in a CBA that might actually prevent an arbitrator from reviewing the appropriateness of discipline imposed. Specifically, the CBA should “set forth a predetermined level of discipline [or include] a matrix to follow when determining what discipline is required.” Wright State at ¶ 18. Alternatively, the university “could have negotiated with the [union] for the inclusion in the CBA of a specific definition of just cause, a more limited review of its disciplinary actions, or for the absolute right to terminate an employee for any action involving dishonesty.” Wright State at ¶ 22.
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.