Case No. 99CA2668. | Ohio Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2000
Lead Opinion
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *623 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *624
The parties stipulated that the issues before the arbitrator were: (1) whether Staten timely filed his grievance, and (2) whether Portsmouth violated Article 17 of the 1994-1996 Collective Bargaining Agreement when it paid Staten his severance. The arbitrator determined that Staten timely filed his grievance, and Portsmouth neither contested that finding in the trial court nor raises it on appeal.
In their arguments before the arbitrator regarding whether Portsmouth violated Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement, the parties agreed that Staten accumulated 154.5 sick leave days prior to July 1, 1981. The Union demonstrated that Portsmouth calculated the number of sick leave hours Staten had accumulated by multiplying 154.5 by the number of hours in a typical fire fighter's shift, twenty-four. Portsmouth then paid Staten for only fifty percent of those hours, despite the fact that Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement entitles Staten to wages based on one hundred percent of his accumulated sick leave hours.
Portsmouth initially argued that it properly calculated Staten's sick leave pay. However, in its post-hearing brief to the arbitrator, Portsmouth contended that it incorrectly applied Article 17 in a manner that caused it to overpay Staten. Specifically, Portsmouth argued that it should have multiplied the number of sick days Staten accumulated by the number of hours in a typical person's workday, eight, to arrive at the number of sick leave hours that it should have paid Staten.
The arbitrator determined that Portsmouth violated Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement by dividing Staten's hours in half. The arbitrator further concluded that Staten should receive credit for twenty-four hours for each day of accumulated sick leave. Finally, the arbitrator concluded that Portsmouth should pay Staten for the remainder of his accumulated sick leave hours at the hourly rate of $19.3984, his hourly rate in the year immediately prior to his retirement.
Portsmouth filed an application requesting vacation, correction and modification of the arbitration award in the trial court. The Union filed a counterclaim seeking confirmation of the arbitration award. The trial court, after examining the award and the parties' pleadings, determined that the award was legal and proper, and approved and confirmed the award. *626
Portsmouth appeals, asserting the following assignments of error:
"I. The Trial Court erred in finding that the Award of the Arbitrator was in all respects legal and proper.
"II. The Trial Court erred in not finding that the Arbitrator made an evident material miscalculation of figures and evident material mistakes in the description of persons, things, or properties referred to in the Award.
"III. The Trial Court erred in not finding that the Arbitrator awarded upon a matter not submitted to him.
"IV. The trial court erred in not finding that the Arbitrator exceeded his powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite Award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
"V. The Trial Court erred in approving and confirming the Award of the Arbitrator.
A trial court's power to vacate a final, binding arbitration award is limited. As a matter of policy, the courts favor and encourage arbitration, and therefore will make every reasonable indulgence to avoid disturbing an arbitration award. Findlay City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.v. Findlay Edn. Assn. (1990),
R.C.
By agreeing to submit their dispute to binding arbitration, the parties "agree to accept the result regardless of its legal or factual accuracy."Cleveland v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 8 (1991),
Portsmouth asserts that accumulated sick days earned prior to July 1, 1981, should be counted as eight-hour days for purposes of determining compensable hours upon retirement. The arbitrator determined that, under Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement, a sick day refers to a typical fire fighter's work day, or twenty-four hours.
Portsmouth cites numerous former and current provisions from its collective bargaining agreements with the Union in support of its argument that the proper interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement entitles a retiree to only eight hours pay for each accumulated sick day. However, Portsmouth has not produced evidence that one could not reasonably construe Article 17 to provide for twenty-four hour sick days. In fact, at one time, Portsmouth's own City Auditor construed Article 17 to require payment based upon a twenty-four hour sick day.
Portsmouth also asserts that the proper calculation of Staten's pay rate for accumulated sick leave hours is $15.4235 per hour, not $19.3984 per hour as the arbitrator found. However, Portsmouth concedes that Article 17 of the collective *628 bargaining agreement does not provide the hourly rate to be used in computing the amount to pay for accumulated sick days upon retirement. The hourly rate suggested by Portsmouth appears in the collective bargaining agreement in Appendix A. The hourly rate awarded by the arbitrator appears in the collective bargaining agreement in Article 16, and is equal to Staten's rate of pay immediately prior to retirement. Portsmouth has failed to show that use of the $19.3984 rate is unreasonable.
As in Hillsboro, supra, the collective bargaining agreement provision in question in this case, Article 17, is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Therefore, regardless of whether we interpret the collective bargaining agreement as Portsmouth urges, "the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract, and not the interpretation of a reviewing court, governs the rights of the parties thereto."Hillsboro at syllabus. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err when it refused to disturb the arbitrator's interpretation of the definition of a day and the hourly rate of pay.
Based upon the plain language contained in the arbitration award, the arbitrator did not rely exclusively upon the three cases to determine the award. However, even if the arbitrator did erroneously rely upon the legal rationale contained in those decisions, and even if such reliance was improper, we would find no grounds for vacating or modifying the arbitration award. By agreeing to submit the dispute to binding arbitration, Portsmouth "agree[d] to accept the result regardless of its legal or factual accuracy." Cleveland v. Fraternal Order of Police, LodgeNo. 8, supra,
Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err by refusing to vacate or modify the award on the grounds that the arbitrator incorrectly applied legal precedent.
The stipulated issue that the parties presented to the arbitrator was whether "the City of Portsmouth violate[d] Article 17 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it paid [Staten] his severance." Portsmouth paid Staten for sick leave hours equal to the number of sick leave days he had accumulated, multiplied by twenty-four hours, and divided by two. Whether Portsmouth violated Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement through that action necessarily includes the question of whether Portsmouth properly divided Staten's accumulated sick leave hours by two. Additionally, as Portsmouth contends, the issue requires a determination regarding how many hours are contained in a sick day. However, contrary to Portsmouth's contention, the arbitrator specifically addressed the issue. The arbitrator considered Portsmouth's argument regarding eight hour days, and concluded that Portsmouth must calculate sick leave hours by multiplying the number of days by twenty-four.
Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err by declining to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitrator ruled upon a matter not before him or failed to rule upon a material issue.
As we noted above, the dispute in this case involves the interpretation of ambiguous terms contained in Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement. The interpretation advanced by the Union and adopted by the arbitrator does not conflict with the express terms of the agreement. Additionally, the interpretation was rationally derived from the terms of the agreement. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in determining that the arbitrator did not exceed or so imperfectly execute his authority that a mutual, final and definite award was not made.
R.C.
In an appeal on questions of law, if the final order, judgment, or decree is affirmed, * * * as part of the costs in the case there may be taxed a reasonable fee of not more than two hundred fifty dollars, to be fixed by the appellate court, for the counsel of the appellee.
An award of attorney fees pursuant to R.C.
In this case, because Portsmouth raised a unique argument regarding the interpretation of Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement, we are unable to conclude that Portsmouth brought this appeal without just cause. Therefore, the Union is not entitled to attorney fees.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and that Appellee recover of Appellant costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
Any stay previously granted by this Court is hereby terminated as of the date of this entry.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 for the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Dissenting Opinion
I respectfully dissent regarding the Union's request for attorney fees. An award of attorney fees pursuant to R.C.
I agree that Portsmouth raised a unique argument regarding the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, and the uniqueness prevents this appeal from being frivolous. However, the law is clear regarding the limited nature of this court's standard of review upon an approval of a final and binding arbitration. Portsmouth failed to take this court's standard of review into account when it argued for a different interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. Given our limited standard of review, Portsmouth failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for reversal of the trial court's decision. Therefore, I believe that the Union is entitled to attorney fees pursuant to R.C.