City of Mt. Healthy v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc.
101 N.E.3d 1163
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mt. Healthy hired Antwan Sparks as a part‑time police officer on Feb 16, 2014; CBA provided a one‑year probationary period for new part‑time hires.
- Sparks was injured and spent substantial time on light duty; city officials (Chief Demasi and City Manager Kocher) decided Sparks’s probation could not be properly evaluated and sought to extend it.
- On Jan 13, 2015 the city informed the FOP representative and the rep agreed to extend Sparks’s probation; the city delivered a letter to Sparks that day but gave no end date.
- On May 14, 2015 the city sent a second letter stating probation was extended until Dec 4, 2015; Sparks (through the FOP) then filed a grievance and the matter went to arbitration.
- The arbitrator ruled the union and city could not extend probation without Sparks’s personal consent, found he had completed his one‑year probation, and ordered reinstatement; the trial court vacated that award and the FOP appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mt. Healthy) | Defendant's Argument (FOP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by ordering reinstatement based on lack of employee consent to probation extension | Extension was permitted by CBA procedures and union rep could agree on member’s behalf; arbitrator exceeded powers | Arbitrator correctly required employee consent to alter clear CBA terms | Court held arbitrator exceeded authority: award did not draw its essence from CBA; vacated arbitration award |
| Whether union rep could bind member (agency/consent issue) | Union, as exclusive representative, can agree to terms affecting members; rep’s agreement bound Sparks | FOP: union consent sufficient; individual consent unnecessary | Court held union’s exclusive‑representative authority allowed it to agree to extension; arbitrator’s contrary holding conflicted with CBA and law |
| Whether arbitrator improperly applied "continuing violation" to toll grievance deadline | City: grievance timing is governed by clear CBA deadlines; continuing‑violation doctrine cannot override plain filing limits | FOP: arbitrator properly found timely filing due to May letter continuing the violation | Majority opinion focused on extension issue; concurring judge agreed continuing‑violation did not fit CBA but found grievance timely because May letter was the actionable event |
| Whether arbitrator may carve individual exceptions to unambiguous CBA terms | City: arbitrator cannot modify or carve out one‑off exceptions to clear, mandatory CBA provisions | FOP: arbitration authority can recognize individual consent exceptions | Court: arbitrator exceeded authority by creating an exception requiring employee consent that conflicts with plain CBA language |
Key Cases Cited
- Cedar Fair, L.P. v. Falfas, 140 Ohio St.3d 447 (2014) (arbitrator’s award must draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement)
- Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Assn., Local 11, AFSCME, AFL‑CIO, 59 Ohio St.3d 177 (1991) (award conflicts with express terms or lacks rational support when it departs from the CBA)
- Damon’s Missouri, Inc. v. Davis, 63 Ohio St.3d 605 (1992) (agent acting within actual authority can bind principal)
- Allis‑Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 388 U.S. 175 (1967) (employees are bound by union decisions made through exclusive bargaining representative)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (courts may decide whether employee is barred by union representative’s actions)
- United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (collective bargaining agreement as a generalized code governing many cases)
- Schraff & King Co., L.P.A. v. Casey, 983 N.E.2d 882 (2012) (plain and unambiguous contract language must be applied as written)