2017 Ohio 2804
Ohio2017Background
- David Hill, a Findlay police sergeant and OPBA member, faced disciplinary proceedings after multiple 2012 incidents; the chief recommended termination for a November incident under the department’s discipline matrix.
- The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the city and OPBA requires discipline only for "just cause," provides grievance arbitration, and reserves the employer’s right to make department rules; the matrix itself was not signed as an appendix to the CBA.
- Arbitrator Klein previously found just cause for a July incident but reduced a 30-day suspension to 10 days based on the matrix; Klein did not decide whether the union had agreed to the matrix.
- Arbitrator Mancini (for the November incident) found just cause for serious discipline but not for sexual-harassment discharge, applied the matrix as guidance, and ordered reinstatement with a lengthy suspension (no back pay).
- The common pleas court vacated Mancini’s award, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding the arbitrator exceeded authority by overriding the chief’s "sole discretion" under the matrix; the Ohio Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an arbitrator may modify discipline where the CBA requires discipline only for "just cause" | OPBA/Hill: Arbitrator may review and modify discipline unless a limitation is expressly bargained into the CBA; the matrix was unilaterally adopted and not incorporated | City: The matrix is part of the parties' practices and CBA rights; it limits arbitral modification and grants the chief sole discretion between suspension or termination | Held: Limitation must be specifically bargained into and incorporated in the CBA. Mancini had authority to review and modify discipline; award reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Assn. of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 476 (2003) (courts give limited authority to vacate arbitration awards)
- Fostoria v. Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn., 106 Ohio St.3d 194 (2005) (arbitrator derives authority from CBA)
- Cedar Fair, L.P. v. Falfas, 140 Ohio St.3d 447 (2014) (award must ‘draw its essence’ from the contract)
- Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Edn. Assn., 22 Ohio St.3d 80 (1986) (standard for when an award departs from contract essence)
- Miami Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 269 (1998) (arbitrator may review appropriateness of discipline absent contractual restriction)
- Queen City Lodge No. 69 v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.3d 403 (1992) (arbitrator has broad authority to fashion remedies)
- Southwest Ohio Reg’l Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 627, 91 Ohio St.3d 108 (2001) (employer cannot unilaterally adopt a sanction conflicting with CBA’s cause standard)