Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court rules firefighters arbitration pact is binding

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 10, 2013

The 8th District Court of Appeals has affirmed a Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas’ judgment in which it confirmed and enforced an arbitration award in favor of Richard Urich and the International Association of Firefighters.

The city of North Royalton appealed the decision of the trial court.

North Royalton and the Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement, according to court documents.

Under that agreement, the city and the union were required to settle disputes through a grievance-arbitration procedure.

The city’s appeal stemmed from an incident that took place on April 17, 2010.

Urich and two other firefighters were dispatched to assist a resident suffering from an apparent seizure.

At the time, Urich had been a firefighter-paramedic with North Royalton for seven years.

They were informed upon arriving at the scene that the patient had a history of heroin abuse. They found the patient unconscious on the bathroom floor after forcibly removing the door.

Urich injected Narcan into the IV line he established to counteract the effects of a possible heroin overdose and within minutes, the patient regained consciousness and was transported to Community General Hospital.

According to Urich, before leaving the bathroom he flushed the toilet, which contained paper and debris, to “protect the safety of the patient’s child,” and he placed the syringe and a rubber-band-wrapped package used by the patient into the empty Narcan box and then into the sharps container in the rescue squad vehicle.

At the hospital, Urich was approached by North Royalton Police and asked if there were any drugs on the scene.

Urich informed them that everything had been flushed down the toilet and he subsequently had a conversation with coworkers concerning the patient’s syringe and package still in the police car.

Shortly following the incident, Urich called the police and indicated that his co-workers had found the patient’s syringe and package in the rescue vehicle and that it “apparently must have fallen out of the patient’s pocket.”

After Urich’s version of the events conflicted with reports from his coworkers, Fire Chief Michael Fabish conducted an internal investigation of Urich’s conduct during the emergency call.

The investigation led to Urich’s arrest and three felony charges: tampering with evidence, obstructing justice and drug possession.

He was suspended without pay and pleaded guilty to one count of attempted obstructing justice, a first-degree misdemeanor.

On May 31, 2011, the city’s safety director issued a decision to terminate Urich’s employment and the union provided the city with a notice to submit the matter to arbitration under the CBA.

Arbitration resulted in favor of Urich as did the city’s subsequent complaint filed in common pleas court, which ordered that Urich be reinstated to his former position with his seniority restored.

Upon appeal, the city argued the trial court erred to the prejudice of North Royalton by failing to vacate the arbitrator’s award, which they claimed was in violation of public policy.

Judge Mary Boyle wrote the decision on behalf of the district’s appellate panel and in it she said arbitration is a creature of contract.

“Contracting parties who agree to submit disputes to an arbitrator for final decision have chosen to bypass the normal litigation process,” she said.

Once the parties decide they cannot rely on the arbitrator’s decision and submit the issue to the courts, they lose the benefit of their bargain.

“Under those circumstances, the intent of arbitration would merely become a ‘system of junior varsity trial courts offering the losing party complete and vigorous de novo review,’” Boyle stated.

R.C. 2711.10 sets forth narrow grounds upon which a trial court should vacate an arbitration award, all of which relate to the conduct of the arbitrator, according to Boyle.

Fraud, corruption, misconduct or exceeded powers on the part of the arbitrator are the only reasons an award may be vacated.

The appellate panel held that a reviewing court must uphold an arbitration award “that draws its essence from the CBA and it is not unlawful, arbitrary or capricious.”

The city contended the arbitrator did not make a final award “upon all the issues submitted to him” but the appellate court explained that he was only required to address whether there was just cause to terminate Urich.

“The arbitrator properly performed his duties by answering the stipulated question that was presented to him,” wrote Boyle. “The arbitrator found that serious discipline was warranted but that the city’s terminating Urich’s employment was excessive under the facts and circumstances of this case.”

The panel found no merit to the city’s claim that the arbitrator should have addressed the other issues presented to him and also overruled the city’s second argument, which stated the arbitrator erred when he relied on the paramedic protocol as a basis to determine that Urich did not improperly handle or possess the heroin.

The city claimed the arbitrator exceeded his authority by considering the protocol and by ignoring expert testimony.

“Although couched as a challenge of the arbitrator exceeding his authority, the city is actually attacking the arbitrator’s execution of his authority,” Boyle replied. “The city’s argument is rooted in its belief that the arbitrator reached the wrong decision.”

The court concluded the city’s approach was not a viable means of seeking to vacate an arbitration decision.

Citing an earlier 8th District appeal, Boyle wrote, “When the city and union agreed to binding arbitration of disputes, they agreed to accept the results, even if it is legally or factually wrong.”

The court further held that no arbitration would be binding if the parties could challenge an arbitration decision based on their belief that the findings were erroneous.

Ultimately, the court of appeals overruled all of the city’s assignments of error but it proceeded to sustain a cross-assignment from Urich. It resulted in a modification of the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Urich would be entitled to back pay until his reinstatement.

Judges Frank Celebrezze and Sean Gallagher concurred.

The case is cited N. Royalton v. Urich, 2013-Ohio-2206.

[Back]