In the case of Wright State Univ. v. Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors, Wright State Chapter, 2023-Ohio-1238, an appellate court held that the union’s request for arbitration was invalid because an arbitration request must adhere to the timing and arbitrator selection provisions in a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”).
In this case, the union argued that (1) the request for arbitration was within the 30-day timeframe because the university answered the amended “Step Two” grievance and (2) the CBA did not expressly prohibit the union from pursuing arbitration unilaterally. In response, the university argued that (1) the amended “Step Two” grievance was invalid as it did not state a new section of the CBA that was violated, thereby making the 30-day timeframe start after the initial “Step Two” answer was submitted and put the request for arbitration outside the 30-day timeframe and (2) the union failed to mutually select the arbitrator as laid out in the CBA. The appellate court agreed with the university.
In support of its decision in favor of the university, the appellate court explained that the time to request arbitration did not restart with the answer to the amended Step Two grievance because it was not a proper amendment under the CBA. The appellate court further explained that the union did not meet with the university to select an arbitrator in violation of the CBA, which meant that the arbitrator did not have the authority to hear the grievance.
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.