City of Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Assoc.
477 Mass. 434
Mass.2017Background
- Officer David Williams was terminated (Jan. 18, 2012) after a 2009 arrest charging excessive force (application of a choke hold) and untruthfulness in the internal investigation; the city later settled the arrestee's civil suit for $1.4M.
- The union grieved; the parties arbitrated under a collective bargaining agreement that prohibits discipline without just cause.
- The arbitrator heard live testimony, found Williams had applied a choke hold but that it did not actually restrict breathing, concluded Williams used reasonable force and was truthful, and ordered reinstatement with back pay.
- The city sought vacatur in Superior Court arguing the arbitrator exceeded authority by intruding on the police commissioner's nondelegable powers and that reinstatement violated public policy against excessive force; the Superior Court confirmed the award.
- The Supreme Judicial Court granted direct review and affirmed, holding the award did not exceed arbitration authority and did not violate the narrow public-policy exception because the arbitrator found no underlying misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Union) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by intruding on police commissioner's nondelegable disciplinary powers | Commissioner has exclusive managerial control over discipline; arbitrator usurped nondelegable functions | CBA's arbitration clause and G.L. c.150E let parties submit discipline disputes; arbitrator interpreted the CBA, not commissioner rules | Arbitrator did not exceed authority; CBA terms govern and may displace commissioner discretion in bargaining topics |
| Whether award violates public policy (reinstating an officer who used a choke hold) | Reinstatement contravenes dominant public policy condemning excessive force and choke holds; such conduct requires dismissal | Public-policy exception unavailable because arbitrator found force reasonable and no untruthfulness; court is bound by that finding | Public-policy exception fails: first two prongs met, but third prong requires that reinstatement itself violate policy; because arbitrator found no misconduct, award stands |
| Whether de novo judicial review is permitted where arbitrator found no misconduct | City urges court to review facts and law anew because choke holds are unpredictably lethal and should be categorically prohibited | Union stresses limited judicial review of arbitration awards and that courts must defer to arbitrator's findings | Court declines de novo review; narrow statutory grounds for vacatur control and are not met here |
| Whether the department's delay in investigation affects enforceability of award | City argues severity of conduct makes delay irrelevant | Union notes delay can be considered by arbitrator and does not create a judicial basis to vacate | Court notes department's delay was problematic but not a basis to vacate the award under arbitration-review standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Plymouth-Carver Regional Sch. Dist. v. J. Farmer & Co., 407 Mass. 1006 (1990) (describing narrow judicial review of arbitration)
- Lynn v. Thompson, 435 Mass. 54 (2001) (courts strictly bound by arbitrator's findings in CBA arbitrations)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (broad arbitration clauses give arbitrators authority to decide disputes)
- Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, 443 Mass. 813 (2005) (articulating stringent three-part public-policy test for vacating awards)
- Massachusetts Highway Dep't v. American Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Employees, Council 93, 420 Mass. 13 (1995) (public-policy exception and deference to arbitration)
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960) (an arbitrator's award must draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement)