St. Marys v. Internal. Assn. of Firefighters Local 3633
2014 Ohio 2575
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Chris Wilson (Grievant) was a City of St. Marys firefighter with a long-standing history of asthma; he passed pre-employment physicals but had intermittent exertional breathing problems during his employment.
- In spring 2012 Grievant failed or could not complete department training exercises; City placed him on sick/administrative leave and requested a fitness-for-duty questionnaire be answered by his treating physician.
- City-obtained physician (Dr. Randolph) concluded Grievant could not safely perform essential duties; Grievant requested the contractually provided third, mutually agreed physician (Dr. Vogelstein) whose report followed.
- Dr. Vogelstein found Grievant has a permanent, recurring, unpredictable disability that can prevent him from performing firefighting duties during episodes, that no reasonable accommodation would permit safe performance during those episodes, and that his condition posed a safety risk in emergency, high-exertion situations.
- City disability-separated Grievant under Section 27.8 of the CBA; Union grieved and an arbitrator granted the grievance, concluding the third-physician report did not clearly and unequivocally show inability to perform and therefore separation violated Section 27.8.
- Trial court vacated the arbitrator’s award under R.C. 2711.10(D), holding the arbitrator’s decision departed from the essence of the CBA because the arbitrator failed to give controlling effect to the third physician’s binding report.
Issues
| Issue | City’s Argument | Union’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award must be vacated because the arbitrator exceeded his powers by disregarding the CBA’s requirement that the third physician’s opinion is binding | The arbitrator ignored or discounted Dr. Vogelstein’s binding, specific findings that Grievant is permanently and intermittently unable to perform and that no accommodation would permit safe performance; that departs from the express terms of Section 27.8 | The arbitrator reasonably interpreted Dr. Vogelstein’s report as not unequivocally proving inability to perform; arbitration awards are presumptively valid and should be upheld if they draw their essence from the CBA | Vacated: court held the arbitrator’s conclusions conflicted with the CBA’s express binding effect for the third physician’s report and thus departed from the essence of the agreement |
| Whether the arbitrator’s award drew its essence from the CBA (standard of review) | N/A (City’s position rests on failure to meet the essence test) | Arbitration award should be upheld absent evident impropriety; arbitrator’s factual/credibility determinations should not be reweighed by the court | Court applied the essence test and concluded the award did not draw its essence from the CBA because it failed to give binding effect to the third-physician report |
| Whether reinstating an allegedly unfit firefighter would violate public policy (City cross-assignment) | Reinstatement would endanger public and firefighter safety and thus implicate public policy | N/A before appellate court because trial court decision mooted cross-assignment | Moot; court did not address because it affirmed vacatur (cross-assignment not reached) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Educ. Ass’n, 22 Ohio St.3d 80 (Ohio 1986) (Ohio law favors arbitration; awards presumed valid and review is limited)
- Findlay City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Findlay Edn. Assn., 49 Ohio St.3d 129 (Ohio 1990) (an arbitrator does not exceed powers if award draws its essence from the CBA)
- Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civil Serv. Emps. Assn., Local 11, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, 59 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1991) (essence test requires no conflict with express terms and rational support from the agreement)
- Miami Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 269 (Ohio 1998) (arbitrator generally must base award on language and requirements of the agreement)