Opinion ID: 2061245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Past Practices

Text: The City contends that the district court erred in concluding that the arbitrator's decision was not drawn from the essence of the agreement. The court drew this result from its conclusion that the arbitrator ignored the past practice of the parties of recognizing time trading by fire fighters. Our examination of the arbitrator's decision shows that she not only recognized the practice, but discussed it at length, noting that past practice is accepted as a tool for interpreting ambiguous contract language. However, she found the past practice here was a non-factor because section 11.5.b of the collective bargaining agreement is clear and unambiguous. Nevertheless, she did apply the past practice for the sole purpose of supporting her decision to sustain the three fire fighters' grievances where the City had failed to notify them of a new restriction that directly contravened years of past practice. Moreover, the arbitrator found that the City had never waived its right to exercise its discretion in approving or disapproving time trade requests. Far from waiving its right, the City had in a previous arbitration hearing successfully fought to retain its right as a necessary management prerogative. The arbitrator further found that during the negotiations on the 1994-95 labor contract, the City specifically repudiated any effect of the past practice of time trading. The City's written notice to the Association stated: This is to inform you, so there is no doubt, of the City's position regarding time-trades in the labor Agreement beginning July 1, 1994. Unless specific language is included to allow partial day time-trades none will be allowed. It is also the intent of the department to continue to exercise its right to approve/disapprove all time-trades. This written position is intended to make very clear to you and any third party that regardless of what past practice on time-trades has been, there is nothing implied under time-trades except exactly what the language says. The arbitrator thoroughly considered the evidence of past practices and rejected the argument that they had been integrated into the contract and thereby altered the original contract language of section 11.5.b.