Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 627 v. Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority
943 N.E.2d 1075
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Labor dispute between SORTA and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 627 over wheelchair-lift repair work.
- Union filed grievance alleging nonunion shop handling and seeking repair work be sent to the union shop.
- SORTA failed to respond within five days as required by Section 3(c).
- Section 3(i) provides that non-response to a grievance is a ruling in favor of the grievant or Union.
- Arbitrator concluded the union’s remedy was unavailable under the agreement and that SORTA could determine how to assign repair work.
- Trial court denied union’s motion to vacate and granted SORTA’s motion to confirm the award, which the union appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator’s award conflicts with the agreement’s terms | Hendon argues the award violates Section 3(i) by not granting the required ruling | SORTA contends the arbitrator had discretion to fashion a remedy | Yes; award conflicts with Section 3 and exceeds authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Local Union 200, 42 Ohio St.2d 516 ((1975)) (arb. authority and remedies under contract must draw essence from agreement)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 ((1960)) (arbitrator’s authority limited to contract terms)
- Internatl. Assn, of Firefighters, Local 67 v. Columbus, 95 Ohio St.3d 101 ((2002)) (arbitrator’s authority evaluated under essence test)
- Queen City Lodge No. 69, Fraternal Order of Police of Hamilton Cty., Ohio, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.3d 403 ((1992)) (essence review of arbitration awards under contract terms)
- Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Edn. Assn., 22 Ohio St.3d 80 ((1986)) (essence/nexus requirement for arbitration awards)