2020 Ohio 6655
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- ATU filed an application to compel arbitration in 2011 after the 2009 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with TARTA expired and the parties reached an impasse over a successor CBA. Litigation produced multiple appeals and remands before the decision below.
- The trial court ordered binding interest arbitration under a Section 13(c) (UMTA) “protective arrangements” agreement between ATU and TARTA; the court relied on a general Ohio policy favoring arbitration.
- TARTA appealed, arguing (1) the parties never agreed to submit a successor CBA impasse to binding interest arbitration and (2) Ohio law (R.C. 4117.14) favors fact-finding/procedural mechanisms for public-employee impasses unless there is a clear, mutually agreed dispute-settlement procedure (a MAD).
- Central legal questions: whether the Section 13(c) Agreements (1975 Operations and Capital Projects Funding Agreements) constitute an independent, enforceable agreement to submit a 2011 successor-CBA impasse to federal interest arbitration; and how R.C. 2711 (Ohio Arbitration Act) and R.C. 4117.14 (public-employee impasse procedures) interact.
- The court held that while Ohio has a strong policy favoring arbitration generally, interest arbitration (imposing terms of a new agreement) requires an explicit agreement or statutory mandate; the Section 13(c) Agreements did not show such consent and Congress intended Section 13(c) to preserve state-law governance of transit labor relations. The trial court judgment ordering interest arbitration was reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Section 13(c) Agreements require submission of the 2011 impasse to binding federal interest arbitration | ATU: Section 13(c) Agreements are valid, enforceable arbitration agreements under R.C. 2711 and require interest arbitration | TARTA: Section 13(c) agreements do not create an independent federal arbitration obligation; R.C. 4117.14 governs public-employer impasses and no MAD consenting to interest arbitration exists | Court: No — the Section 13(c) Agreements do not show explicit consent to federal interest arbitration for the 2011 impasse; arbitrability not established |
| Whether Ohio courts’ general preference for arbitration mandates binding interest arbitration over statutorily provided procedures (fact-finding) for public-sector impasses | ATU: Ohio public policy favors arbitration; courts should compel arbitration | TARTA: R.C. 4117.14 governs public-employer/exclusive-representative impasses and contemplates fact-finding and other procedures; arbitration preference does not compel interest arbitration absent agreement | Court: Split — Ohio favors arbitration generally, but that policy does not override R.C. 4117.14 or substitute for an express agreement to interest arbitration; explicit consent is required |
| Whether the trial court’s judgment is contrary to law of the case/manifest weight | ATU: Prior appellate rulings preclude relitigation and support compelled arbitration | TARTA: Trial court misapplied law and evidence; prior rulings did not decide arbitrability on the merits | Court: Moot after determinations on arbitrability and statutory framework; trial court judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P., 958 N.E.2d 1203 (Ohio 2011) (Ohio Arbitration Act embodies a strong public policy favoring arbitration but requires actual agreement to arbitrate scope issues)
- Jackson Transit Auth. v. Local Div. 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, 457 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1982) (Section 13(c) was intended to preserve state-law control of transit labor relations, not to create a federal body of labor law)
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 884 N.E.2d 12 (Ohio 2008) (contract interpretation, including arbitrability, is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Academy of Medicine of Cincinnati v. Aetna Health, Inc., 842 N.E.2d 488 (Ohio 2006) (presumption of arbitrability and tests for arbitrability; adoption of the Fazio test)
- Fazio v. Lehman Bros., 340 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003) (Fazio test: if an action can be maintained without reference to the contract, it is likely outside arbitration scope)
- Internatl. Assn. of Firefighters, Local 67 v. Columbus, 766 N.E.2d 139 (Ohio 2002) (distinguishing grievance arbitration from interest arbitration; arbitrator’s authority differs)
- Toledo Police Command Officers’ Assn. v. Toledo, 20 N.E.3d 308 (Ohio 2014) (discussing interplay of Ohio Arbitration Act and public-employee labor statutes)