Opinion ID: 785012
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Arbitrator's Powers Under the Doctrine of Functus Officio

Text: 31 The doctrine of functus officio is defined as having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore of no further force of authority. Ameritech, 200 F.3d at 976 (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 673 (6th ed. 1990)). This doctrine has specifically been applied to the breadth of an arbitrator's authority whereas in most cases arbitrators' appointments continue until they have heard the case, made a final award, and disclosed it to both parties. At this time their task is performed, their duties under the arbitration agreement are discharged, and their arbitral authority is at an end. Id. (citing III MACNEIL, SPEIDEL & STIPANOWICH § 37.6.1.1, at 37:25). However, the doctrine of functus officio contains several exceptions, such as (1) where the arbitrator can correct a mistake which is apparent on the face of the award; (2) where the award does not adjudicate an issue which has been submitted, then as to the issue the arbitrator has not exhausted his function and it remains open to him for subsequent determination; and (3) where the award, although seemingly complete, leaves doubt whether the submission has been fully executed, an ambiguity arises which the arbitrator is entitled to clarify. Industrial Mut. Ass'n, Inc. v. Amalgamated Workers, Local No. 383, 725 F.2d 406, 412 n. 3 (6th Cir.1984) (quoting La Vale Plaza, Inc. v. R.S. Noonan, Inc., 378 F.2d 569, 573 (3d Cir.1967)). This Court has recognized the need for an arbitrator's clarification of an ambiguous award when the award fails to address a contingency that later arises or when the award is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Ameritech, 200 F.3d at 977 (citing Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers Int'l Union, Local 182B v. Excelsior Foundry, Co., 56 F.3d 844, 847 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that uncertainty in an arbitration award regarding which party would pay for the employee's rehabilitation justified the arbitrator's extension of the deadline fixed in the original award, and explaining that this question `can fairly be characterized' as `interpretive,' [thus] `allowing [the plaintiff] to crawl through the loophole in the doctrine of functus officio for clarification or completion, as distinct from alteration of the arbitral award.')). 32 The Company disputes the Union's reliance on cases like the Seventh Circuit's Excelsior Foundry case, and this Court's Ameritech case, claiming they are distinguishable to the instant action; however, the district court was correct in its view that the arbitrator in this case fell squarely within the authority, followed by this Court, to properly clarify the order at issue. Very much in line with Excelsior, the parties here were confronted with an unexpected contingency after the award was issued: the matter of the exact definition of the higher base rate that would be equivalent to the rate received by the Wage 3 Glost Packers' position since the fall of 1994. The Company can not say that the required remedy was clearly determined by the original arbitral award when the parties were clearly in dispute as to the interpretation of the remedy, and there was no numerical determination in the award. 33 Furthermore, the arbitrator's retention of jurisdiction further supports its actions as falling squarely within the exceptions of the doctrine of functus officio. The December arbitral award concluded with the arbitrator's assertion that he retains jurisdiction should any disputes arise between the parties with respect to the implementation of this remedy. In correspondence from both parties, the arbitrator's retention of jurisdiction was acknowledged, therefore leaving this issue unchallenged. 34