[Cite as Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators' Labor Council v. Cleveland, 2011-Ohio-5190.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96771 

MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OPERATORS’ 

LABOR COUNCIL 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT 

vs. 

CITY OF CLEVELAND 

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED 

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

 Case No. CV-747613 

BEFORE: E. Gallagher, J., Jones, P.J., and Cooney, J. 

 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: October 6, 2011 
2

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Stewart D. Roll 

Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli 

55 Public Square 

Suite 1950 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

George S. Crisci 

Jon M. Dileno 

Ami J. Patel 

Zashin & Rich Co., L.P.A. 

55 Public Square, 4th Floor 

Suite 400 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶ 1} This is an accelerated appeal authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 

and Loc.App.R. 11.1. 

{¶ 2} The Municipal Construction Equipment Operators’ Labor 

Council (hereinafter, the “Union”) appeals from the decision of the trial court 

confirming an American Arbitration Association award. The Union argues 

that the trial court modified the arbitrator’s award without authority to do 

so. Finding no merit to this appeal, we affirm the decision of the trial court. 

{¶ 3} On September 20, 2010, the arbitrator issued an award finding 
3

in favor of the Union. Specifically, the arbitrator sustained the Union’s 

grievance and ordered that the city of Cleveland (“the City”) pay “the Union 

WPO [water plant operators] lost pay in the amount of $781.92, as a result of 

its violating Article 46, Paragraph 129” of the collective bargaining 

agreement. Subsequent to the award, the City made eight attempts to 

contact the Union in order to identify the three WPO’s that were to receive 

the lost pay award. During each attempt, the Union refused to identify the 

three employees, arguing instead that the City was required to pay the 

$781.92 directly to the Union. 

{¶ 4} On February 2, 2011, the Union filed a motion to confirm the 

arbitration award and order the City to pay to the Union $781.92. The City 

did not oppose this motion and, on March 8, 2011, filed its own motion to 

confirm the arbitration award. The City asked the court to confirm the 

award and to order the Union to cooperate with the City in identifying the 

employees who were entitled to the lost pay award. The Union opposed the 

City’s motion, arguing that by attempting to pay the WPO’s, and not the 

Union, the City was attempting to modify the arbitration award. 

{¶ 5} On May 4, 2011, the trial court granted the City’s cross-motion to 

confirm the arbitration award and found: 

“Within 10 days of this order, the Union is to identify for the City 

which 3 employees are entitled to the back pay ordered by the 
4

arbitrator. If the Union fails to do so, the City is to use its own 

method in determining which employees are to be paid. The City is 

then to issue checks to these employees in the appropriate amount.” 

{¶ 6} The Union appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it 

granted the City’s cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award. The 

Union’s assigned error is without merit. 

{¶ 7} “Appellate review of an arbitration award is limited to an 

evaluation of the confirmation order of the court of common pleas.” 

Cleveland v. Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Assn., Cuyahoga App. No. 91486, 

2009-Ohio-1087; Williams v. Colejon Mechanical Corp. (Nov. 22, 1995), 

Cuyhaoga App. No. 68819. “Overturning an arbitration award on appeal is 

more difficult than an ordinary appeal from a judgment in the court of law.” 

Olah v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., Cuyahoga App. No. 86312, 2006-Ohio-694. 

Our review of the trial court’s decision confirming arbitration is conducted 

under an abuse of discretion standard. Brookdale Senior Living v. 

Johnson-Wylie, Cuyahoga App. No. 95129, 2011-Ohio-1243. 

{¶ 8} R.C. Chapter 2711 provides a statutory procedure authorizing a 

limited and narrow judicial review of the award. Lake Cty. Bd. of Mental 

Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Professional Assn. for the Teaching of the 

Mentally Retarded (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 15, 641 N.E.2d 180. It also sets 

forth specific statutory procedures to vacate, modify, correct, or confirm an 
5

arbitration award. Id. R.C. 2711.09 provides as follows: “At any time 

within one year after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any 

party to the arbitration may apply to the court of common pleas for an order 

confirming the award. Thereupon the court shall grant such an order and 

enter judgment thereon, unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected 

as prescribed in sections 2711.10 [ (motion to vacate) ] and 2711.11 [ (motion 

to modify) ] of the Revised Code.” 

{¶ 9} In the present case, both parties filed motions to confirm the 

arbitration award; neither party moved the court to modify or vacate the 

award. Additionally, both parties’ briefs attempt to mischaracterize the 

language of the arbitration award in a manner supporting their respective 

arguments. However, the record before this court is clear, the arbitrator 

ordered the City to “pay the Union WPO [water plant operators] lost pay in 

the amount of $781.92.” While the Union quotes only the following: “pay the 

Union,” in support of its claim that the City has to pay only the Union, such 

interpretation of the facts is not supported by the record. 

{¶ 10} The arbitrator’s opinion is clear, the award of $781.92 was made 

to compensate the three WPO’s who were aggrieved by the City’s violation of 

the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. As such, it was the individual 

union members, not the Union as a whole, that were owed the $781.92. The 
6

trial court reviewed the record and after agreeing with the City, confirmed 

the award. We find that the trial court did not modify the arbitration award 

and any arguments proffered by the Union alleging such are erroneous. See 

Warren Educ. Assn. v. Warren City Bd. of Educ. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 170, 

480 N.E.2d 456. 

{¶ 11} The Union’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 12} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said lower court to carry this judgment 

into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, P.J., and 

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR 

Appendix 

Assignments of Error: 
7

“I. The trial court erred in its May 4, 2011 journal entry 

granting defendant/appellee’s cross-motion to confirm an 

arbitral award, tacitly denying plaintiff/appellant’s motion to 

confirm that same award. That error included the trial 

court’s failure to: (a) recognize that defendant/appellee’s 

cross-motion sought modification or correction not 

confirmation of the award, and that the jurisdictional time 

limit for seeking that modification or correction had expired, 

(b) acknowledge that defendant/appellee’s proposed 

modification or correction is contrary to the express terms of 

the arbitral award and, (c) accept that R.C. 2711.09 mandates 

issuance of an order confirming the arbitral award unless the 

award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in 

sections 2711.10 and 2711.11 of the Revised Code, and that 

defendant/appellee failed to timely move this court to vacate, 

modify or correct the award within the ninety day period of 

time identified in R.C. 2711.13.”