Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs. v. Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, Inc.
2017 Ohio 1382
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- DPS terminated Ohio Investigative Unit officer Timothy Gales in March 2013 for allegedly selling auction-purchased vehicles to the public without proper dealer/salvage licensing and for conduct bringing discredit to DPS.
- Gales, protected by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), filed a grievance and the parties submitted the dispute to arbitration.
- The arbitrator held a two-day hearing (Sept. 2014) and in November 2014 modified termination to a one-month unpaid suspension, finding the conduct warranted discipline but not termination.
- The State filed a motion in common pleas court to vacate the arbitration award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his authority and disregarded Ohio law and the CBA; FOP sought confirmation and enforcement of the award.
- The trial court denied the State’s motion to vacate (also finding procedural defects) and granted FOP’s motion to confirm, awarding back pay and interest from the date of the arbitration award; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State complied with R.C. Chapter 2711/local rules when seeking to vacate | The State contended its filings (including a miscaptioned “motion for summary judgment”) sufficed as the required brief/motion under R.C. 2711 and local rule timing | FOP argued the State failed to file a timely supporting brief and violated local rules, so its filings were procedurally improper | Court concluded even if procedural rulings were debatable, the award stands on the merits; procedural defects alone were not controlling here |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority under R.C. 2711.10 by misreading Ohio statutes and the CBA | The State argued the arbitrator created statutory exceptions (e.g., for family sales/profit requirement) not found in R.C., thus conflicting with the CBA’s requirement that awards conform to Ohio law | FOP argued the arbitrator made fact and contract-based determinations within his authority, applying statutes to the transfers and imposing discipline short of termination | Court held the arbitrator did not exceed authority; award drew its essence from the CBA and was supported by a rational nexus to the contract and factual findings |
| Whether the arbitration award violated public policy (requiring greater discipline for police officers) | The State asserted an explicit public policy (higher standard for police) made reversal/termination required and the award unenforceable | FOP noted the arbitrator imposed discipline (suspension) and no controlling authority mandated termination for the conduct at issue | Court found no explicit, dominant public policy violated; public-policy exception to enforcement did not apply |
| Whether prejudgment interest could be awarded from date of arbitration award | The State argued prejudgment interest cannot be assessed against the State and that interest characterization was incorrect | FOP and the trial court treated interest as postjudgment interest running from the arbitration award date | Court held interest awarded from the arbitration award date constituted postjudgment interest (per precedent) and was permissible; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Gunckle, 96 Ohio St.3d 359 (arbitration challenges limited to R.C. Chapter 2711)
- Queen City Lodge No. 69, Fraternal Order of Police v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.3d 403 (arbitrator must draw essence from the CBA)
- Mahoning County Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Mahoning County TMR Edn. Assn., 22 Ohio St.3d 80 (award must have rational nexus to agreement)
- Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 91 Ohio St.3d 108 (public-policy exception to enforcing arbitration awards is narrow)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (vacating awards on public-policy grounds is a limited exception)