Wright v. City of Gary
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 103
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Arbitration awarded to Wright and AFSCME Local 4009; City sought to vacate, union sought enforcement, and both sides moved for summary judgment.
- Arbitrator found GFCSC administrative assistant position covered by the CBA and subject to bumping; Oliver’s hire date for bumping purposes was not timely challenged, so Wright could bump into the GFCSC position.
- City Ordinance 5882 permits GFCSC to appoint its own secretary, potentially conflicting with the CBA’s bumping provisions.
- Trial court vacated the award, concluding the GFCSC was a non-party and that the arbitrator exceeded his powers, and also found issues with the Oliver hire date.
- Indiana appellate standard: arbitration awards are narrowly reviewable; a court vacates only under specific grounds such as excess of powers or lack of arbitration agreement; alignment with the CBA is essential.
- Appellate court reverses and remands, holding the arbitrator did not exceed powers and that the GFCSC was properly included in the CBA; Ordinance 5882 does not void the CBA and enforcement is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded powers by remedying against GFCSC. | Wright; GFCSC included in Schedule A and within CBA; remedy against GFCSC authorized by agreement. | City contends GFCSC is a separate entity and not bound by the CBA; cannot be compelled by arbitration. | Arbitrator did not exceed powers; GFCSC covered by the CBA and remedy proper to enforce bumping. |
| Whether GFCSC’s Administrative Assistant position is covered by the CBA despite Ordinance 5882; and public policy effects. | CBA inclusion controls; Ordinance 5882 does not void the CBA; enforcement does not contravene public policy. | Ordinance 5882 should control; enforcement of CBA would contravene public policy by undermining the GFCSC’s independence. | GFCSC admin assistant is covered by the CBA; Ordinance 5882 does not void the CBA; enforcement not against public policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fiduciary Inv. Advisors v. Patton, 900 N.E.2d 53 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (arbitrator findings of fact and contract interpretation controls; misapplication may exceed powers)
- United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court, 1988) (arbitrator's interpretations of contract generally binding; de novo review not allowed)
- Citizens Gas & Coke Util. v. Local Union No. 1400, IBEW, 874 N.E.2d 391 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (awards must draw essence from the CBA; excess only if outside contract)
- Eljer Mfg., Inc. v. Kowin Development Corp., 14 F.3d 1250 (7th Cir.1994) (limits arbitration to contract disputes; third-party damages outside scope)
- Roadmaster Corp. v. Prod. & Maint. Employees' Local 504, 851 F.2d 886 (7th Cir.1988) (arbitrator cannot invoke public laws that conflict with bargain; bind to contract terms)
- Continental Basketball Ass'n v. Ellenstein Enterprises, 669 N.E.2d 134 (Ind.1996) (public policy balancing when contract contravenes statute/ordinance; not automatic void)