[Cite as Akron Edn. Assn. v. Akron City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. , 2022-Ohio-275.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

AKRON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Appellant

v. AKRON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION Appellee C.A. No. 29768

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV-2018-09-3778

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: February 2, 2022

TEODOSIO, Presiding Judge. {¶1} The Akron Education Association appeals from the judgment of th e Summit County Court of Commo n Pleas. We affirm.

I. {¶2} In April 2017, the Akron Education Association (“AEA”) filed a grievance with the Akron City School District Bo ard of Education (“the Distric t”) on behalf of one of its members: Stephen White, a teacher employed by the District. Th e grievance alleged a violation of Section 1.08 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“the Agreement”). Article 1.08 of the Agreement provided, in par t: “No member of the bargainin g unit shall be adversely treated, restrained, interfered with or coerced as a result of filing a grievance or seeking Association assistance on any m atter under this Agreement.” {¶3} The basis of the grievance was the non-renewal of Mr. White’s s upplemental contract as the Boys Basketball Coach. Mr. White alleged that the non-renewal of that contract2

was a retaliatory response to his prior decision to involve the AEA in matters concerning student

enrollment in Mr. White’s classes and the District’s assessment of Mr. White’s performance as a teacher. The grievance was heard by an arbitrator who issued a decision finding that the District did not violate Section 1.08 of the Agreement, but did otherwis e violate the Agreement by acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner in not renewing the suppl emental contract for the position of Boys Basketball Coach. {¶4} The District subsequently file d an action in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to R.C. 2711.10 and R.C. 2711.13, and in May 2020, the court issued its judgment vacating the arbitration aw ard. The AEA now appeals, raising one assignment of error.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT VACATED THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD GRANTED TO MR. WHITE. {¶5} Under its assignment of error, the AEA argues the trial court e rred by vacating the

arbitration award. The AEA cont ends the Court of Common Pleas improperly contradicted the factual findings of the arbitr ator and substituted its own opin ion. We disagree. {¶6} “‘When reviewing a trial court’ s decision to confirm, modify, v acate, or correct an arbitration award, an appellate court should accept findings of fact that are not clearly

erroneous but should review questions of law de novo.’” Slezak v. Slezak , 9th Dist. Summit No. 29102, 2019-Ohio-3467, ¶ 15, quoting Portage Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities v. Portage Cty. Educators’ Assn. for Dev. Disabilities , 153 Ohio St.3d 219, 2018-Ohio-1590, ¶ 2. {¶7} “After an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vac ating, modifying, or correcting3

the award as prescribed in sections 2711.10 and 2711.11 of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2711.13. Ohio’s public policy strongly fa vors arbitration, as expressed in the Ohio Arbitration Act

codified in R.C. 2711. Taylor v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P. , 130 Ohio St.3d 411, 2011–Ohio–5262, ¶ 18. Consistent with this policy, R.C. 2711 limits the jurisd iction of trial courts once arbitration

has been conducted. See State ex rel. R.W. Si dley, Inc. v. Crawford , 100 Ohio St.3d 113, 2003– Ohio–5101, ¶ 22. In applying R.C. 2711, Ohio courts defer to a rbitration awards and presume their validity. Lauro v. Twinsburg , 9th Dist. Summit No. 23711, 2007–Ohio–6613, ¶ 5. “When parties agree to binding arbitration, they agree to accept the result and may not relitigate the facts as found by the arbitrator.” Id. {¶8} R.C. 2711.10(D) provides that an award may be vacated if “[t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a m utual, final, and definite award upon the matter submitted to them was not made.” Reviewing cou rts are thus limited in their

role to a determinati on of whether an award draws its essence f rom the relevant contract or whether the award is unlawful, arbitrary, or capricious. Assn. of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the Internatl. Assn. of Fire Fighters v. Cleveland , 99 Ohio St.3d 476, 2003–Ohio–4278, ¶ 13, citing Bd. of Edn. of the Findlay City School Dist. v. Findlay Edn. Assn. , 49 Ohio St.3d 129 (1990), paragraph two of the sy llabus. If there is a good-fait h argument that an arbitrator’s award is authorized by the contr act that provides the arbitrato r’s authority, the award is within the arbitrator's power. Lorain v. IAFF Local 267 , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 14CA010717, 2016- Ohio-978, ¶ 7. “An arbitrator exceeds his power when an award fails to draw its essence from the agreement of the parties.” Lowe v. Oster Homes , 9th Dist. Lorain No. 05CA008825, 2006- Ohio-4927, ¶ 7. “This occurs when there is an absence of ‘a ra tional nexus between the agreement and the award,’ or when the award is ‘arbitrary, capr icious, or unlawful.’” Id. ,4

quoting Gingrich v. Wooster , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 00CA0032, 2001 WL 22256, *5 (Jan. 10, 2001). An award thus departs from the essence of a contract wh en: (1) the award conflicts with the express terms of the agreement, or (2) the award is without rational support by the agreement or cannot be rationally derived f rom the terms of the agreement

. IAFF Local 267 at ¶ 7. “‘Generally, if the arbitrator’s award is based on the language and requirements of the agreement, the arbitrator has not exceeded his powers.’” Stow Firefighters, IAFF Local 16622 v.

Stow , 9th Dist. Summit No. 25209, 2011-Ohio-1559, ¶ 26, quoting Piqua v. Fraternal Order of

Police , 2d Dist. Miami No. 09- CA-19, 2009-Ohio-6591, ¶ 22. {¶9} “Reviewing courts cannot review claims of factual or legal erro r with respect to the exercise of an arbitrator’s powers.” IAFF Local 267 at ¶ 8, citing Martin’s Ferry City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Ohio Assn. of Pub. School Emps. , 7th Dist. Belmont No. 12 BE 15, 2013– Ohio–2954, ¶ 18. As long as the arbitrator is even arguably co nstruing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of he r authority, the fact that a c ourt is convinced she committed

error does not suffice to overturn the decision. Id. citing Summit Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation and Dev. Disabilities v. Am. Fedn. of State, Cty. and Mun. Emps. , 39 Ohio App.3d 175, 176 (9th Dist.1988). See also Lowe at ¶ 7 (stating that “mere error” in the interpretation or appl ication of the law will not suffice to vacate an arbitration award; the de cision must “fly in the face of clearly established legal preced ent” to support a vacation of t he award). “Once it is determined that the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the [agreeme nt] and is not unlawful, arbitrary, or capricious, a reviewing court’s inquiry for purposes of vaca ting an arbitrator's award pursuant to R.C. 2711.10(D) is at an end.” Id. , quoting Bd. of Edn. of the Findlay City School Dist. at paragraph two of the syllabus.5

{¶10} In his grievance, Mr. White alleged that the District’s decisio n not to renew his supplemental contract as Boys Bas ketball Coach violated Section 1.08 of the Agreement. Section 1.08 of the Agreement provi ded, in part: “No member of the bargaining unit shall be adversely treated, restrained, interfered with or coerced as a result of filing a grievance or seeking Association assistance on any matter under this Agreeme nt.” Section 3.13.B.3 of the Agreement addressed the issue of supplemental contracts and pro vided: The procedures for non-renewal of contracts listed above do not apply to supplemental contracts. Supplem ental contract non-renewal noti ces will be noted on the face of the supplemental contract and do not require any additional notice of non-renewal, pursuant to thi s Agreement or Ohio law. {¶11} Upon hearing the grievance, the arbitrator determined that the District did not

violate Section 1.08 and found that there was no evidence that the Grievant’s supplemental

contract was non-renewed as a r eprisal or in retaliation for Mr . White having sought the AEA’s

assistance. The arbitrator noted that Mr. White’s supplemental contract as Boys Basketball Coach was automatically non-renewing and that the face of the s upplemental contract provided: “Notice is hereby given that this contract is automatically non -renewed at the end of its current term without any further action fr om the Board.” The arbitrato r found that Section 3.13.B.3 of the Agreement did not require t he district to provide a reason for non-renewing a supplemental contract, and that because the c ontract was automatically non-r enewing, no additional action was required. {¶12} The arbitrator further determined, however, that the District n onetheless violated the Agreement by acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner i n not renewing the supplement contract for the position of Boys Basketball Coach. The arbitr ator continued her analysis to review the propriety of the Dist rict’s actions, noting that “th e issue of non-renewal of supplemental contracts was previously addressed in an Arbitrati on Award involving the same6

parties.” The arbitrator c ited to this previous decision 1 for “the standard pr ohibiting arbitrary and capricious exercise of managerial authority * * *.” The arbitr ator found that because the District had provided reasons supporting the non-renewal of the suppleme ntal contract, the standard (as provided from the prior arbitration decision) prohibiting the a rbitrary and capricious exercise of managerial authority was applicab le to the District’s non-renew al of Mr. White’s supplemental

contract. {¶13} The arbitrator’s decision concluded: The evidence does not support that the District violated Sectio n 1.08 of the Agreement by non-renewing the Grie vant’s supplemental contract based upon him having sought Association a ssistance for his classroom issu es. The District had the managerial authority not to renew the contract, subject only to the standard that it not act in an ar bitrary and capricious manner. Because the District set forth specific reasons for not renewing the Grievant’s coac hing agreement that were not supported by the record of evidence, it is concluded t hat its actions were in violation of the Agreement. *** [I]t is determined that the Di strict violated the Agreement by acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner in not renewing the Grievant’s supplemental contract as Boys Basketball Co ach at Buchtel High School for th e 2017-2018 school year. {¶14} Upon review of the arbitrator’s decision, the Court of Common P leas found that by continuing her analysis beyond the determination that the Di strict did not violate Section 1.08 of the Agreement as a lleged by the grievance, the arbitrator ad ded terms to the Agreement that directly conflicted with the aut omatic non-renewal provision of the Agreement. The court concluded that consequently, the arbitrator exceeded her powers and acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful manner.

1 In the Matter of Arbitration be tween Akron Education Associati on and Akron Board of Education, AAA Case No. 53 390 00276 94, Arbitrator Linda DiLeo ne Klein, October 24, 1994.7

{¶15} We agree that the arbitrator exceeded her powers in this matter . As stated above, an arbitration award departs from the essence of a contract whe n it conflicts with the express terms of the agreement or is w ithout rational support from the agreement or cannot be rationally derived from the terms of the agreement. IAFF Local 267 at ¶ 7. The arbitration award at issue did not draw its essence from the Agreement; rather, it was wit hout rational support from the Agreement and could not be deriv ed from the terms of the Agreem ent. Although the arbitrator specifically acknowledged that the Agreement did not require fu rther action for the non-renewal of the supplemental contract, sh e applied an additional require ment that she adopted from a prior non-binding and factually disti nguishable arbitration decision. Critical to our conclusion is that

the basis of the arbitrator’s d ecision came not from construing or applying the Agreement, but from an additional requirement gl eaned from a prior decision in a separate arbitration matter. {¶16} We further note that Secti on 14.06 of the Agree ment provided, i n part: With the exception of written Memoranda of Understanding execut ed by both parties, this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement betwee n the parties and supersedes and cancels all previous verbal agreements as well a s any past practice not applied though the express te rms of the Agreement.

Because the arbitration award wa s not based on the language and requirements of the Agreement itself, the arbitrator exceeded her powers. {¶17} The assignment of error is overruled.

III. {¶18} The AEA’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of th e Summit County Court of Common P leas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.8

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, direc ting the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State o f Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof , this document shall consti tute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Cour t of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the pa rties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket , pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

THOMAS A. TE ODOSIO FOR THE COURT

CALLAHAN, J. SUTTON, J. CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

DONALD J. MALARCIK and JOHN P. STI LES, Attorneys at Law, for Ap pellant.

CHRISTIAN M. WILLIAMS and SAMANT HA A. VAJSKOP, Attorneys at Law , for Appellee.