Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Toledo Fedn. of Teachers, AFT Local 250
2016 Ohio 7807
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Toledo Federation of Teachers (Union) and Toledo City School District Board (Board) had a 2013–2016 collective bargaining agreement and an agreed grievance/arbitration procedure.
- Special-education staffing issues were negotiated separately by subcommittee negotiators Beth Harrison (Union) and Karla Spangler (Board-appointed). Harrison believed she had authority (except salaries); Spangler admitted she lacked authority to sign contract language.
- Harrison and Spangler agreed to increased IEP preparation release time and $100 pay for initial IEPs; the Board’s lead negotiators never saw or approved these proposals and the Board never voted to adopt them.
- The Board implemented many other special-education changes but not the IEP pay/release provisions; the Union filed grievances, which proceeded to arbitration.
- The arbitrator found Spangler had apparent authority (through the superintendent) to bind the Board and ordered implementation of the IEP provisions; the Board sought vacation of the award in common pleas court under R.C. 2711.10, and the trial court vacated the award; the Union appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator could treat subcommittee agreement as part of the CBA | Arbitrator properly found Spangler had apparent authority; award interprets/modifies agreement | Only the Board (collective body) can bind the school district; subcommittee lacked authority and Board never approved proposal | Court: Arbitrator exceeded authority; subcommittee IEP terms not part of CBA |
| Whether Board waived right to challenge arbitrability by submitting to arbitration | Board waived scope objections by going to arbitration; should have raised scope earlier | Submission to arbitration didn’t waive defense that arbitrator exceeded authority by adding contractual terms the Board never authorized | Court: No waiver; Board preserved right because arbitrator exceeded authority |
| Whether award was vacated “contrary to law” despite R.C. 4117.10 preemption | R.C. 4117.10 preempts most laws, so award cannot be vacated as contrary to law under school-board statutes | School-board statutory authority (R.C. 3313.33; 121.22) limits who can bind a board; question of proper authorization is for court | Court: Public-school statutory limits are distinct from 4117.10 preemption; trial court properly decided award violated school-board statutory requirements |
| Standard for vacating arbitration award that adds/modifies CBA | Arbitrator’s interpretation should stand if it draws essence from CBA | Award may be vacated where arbitrator added/modifies agreement beyond authority | Court: Applied de novo review and held award went beyond what arbitrator could lawfully do |
Key Cases Cited
- Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Oszust, 23 Ohio St.3d 39 (finality of arbitration awards)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Local Union No. 220, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Am., 42 Ohio St.2d 516 (grounds for vacating arbitration award)
- Bd. of Edn. of Findlay City School Dist. v. Findlay Edn. Assn., 49 Ohio St.3d 129 (award must draw its essence from the CBA)
- Cedar Fair, L.P. v. Falfas, 140 Ohio St.3d 447 (arbitrator limited to interpreting/applying the CBA)
- Wolf v. Cuyahoga Falls City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 52 Ohio St.3d 222 (school boards have only statutory authority to bind contracts)
- City of Fostoria v. Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn., 106 Ohio St.3d 194 (waiver of arbitrability/scope issues when party fails to object)