Case Name: METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-06-07
Citations: 346 So. 2d 1066
Docket Number: No. 76-1161
Parties: METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Appellees.
Judges: Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 346
Pages: 1066–1066

Head Matter:
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Appellees.
No. 76-1161.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 7, 1977.
Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and Alan J. Kan, Asst. County Atty., for appellant.
Kaplan, Dorsey, Sicking & Hessen and Joseph C. Segor, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Metropolitan Dade County appeals an order of the circuit court confirming an arbitration award in a dispute growing out of a collective bargaining agreement between the County and Dade County Employees, Local 1363, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO.
The dispute, concerning the interpretation and application of the agreement, could not be amicably settled. The union invoked the arbitration provision of the agreement and arbitration proceeded regularly before a mutually selected arbitrator, who found for the union. The County, being dissatisfied, filed a motion in the circuit court to vacate the arbitration award and urged that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by modifying or ignoring the language of the agreement. The union contended that the arbitrator merely interpreted the agreement in order to determine its meaning as applied to the facts of the dispute. The circuit court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in applying the agreement. This appeal is from .that order.
The County makes the same argument here that it did in the circuit court. We hold that no error has been demonstrated. The arbitrator did exactly what the agreement to arbitrate provided. He settled a dispute concerning the application of the collective bargaining agreement. See Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So.2d 102 (Fla.1951); and Dairyland Insurance Company v. Hudnall, 279 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
Affirmed.