The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 95 Ohio St.3d 101.]
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 67, APPELLANT, v.
CITY OF COLUMBUS, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Internatl. Assn. of Firefighters, Local 67 v. Columbus,
2002-Ohio-1936.]
Employer and employee—Arbitration—Arbitrator exceeded his authority by
relying on rules extraneous to the collective bargaining agreement to
determine the eligibility of union employees to receive paid injury leave
for carpal tunnel syndrome, when—Arbitration award vacated, when—
R.C. 2711.10(D), applied.
(No. 01-178—Submitted January 8, 2002—Decided April 24, 2002.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-283.
__________________
FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J.
{¶ 1} Donald Sherrod and William Russell, two Columbus firefighters,
developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome during the course of their duties. As a
result, both men missed work to receive medical treatment. The firefighters applied
for paid injury leave as provided for in Article 24, Section 24.2, of the collective
bargaining agreement (“CBA”) entered into on their behalf by Local 67,
International Association of Firefighters, appellant, with the city of Columbus,
appellee. According to this provision, paid injury leave “shall be granted to any
such employee only for injuries or other disabilities determined by the Finance
Department Director or designee as caused or induced by the actual performance
of his or her position.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 2} The firefighters’ request for paid injury leave was denied by the
finance director and the Board of Industrial Relations on the ground that carpal
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
tunnel syndrome was not a disability. The union filed grievances on the
firefighters’ behalf, contesting the denial of benefits. The grievances were denied.
{¶ 3} Pursuant to the CBA, the parties then submitted the grievances to
arbitration. The arbitrator denied the grievances, also finding that the firefighters
did not sustain a disability. In reaching this conclusion, the arbitrator relied upon
rules promulgated by the city’s Board of Industrial Relations that defined the terms
“injury” and “disability” as physical damage or a physically restrictive medical
condition “caused by an incident in the actual performance of the duties of the
position.” (Emphasis added.) Since carpal tunnel syndrome is not caused by a
single traumatic incident, the arbitrator concluded that it was not a disability for
purposes of entitlement to paid injury leave.
{¶ 4} The union filed a complaint and an application to vacate the
arbitration decision in Franklin County Common Pleas Court. The trial court
denied the union’s application to vacate the arbitration decision. The court of
appeals, in a two-to-one decision, affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding that the
arbitrator’s decision drew its essence from the CBA. The cause is now before this
court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.
{¶ 5} The issue in this case is whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority
by relying on rules extraneous to the CBA to determine the eligibility of union
employees to receive paid injury leave.
{¶ 6} A reviewing court’s role in evaluating an arbitration decision is
limited to determining whether the award is unlawful, arbitrary, or capricious and
whether it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. Southwest
Ohio Regional Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 627 (2001), 91
Ohio St.3d 108, 110, 742 N.E.2d 630. For an award to draw its essence from the
CBA, there must be a rational nexus between the agreement and the award.
Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v.
2
January Term, 2002
Mahoning Cty. TMR Edn. Assn. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 80, 22 OBR 95, 488 N.E.2d
872, paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶ 7} The union asks us to vacate the arbitration decision. R.C. 2711.10(D)
provides that an arbitration award shall be vacated if “[t]he arbitrators exceeded
their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite
award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” The union maintains that
by ignoring the plain meaning of the CBA, and instead relying on a definition of
“disability” extraneous to the contract, the arbitrator exceeded his powers.
{¶ 8} In particular, the union argues that under the plain language of Article
24, Section 24.2 of the CBA, paid injury leave is to be granted whenever an
employee suffers a work-related injury or disability, which would include carpal
tunnel syndrome. However, under the board’s definition of “disability,” employees
seeking paid injury leave must demonstrate an additional element, i.e., that their
injuries or disabilities were caused by an incident in performance of work-related
duties. Since this additional requirement was not bargained for, or made part of the
CBA, the union maintains that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and that the
award does not draw its essence from the CBA.
{¶ 9} In contrast, appellee city contends, as the majority of the court of
appeals held, that the arbitration award draws its essence from the CBA. The city
argues that there is a rational nexus between the CBA and the award in that Section
24.8 of the CBA authorizes the director of finance to “make necessary rules, devise
forms, keep records, investigate cases, and make decisions on allowance of pay for
time off duty as provided by this Article, subject to the approval of the Board of
Industrial Relations.” (Emphasis added.) Since Section 24.8 authorizes the finance
director to “make necessary rules” regarding injury leave, the city believes that the
arbitrator was warranted in looking at those rules, promulgated by the Board of
Industrial Relations, to better understand what is meant by the terms “injuries” or
“other disabilities” for purposes of paid injury leave.
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 10} We disagree with the city’s position. An arbitrator is confined to
interpreting the provisions of a CBA as written and to construe the terms used in
the agreement according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Ohio Office of
Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civ. Serv. Emp. Assn., Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-
CIO (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 177, 180, 572 N.E.2d 71. Even though the CBA does
not define what is meant by the term “other disabilities,” this does not give the
arbitrator the authority to rely on the city’s own definition of that term. Instead,
since the CBA is silent on this point, the term “other disabilities” must be given its
ordinary meaning. Black’s Law Dictionary (7 Ed.1999) 474 defines “disability” as
“[t]he inability to perform some function; an objectively measurable condition of
impairment, physical or mental.” It further defines “physical disability” as “[a]n
incapacity caused by a physical defect or infirmity, or by bodily imperfection or
mental illness.” It is clear that the firefighters’ carpal tunnel syndrome falls within
the ordinary definition of a disability.
{¶ 11} This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the CBA’s
injury-leave provision (Section 24.2) expressly provides that certain disabilities
(cardiovascular, respiratory, and pulmonary) are presumed to be service-related.
These disabilities, like carpal tunnel syndrome, are not necessarily caused by a
single incident. Instead, firefighters may develop these disabilities, particularly
respiratory or pulmonary ailments, after they have sustained repeated exposure to
smoke. The inclusion of these disabilities strengthens the union’s position that the
term “disability” was never intended to include the requirement that the condition
was caused by an incident. As Judge Tyack stated in his dissenting opinion in the
court of appeals, “The presumption set forth in Section 24.2 clearly conflicts with
the definition utilized by the Director of the Finance Department * * *. I do not
believe that the city can agree to one thing at the bargaining table and then take the
benefits away with rules and regulations which are narrowly construed.”
4
January Term, 2002
{¶ 12} Moreover, contrary to the city’s position, Section 24.8 of the CBA
does not give the arbitrator the right to rely on rules promulgated by the city itself
to redefine terms used within the CBA. Although Section 24.8 authorizes the
finance director to “make rules” relating to injury leave, we believe this provision
simply authorizes the city to develop the procedural mechanism for determining
injury-leave claims. It should not be read to authorize the director to unilaterally
change the terms of the injury-leave provision of the CBA or redefine what is meant
by the terms “injury” and “other disability.” As this court has previously
emphasized, an arbitrator may not create a contract of his own by imposing
additional requirements not expressly provided for in the agreement. Ohio Office
of Collective Bargaining, 59 Ohio St.3d at 183, 572 N.E.2d 71. Nevertheless, this
is precisely what the arbitrator did in this case. By ignoring the plain language of
Section 24.2 and by relying on rules of the city’s Board of Industrial Relations, the
arbitrator went outside the scope of the CBA and unilaterally abrogated the
bargained-for provision.
{¶ 13} In Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Auth., supra, 91 Ohio St.3d 108,
742 N.E.2d 630, we reiterated the point that a CBA is limited to the provisions
bargained for and that an arbitrator may not apply extraneous rules to the
agreement, where those rules were not bargained for and are contrary to the plain
terms of the agreement itself. In SORTA, a union employee was terminated based
upon the employer’s “zero-tolerance” drug policy, which called for automatic
discharge. The union filed a grievance on the employee’s behalf. The arbitrator
found that SORTA’s drug policy conflicted with the terms of the CBA, which
provided that employees could be terminated only with “sufficient cause.” In
upholding the arbitrator’s award, we stated:
{¶ 14} “While SORTA’s drug policy may be facially valid, we find that
SORTA did not have the right to unilaterally adopt automatic termination without
possibility of reinstatement as a sanction for testing positive, because such a
5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
sanction conflicts with the ‘sufficient-cause’ requirement for dismissal found in
Section 3(b) of the CBA. * * * [A]llowing SORTA to enforce automatic
termination would allow an employer to unilaterally adopt a sanction that conflicts
with the sufficient-cause requirement for dismissal that was negotiated into the
CBA, thereby undermining the integrity of the entire collective bargaining process.
The proper avenue for SORTA to adopt such a sanction would be through the
collective bargaining process, not through a unilateral decision.” (Emphasis sic.)
Id., 91 Ohio St.3d at 108, 742 N.E.2d 630.
{¶ 15} Just as the employer in SORTA attempted to unilaterally adopt a rule
contrary to the terms of the CBA, the city’s rules were applied even though the
definition contained in those rules contravened the plain language of the CBA’s
injury-leave provision. We find that by applying the extraneous definition of
“disability,” the arbitrator imposed an additional requirement on employees seeking
paid injury leave, thereby violating the plain terms expressed in the agreement. As
a result, we conclude that the decision is not rationally derived from the terms of
the agreement and that the arbitrator exceeded his powers.
{¶ 16} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of
the court of appeals and vacate the arbitration decision.
Judgment reversed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.
COOK, J., dissents.
__________________
Thompson, Hine & Flory, L.L.P., William C. Moul and Bonnie I. O’Neil,
for appellant.
Janet E. Jackson, Columbus City Attorney, and Alan P. Varhus, Assistant
City Attorney, for appellee.
__________________
6