Grievant was a corrections officer at the State Correctional Facility-Forest. His duties included supervising a group of inmates in the facility's maintenance annex. The inmate crew was responsible for unloading deliveries to the prison. Grievant was dismissed after being accused of storing food that had been delivered for the cafeteria in the maintenance area instead. He claimed that this was done to facilitate providing lunch to the inmates on the crew. The propriety of the termination was submitted to Arbitrator Christopher Miles for resolution. Arbitrator Miles found just cause for discipline, but found termination too severe. He ordered grievant's reinstatement but concluded that "he should not be in a position which requires his supervision of inmates." The State sought to vacate the award, and the Commonwealth Court granted that request. Commonwealth v. State Corrections Officers Association. The Court concluded that by placing any restrictions the supervisory capacity of grievant, the Arbitrator's award "limited Grievant's capacity to carry out the 'principal duty' of a corrections officer." By doing so, the Court found, the award improperly modified the Department's managerial right to assign grievant to whatever role it determined best suited its need to manage the inmates. The court concluded:
By reinstating Grievant to a corrections officer position while placing a restriction on him that is irreconcilable with the statutory definition of correction officer, thereby infringing on the Department's managerial right to direct corrections officers at SCI-Forest, the Arbitrator's award failed to satisfy the essence test.
The Appellate Division of New York's Supreme Court rejected Monroe County's challenge to an arbitrator's award ordering the County "to provide qualified retirees and future retirees from the Monroe County Sheriff's Office with the same health insurance coverage (i.e., coverage for the dependent child of a retiree until the child reaches the age of 26 years) as they provided to active employees pursuant to the federal Affordable Care Act ... and the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the parties." Matter of Arbitration between Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs Assn..v. Monroe County The Court found no explicit exclusion of this type of dispute from arbitration, and concluded that the award was not "irrational."
NJ Appellate Court rejects lower court's public policy analysis
In South Jersey Transportation Authority v. IFPTE, Local 196 the NJ Appellate Division reversed a decision of the Chancery Division which had modified an arbitrator's award and ordered the termination of the grievant. The grievant had been employed as a parking lot attendant. After a patron complained about the lack of coverage at a parking garage the employer reviewed video surveillance footage of the location. Inadvertently reviewing the wrong date, the employer discovered that grievant had been engaged in an altercation with a visitor while he was working. The video suggested that grievant had left his booth to retrieve an item from the garage office. During grievant's absence the visitor took an envelope, presumably containing petty cash, from the booth. Grievant and the visitor engaged in a verbal and physical confrontation. After an investigation, grievant's employment was terminated. An arbitrator overturned the termination, but found a 45 day suspension warranted. On the Authority's appeal, the Chancery Court "more than disagree[d]" with the arbitrator's findings and found that grievant had been selling drugs, and as a matter of public policy, felt it was obligated to overturn the arbitrator's decision. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the lower court improperly went beyond the charges issued by the Authority (which had not alleged drug dealing), erred in rejecting the arbitrator's finding that the Authority had failed to prove its allegation of theft, and, finally, rejected the court's public policy analysis. On the public policy question, the Appellate Division noted:
...in light of the charges against [grievant] that were actually charged and were actually proven, we are unpersuaded that this case presents the "rare instance" in which an arbitrator's findings should be cast aside on public policy grounds. We certainly agree with the trial court with the general proposition that untoward behavior by an employee who works alone in the night shift at a public parking garage and who handles public funds ought to be punished and deterred.
On the other hand, the arbitrator's determination to impose a punishment short of termination — consistent with the progressive discipline policies agreed upon by the SJTA and the Union in the CNA — is not manifestly against public policy, again bearing in mind that drug dealing was not charged and theft was not proven.
For these reasons, the trial court's decision must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
On the other hand, the arbitrator's determination to impose a punishment short of termination — consistent with the progressive discipline policies agreed upon by the SJTA and the Union in the CNA — is not manifestly against public policy, again bearing in mind that drug dealing was not charged and theft was not proven.
For these reasons, the trial court's decision must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
CA District Court rejects union's request to vacate award
In Teamsters Local 856 v. Delta Dental of California the Court denied a request by the Union to vacate an award by Arbitrator Catherine Harris rejecting the Union's grievance. The dispute arose from the Union's claim that Delta Dental had violated the applicable cba when it introduced a new automation system to handle incoming mail, resulting in the reduction in the number of mail room employees. Arbitrator Harris concluded that the new system had a "material and substantial impact on the Company" within the meaning of the cba, thus privileging the Company's actions. The Union claimed that the Arbitrator's decision misread the relevant language of the cba and that the award represented instead the arbitrator's own brand of industrial justice. Rejecting this argument, the Court found that the Arbitrator did not ignore the language of the contract "but instead, offered several different reasons for concluding that the limitation was satisfied." While the Court did not find the Arbitrator's analysis persuasive, and suggested that she may have misread the contract, it found that the award was grounded in the contract's language. In light the deferential standard of review, and even acknowledging an error in the award concerning the bargaining history, the Court concluded it must uphold the award.
No comments:
Post a Comment