2011 Ohio 1559
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Yoder, a Stow firefighter, was suspended for three days for alleged harassment and unprofessional conduct toward a parks department employee and for alleged dishonesty and insubordination during investigation.
- Simultaneously, the city placed Yoder on involuntary paid leave pending a fitness-for-duty evaluation by Dr. Alfred Grzegorek; after the evaluation, leave continued as unpaid and he could not return until cleared.
- Local 1662 IAFF filed a grievance on Yoder’s behalf challenging the suspension, the fitness-for-duty order, and the leave; a second grievance about the discharge followed later in a companion case.
- An arbitrator reduced the three-day suspension to one day, found reasonable cause for the fitness-for-duty order, but voided the paid leave and ordered reinstatement with back pay; the city sought to vacate parts of the award.
- The trial court affirmed some parts but vacated others, including the fitness-for-duty evaluation and unpaid leave issues; the union appealed and the city cross-appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the arbitrator lacked authority to decide arbitrability and vacating the award; the case proceeded to the Supreme Court of Ohio for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the grievance arbitrable under the CBA? | Yoder claims the grievance falls within Article XII and the arbitration clause. | City contends arbitrability does not extend to fitness-for-duty decisions not expressly covered by the CBA. | Arbitrability reversed; arbitrator exceeded power; award vacated. |
| Did the arbitrator correctly decide the leave issue within the contract scope? | Union asserts leave disputes fall under management rights and were arbitrable. | City argues leave issues exceed the contract’s scope. | Arbitrator’s leave-related decisions vacated as not within proper scope. |
| Did the arbitrator exceed authority by addressing the fitness-for-duty evaluation and the leave following it? | Union contends the arbitrator acted within contract terms. | City asserts the arbitrator exceeded powers by ruling on non-arbitrable matters. | Arbitrator exceeded powers; award vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1988) (court review limited; arbitrator’s merits rarely set aside)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitrability question for judicial determination)
- Belmont Cty. Sheriff v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 568 (2004) (standard for reviewing whether arbitrator exceeded powers)
- Piqua v. Fraternal Order of Police, 185 Ohio App.3d 496 (2009) (arbitrator's award draw its essence from the agreement; rational nexus test)
- Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civil Serv. Emps. Assn, Local 11, 59 Ohio St.3d 177 (1991) (guides standard for what constitutes drawing essence from contract)
- Summit Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps., 39 Ohio App.3d 175 (1988) (limits on judicial review of arbitrator decisions)