In the case of Cleveland v. Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Assn., 2022-Ohio-4284, the appellate court upheld an arbitration award reinstating a police officer who was terminated for excessive force and dishonesty as the arbitration award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and was neither unlawful, arbitrary, nor capricious. The appellate court also refused to conclude that disputed testimony amounts to dishonesty as a matter of public policy.
In this case, the union argued that — through the negotiated arbitration provisions between the union and city — the arbitrator properly determined that the police officer should not have been terminated for either excessive force and/or dishonesty and that the arbitrator’s award drew its essence from the bargaining agreement. In response, the city argued that, not only did the arbitrator’s award not draw its essence from the bargaining agreement, but the award is also unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious as it violates public policy. The appellate court agreed with the union.
In support of its decision, the appellate court explained that, “[w]hen parties agree to submit their dispute to binding arbitration, they agree to accept the result, regardless of its legal or factual accuracy” provided the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and is not unlawful, arbitrary, and/or capricious. 2022-Ohio-4284 at ¶ 20.
In support of its decision that this arbitrator’s award was not against public policy, the appellate court explained that an arbitration award does not violate public policy simply because there is testimony in dispute as “disputed testimony is a matter for the factfinder [i.e., the arbitrator] to determine and goes to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witness.” 2022-Ohio-4284 at ¶ 25.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
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.