Express Time Limit Renders Arbitrator Without Jurisdiction The Twelfth District Court of Appeal recently held that an Arbitrator's assumption of jurisdiction was "unlawful" as the grievance filed was outside of the express time limit provided by the parties' collective bargaining agreement. City of Fairfield v. Am. Fedn. Of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Ohio Council 8, 2008 Ohio 3891 (12th Dist. App. Aug. 4, 2008), unreported. More importantly, the Court did not accept the Arbitrator's reasoning that he exercised proper jurisdiction because the alleged actions by the employer constituted a "continuing violation."
The City notified the Union of its decision to not fill two positions previously occupied by retiring bargaining unit members. The duties of the positions were absorbed by current part-time employees. Approximately two weeks later the Union filed a grievance giving rise to arbitration. The collective bargaining agreement in place required grievances to be filed within three working days of an alleged violation. The Arbitrator assumed jurisdiction stating that every passing day the City did not fill the positions constituted a continuing violation of the contract; thus, he considered the grievance timely.
Under Ohio Law, an arbitration decision may be vacated if an arbitrator exceeds his/her powers under the parties' agreement. R.C. ยง2711.10. The presence or absence of jurisdiction before an arbitrator is a question of law subject to judicial review. Here, the Appellate Court found that the "Arbitrator's "continuing violation' determination did not comport with, and in fact defeated, the plain and unambiguous three-day time limitation upon grievances." As such, the arbitration award was set aside.
Often, arbitrators will engage in lingual gymnastics in order to assert jurisdiction over a matter. However, City of Fairfield provides valuable support to employers when contending that a grievance is not arbitrable based upon a party's failure to abide by the express terms of the contract.