Madison County Board of Commissioners and Madison County Highway Department v. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Local 3609
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 709
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Two Madison County Highway Department employees, who were Union members, loafed on three consecutive days and took an excessively long lunch on the third day;
- The Department had a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Union mandating progressive discipline for minor infractions and discharging for a major infraction;
- The County initially disciplined as minor infractions but then discharged the employees, arguing major infractions or misconduct;
- Arbitration under the CBA found no major infractions and reduced the discharge to a five-day unpaid layoff due to due process concerns and the need to preserve the CBA’s discipline scheme;
- The County sought to correct or vacate the arbitrator’s award; the Union counterclaimed and the trial court granted summary judgment in the Union’s favor;
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the County circumvented progressive discipline and the arbitrator’s award drew essence from the CBA, thus upholding the Union’s position
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the arbitrator exceed powers by relying on due process and reducing punishment? | County argues the award improperly undermines the CBA’s discharge rule. | Union contends due process concerns were within the CBA’s essence and the award was proper. | No; the arbitrator acted within the CBA’s framework and the award was permissible. |
| Did the award draw its essence from the CBA or alter the CBA itself? | County claims the award effectively modified the CBA by bypassing the three-day deadline. | Union asserts the award reflects the CBA’s progressive discipline and does not modify the CBA. | Award draws its essence from the CBA; no modification of the CBA occurred. |
| Was the County’s delay in disciplining grounds to uphold due process concerns? | County asserts the delay violated the three-day reporting requirement. | Union relies on due process concerns arising from delayed discipline. | Yes, due process concerns justified deeming the punishment appropriate under the facts. |
| Should the court vacate or correct the award under the Act? | Award improperly discharges the employees for major infractions. | Award was within authority and should be enforced. | No grounds to correct or vacate; affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch. v. Fort Wayne Educ. Ass’n, 490 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (award draws its essence from the CBA; standard for enforcement)
- Citizens Gas & Coke Util. v. Local Union No. 1400, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 874 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (vacatur only for lack of essence or excess of authority)
- Anderson v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 965 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1992) (purpose of progressive discipline is notice and opportunity to correct)
- Wright v. City of Gary, 963 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (summary-judgment standard for arbitral review; narrow review of awards)