Opinion ID: 2639312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Effect on Washington's Policy Favoring Arbitration

Text: The City asserts that interpreting RCW 49.48.030 to include arbitration proceedings would undermine Washington's public policy in favor of arbitration. Pet. for Review at 18. It argues that this conclusion would create an artificial incentive for unions to retain counsel in order to obtain attorney fees and that the cost of the award would dwarf the actual back pay at stake. [16] Id. It further argues that because fee disputes would be decided by courts and not arbitrators, every successful arbitration award could spawn a litigation over attorney fees. Id. at 19. Washington public policy favors arbitration. See Davidson v. Hensen, 135 Wash.2d 112, 118, 954 P.2d 1327 (1998); Boyd, 127 Wash.2d at 262, 897 P.2d 1239. However, we do not believe that this policy would be affected by allowing attorney fees in arbitration proceedings where wages are awarded. As the Court of Appeals stated, to the extent a second action in superior court is necessary to award attorney fees, there already exists a well-developed body of case law dealing with attorney fees, which would facilitate courts' handling of these cases. Fire Fighters, 101 Wash.App. at 750, 6 P.3d 50. Furthermore, by not allowing awards of attorney fees for labor arbitration proceedings, unions would have less incentive to seek binding arbitration in cases where wrongfully withheld wages or salary are sought. [17]