2018 Ohio 5366
Oh. Ct. App. 10th Dist. Frankl...2018Background
- Danielle Lazaro, a DODD therapeutic program worker, was videotaped on July 30, 2013 slapping or aggressively knocking food from a developmentally disabled client's hand; she was also alleged to have failed to report a co-worker's abuse.
- DODD terminated Lazaro for client abuse and failure to report; Lazaro grieved under the CBA between DODD and OCSEA and the matter proceeded to arbitration.
- The arbitrator initially found Lazaro's conduct met DODD's (and Ohio Admin. Code) definition of physical abuse but ordered reinstatement with a 30‑day suspension rather than termination.
- The arbitrator issued several subsequent opinions: first affirming abuse but reducing penalty; later iterations adopted the statutory criminal definition of "abuse" (R.C. 2903.33(B)) and concluded the conduct did not constitute abuse under that definition.
- OCB and DODD sought vacatur of the arbitration award in common pleas court; OCSEA sought confirmation. The trial court vacated the award, concluding the arbitrator exceeded her authority by modifying discipline after finding client abuse and refusing to consider later opinions under the functus officio doctrine. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority by modifying discipline after finding client abuse | OCB/DODD: CBA forbids arbitrator from modifying termination where arbitrator finds abuse; modification to 30‑day suspension conflicts with express CBA terms | OCSEA: Arbitrator had power to interpret issues submitted, determine abuse, and impose appropriate penalty (30‑day suspension) | Court: Arbitrator exceeded authority; original finding of abuse triggers CBA bar on modifying termination, so award conflicted with CBA and was vacated |
| Whether the trial court should have reviewed the arbitrator's later opinions (functus officio) | OCB/DODD: Arbitrator’s subsequent opinions were attempts to change a final award; doctrine of functus officio bars reconsideration; trial court properly confined review to the original award | OCSEA: Later opinions clarified or corrected earlier mistakes and should be considered | Court: Functus officio applies; arbitrator exhausted authority with the original, final award; subsequent substantive changes were impermissible and not mere corrections or clarifications |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Assn., Local 11, 59 Ohio St.3d 177, 572 N.E.2d 71 (1991) (arbitrator exceeds authority when award conflicts with express CBA terms; arbitrator may not modify termination for patient abuse)
- Portage Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities v. Portage Cty. Educators' Assn., 153 Ohio St.3d 219, 103 N.E.3d 804 (2018) (standard of review: accept non‑clearly erroneous facts, de novo review of legal questions)
- Miller v. Gunckle, 96 Ohio St.3d 359, 775 N.E.2d 475 (2002) (R.C. Chapter 2711 does not permit arbitrators to reconsider awards; second award on same submission is nullity)
- Cement Divs., Natl. Gypsum Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 793 F.2d 759 (6th Cir.) (arbitrator departs from essence of CBA when award conflicts with express terms or lacks rational support)
- Sterling China Co. v. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers Local No. 24, 357 F.3d 546 (6th Cir.) (doctrine of functus officio; exceptions limited to facial errors, unadjudicated submissions, or ambiguities clarifiable by arbitrator)