In the case of Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div. v. Laborers’ Internatl. Union of N. Am., Local Union No. 860, 2022-Ohio-2866, the appellate court held that an arbitrator’s award should be modified because the arbitrator exceeded his authority under R.C. 2711.11(B) when he awarded on an issue that was not submitted to him and the award conflicted with the express terms of the collective bargaining agreement where a union employee was placed on administrative leave and filed a grievance regarding the just cause for his suspension.
Here, the union argued that the just cause issue brought before the arbitrator included the issue of improperly calculated pay during the employee’s administrative leave. The juvenile court argued that the improperly calculated pay was never brought before the arbitrator and thus the overtime award granted by the arbitrator was improper under R.C. 2711.11(B) and the trial court’s modification of the award was supported by law. The appellate court agreed with the juvenile court.
In support of its decision, the Appellate Court explained that a reviewing court may vacate or modify an award only when the arbitrator has overstepped the bounds of his authority, Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Div., ¶ 21, citing Queen City Lodge No. 69, FOP, Hamilton Cty., Ohio, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.3d 403, 406-407 (1992). An arbitrator “is confined to the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement.” Id. at ¶ 23, quoting Detroit Coil Co. v. Internatl. Assn. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 594 F.2d 575 (6th Cir.1979). The appellate court further explained that under R.C. 2711.11(B), an arbitrator may not award upon a matter not submitted to them, and in this case the matter of improperly calculated pay was not submitted to the arbitrator but was governed by the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitrator’s award conflicted with the express terms of the agreement, and thus the award could not be rationally derived from the terms of the agreement.
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.