Opinion ID: 2061245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Arbitrator's Analysis

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.
The City claimed, and the arbitrator agreed, that under section 11.5.b the City has the unrestricted right to approve or disapprove fire fighters' time trades. This is because under section 11.5.b a work day change may be made only with the approval of the employee's company officer and chief, who uncontestedly represent the City as management officers. Addressing the Association's arguments, the arbitrator said: I have reviewed the evidence and arguments on this question and remain confused by the Association's seemingly contradictory assertions that (1) there is no ambiguity, and (2) the provision necessarily incorporates unwritten practices that would restrict the City's right to exercise what is on its face an unrestricted right. Since the parties first collectively bargained this provision in 1977, the contract has always referred to a time trade as a privilege which has been conditioned upon three things: (1) the mutual Agreement of the employees trading shifts, (2) the approval of the employee's company officer, and (3) the approval of the District Chief (now, Chief or his designee.) This language on its face imposes no limitation on the City's right to withhold approval, nor is any such limitation found elsewhere in the parties' Agreement. Thus, I know of no way in which to interpret the Agreement's language to pose any limitation on the City's right to determine for itself whether time trade requests shall be granted. In further drawing its decision from the essence of the agreement, the arbitrator considered the facts, reasoning and results of three previously arbitrated disputes involving the City and its employees. In each it was found that there was little bearing on the issue in this case and the conclusions were distinguishable. The arbitrator also addressed the Association's assertion that a restriction on the employees' time trades should be achieved through a change by negotiation or arbitration. Rejecting this idea, the arbitrator stated that she could not envision contract language any stronger than the City already had under section 11.5.b. Further, the arbitrator held that article 9 of the parties' agreement denied her the authority to add to, subtract from, disregard or in any way modify the terms of the agreement. Although the City's discretion in approving time trade requests is great, the arbitrator recognized that it is not unfettered. The City may not reject requests for reasons that are arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. The arbitrator's decision was thorough in its analysis. The arbitrator considered the relevant terms of the contract, the past practices of the parties, indicia of the parties' intentions, prior arbitration awards, a fact finding report, and the City's notice of intention to repudiate past practices pertaining to time trades. The arbitration decision was clearly drawn from the essence of the collective bargaining agreement.
We have held that it matters not whether we disagree with an arbitrator's interpretation or reasoning. Were we to do so, it would not even mean that the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority. City of Des Moines v. Central Iowa Pub. Employees Council, 369 N.W.2d 442, 446 (Iowa 1985); Iowa City Community Sch. Dist., 343 N.W.2d at 144-45; West Des Moines Community Sch. Dist. v. West Des Moines Educ. Support Personnel, 265 N.W.2d 625, 626 (Iowa 1978).