University System of New Hampshire Board of Trustees & A. v. Marco Dorfsman & A
168 N.H. 450
N.H.
2015

Background

  • Marco Dorfsman, an associate professor and department chair at UNH, altered student evaluations for a lecturer in December 2012 by lowering high ratings.
  • UNH terminated Dorfsman in May 2013, concluding his conduct constituted "moral turpitude" under the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
  • The Union grieved; the parties submitted the dispute to binding arbitration. The arbitrator found moral turpitude but, relying on mitigating factors, concluded termination lacked just cause and remanded for negotiation of an appropriate remedy (retaining jurisdiction over remedy if parties could not agree).
  • UNH filed in superior court seeking declaratory relief and vacatur of the arbitrator’s award, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the CBA.
  • The superior court granted UNH relief; respondents appealed arguing lack of jurisdiction, ripeness, and that the arbitrator acted within his authority. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (UNH) Defendant's Argument (Dorfsman/Union) Held
Whether superior court had jurisdiction to review the arbitrator's award Superior court has inherent equity jurisdiction to review arbitration awards even where RSA ch. 542 does not apply RSA ch. 542 is the exclusive statutory scheme for arbitration review and CBA did not incorporate it, so court lacks jurisdiction Superior court has jurisdiction under its general equity powers; RSA 542 does not abrogate common-law review
Whether the appeal was ripe given arbitrator retained jurisdiction over remedy Liability determination was final and bifurcated from remedy phase, so judicial review is proper Award was not final because the arbitrator remanded remedy; thus not ripe The arbitrator and parties implicitly bifurcated liability and remedy; liability decision was final and ripe for review
Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority by overturning termination after finding moral turpitude The CBA explicitly lists moral turpitude as just cause for termination; once found, arbitrator cannot impose a lesser remedy based on mitigation Arbitrator permissibly applied general principles of just cause and mitigation to fashion an appropriate remedy Arbitrator exceeded authority: CBA unambiguously treated moral turpitude as grounds for termination/suspension, barring substitution of arbitrator’s own remedial judgment
Proper scope of judicial review of arbitrator’s interpretation of the CBA Courts defer to arbitrator unless award fails to "draw its essence" from the CBA or conflicts with its express terms Arbitrator’s interpretation was a plausible application of just-cause principles Court deference is limited; here arbitrator’s ruling conflicted with express CBA terms and thus was not plausible

Key Cases Cited

  • In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512 (discussing de novo review of jurisdictional questions)
  • Southwestern Trans. Co. v. Durham, 102 N.H. 169 (collective bargaining agreement held subject to RSA chapter 542 when agreement so provides)
  • Appeal of Internat’l Assoc. of Firefighters, 123 N.H. 404 (arbitrator decision binding where agreement made no statutory-reference for administrative review)
  • Brampton Woolen Co. v. Local Union, 95 N.H. 255 (superior court review of arbitrability and arbitration matters)
  • Ford v. Burleigh, 60 N.H. 278 (historical review of arbitrators exceeding authority)
  • Case v. St. Mary’s Bank, 164 N.H. 649 (statutes not construed to abrogate common law without clear intent)
  • Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton, 133 N.H. 809 (superior court’s general equity jurisdiction)
  • Providence Journal v. Providence Newspaper Guild, 271 F.3d 16 (liability-phase arbitral awards treated as final when proceedings bifurcated)
  • Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (award must "draw its essence" from the CBA to be enforced)
  • Steelworkers v. Enterprise Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (courts refuse enforcement when arbitrator betrays obligation to base award on the CBA)
  • Poland Spring Corp. v. United Food, Local 1445, 314 F.3d 29 (arbitrator cannot override clear contract language or substitute his own remedy)
  • Appeal of Merrimack County, 156 N.H. 35 (limits of arbitrator’s role in interpreting "just cause" language in CBA)
  • Mistletoe Exp. Serv. v. Motor Expressmen’s U., 566 F.2d 692 (arbitrator may incorporate industry custom but cannot rewrite explicit contract terms)
Read the full case