2017 Ohio 72
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Deputy Angela Molea requested three days of paid bereavement leave to attend her husband’s grandfather’s funeral under Article 24 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which lists "grandparents" among covered relatives.
- For years the Sheriff’s Office had allowed bereavement leave for a spouse’s grandparent as a past practice; during 2014 negotiations the Sheriff proposed removing or changing funeral-leave language but withdrew that proposal and the CBA language remained unchanged.
- On the CBA’s effective date the Sheriff issued a memorandum declaring that past practices under prior agreements would be discontinued unless mutually agreed, then denied Molea’s bereavement request and told her to use sick leave.
- The Union grieved; arbitrator William C. Binning concluded the CBA term "grandparents" was ambiguous, relied on longstanding past practice to include a spouse’s grandparents, and sustained the grievance.
- The Sheriff sought vacatur in common pleas court; that court vacated the award, finding the arbitrator exceeded his authority by refusing to give "grandparents" its plain meaning.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the arbitrator’s reliance on past practice was a permissible contract construction that drew its essence from the CBA, so vacatur was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (Sheriff) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the arbitrator exceed his authority by relying on past practice to interpret "grandparents" in the CBA? | The arbitrator permissibly found the term ambiguous and used long-established past practice to define it to include a spouse’s grandparents. | The arbitrator exceeded authority; the word "grandparents" has its plain and ordinary meaning and cannot be expanded by past practice. | Held for Union: arbitrator acted within authority; award draws its essence from the CBA. |
| Was the trial court permitted to reweigh the arbitrator’s contract interpretation and vacate the award? | The trial court should confirm the award; courts’ review is narrowly limited and cannot substitute their interpretation for an arbitrator’s. | The trial court may vacate an award that conflicts with the express contract terms. | Held for Union: trial court exceeded its limited role; vacatur was improper. |
| Does reliance on past practice to interpret contract language conflict with Ohio arbitration review standards? | Past practice is a recognized method of contract interpretation in labor arbitration and is within arbitrator authority if reasonably related to the contract. | Past practice cannot override clear contract language. | Held: so long as there is a good-faith argument that the award is authorized by the contract, the award is within arbitrator power. |
| Remedy following reversal of vacatur | Confirm award and remand for enforcement. | Uphold vacatur. | Held: Judgment reversed and remanded to proceed consistent with appellate opinion (i.e., confirm/restore arbitration award). |
Key Cases Cited
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987) (courts may not overturn an arbitrator’s contract interpretation so long as it is arguably construing the contract)
- Cedar Fair, L.P. v. Falfas, 140 Ohio St.3d 447 (2014) (statutory vacatur under R.C. 2711.10(D) is narrowly limited; award must draw its essence from the contract)
- Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emps. Assn., Local 11, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, 59 Ohio St.3d 177 (1991) (award departs from the essence of a contract if it conflicts with express terms or lacks rational support)
- Assn. of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 476 (2003) (reviewing courts determine whether an award draws its essence from the agreement and may not substitute their judgment for the arbitrator’s)
- Board of Edn. of the Findlay City School Dist. v. Findlay Edn. Assn., 49 Ohio St.3d 129 (1990) (once award draws its essence from the contract, court inquiry ends)