On October 3, 2016, the Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals issued a 3-0 decision in Mason v. Mason Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 4049. The Court vacated the decision of the arbitrator in a termination grievance, holding that the arbitrator showed evident partiality in not disclosing his position as the Executive Director for a pro-union state advocacy organization.

In 2014, the City of Mason terminated an employee who was represented by the IAFF. The Union filed a grievance disputing the termination which went to arbitration, per the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The two sides agreed on a neutral arbitrator from a list provided by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the arbitrator ultimately ruled in favor of the Union and reinstated the employee.

But, following the decision, it came to the City’s attention that the arbitrator was the Executive Director of a state advocacy organization which, among other things, advocated for employees and causes supported by unions. This had not previously been disclosed by the arbitrator, and only came to the City’s attention because the position was listed on the arbitrator’s signature block in an email containing the bill for his services.

The City then moved to vacate the arbitration award overturning the termination, citing Ohio Revised Code 2711.10, which states that a court shall vacate an arbitrator’s award if there was evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator. The magistrate denied the City’s motion and confirmed the arbitration award, and the trial court then upheld this ruling.

However, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s ruling and vacated the arbitration decision. The Court noted that while Ohio courts are generally hesitant to overturn the decisions of arbitrators, the failure to disclose in this case departed from the normal procedures of arbitration significantly enough to find evident partiality on behalf of the arbitrator.

The Court stated it would have been much better if the arbitrator had disclosed his relationship with the outside organization at the outset of the arbitrator selection process, so that both parties could factor this into their decisions on which arbitrator to select. Instead, the Court stated that non-disclosure such as in this case offers the losing party the pretext necessary to contest the arbitration decision.

While decisions overturning arbitration awards are infrequent in Ohio, employers should keep this case in mind if an arbitrator fails to disclose any ties that could possibly threaten his or her impartiality, or create that appearance.

Please feel free to contact any FHKAD attorney at (614) 221-1216 with any questions on this case.