2020 Ohio 356
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In October 2015 the City of Columbus emailed Local 67 a list of 17 Division of Fire special-assignment positions it intended to civilianize; the union filed a grievance the next day under Section 7.2 of the parties' CBA.
- The grievance was arbitrated; the arbitrator found largely uncontested facts and ruled for the union, concluding the CBA forbids civilianization of Division of Fire bargaining-unit positions and requires union consent before civilianizing additional positions.
- The arbitrator relied on CBA language, the parties’ prior conduct (including earlier occasions when the City sought the union’s approval to civilianize positions), and the historical role of uniformed firefighters in the listed jobs.
- The City petitioned the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to vacate the award under R.C. 2711.10(D), arguing the arbitrator exceeded his authority and misread the CBA; the trial court confirmed the award, finding a rational nexus between the award and the CBA.
- The City appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals; the appellate court reviewed questions of law de novo and upheld the trial court, holding the arbitrator’s award drew its essence from the CBA and was not arbitrary or unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority under R.C. 2711.10(D) by ordering no further civilianization without union consent | The arbitrator’s order conflicts with the express terms of the CBA and is not supported by the contract | The award is a rational derivation from Section 7.2’s prohibition on civilianization and past practice | The award draws its essence from the CBA; arbitrator did not exceed authority; consent requirement is a rational derivation |
| Whether Section 7.2 can be read broadly to cover positions that support, not only perform, fire/EMS duties | The arbitrator improperly read Section 7.2 beyond its enumerated phrases (fire prevention, EMS, fire suppression) | The arbitrator reasonably read Section 7.2 as a broad prohibition on civilianizing Division positions, consistent with the CBA as a whole | Court declined to resolve the full scope beyond protected positions on appeal but held the arbitrator’s broader reading was not without rational support |
Key Cases Cited
- Findlay City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Findlay Edn. Assn., 49 Ohio St.3d 129 (1990) (supports judicial deference to arbitration in labor disputes)
- Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Educ. Assn., 22 Ohio St.3d 80 (1986) (sets forth "draws its essence" / rational-nexus standard for arbitration awards)
- Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civ. Serv. Employees Assn., Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 59 Ohio St.3d 177 (1991) (award departs from essence when it conflicts with express terms or lacks rational support)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (legal questions arising from arbitration reviewed de novo)
- Portage Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities v. Portage Cty. Educators' Assn. for Dev. Disabilities, 153 Ohio St.3d 219 (2018) (appellate court accepts non-erroneous factual findings and reviews legal issues de novo)