Opinion ID: 1918426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: nature and principles of arbitration

Text: [2] Arbitration is not a judicial proceeding; it is purely a matter of contract. [4] In this case, the CBA between the State Patrol and SLEBC provides that if an employee's grievance is not satisfactorily resolved, it may be referred to arbitration. The parties in this case do not dispute that Henderson's grievance was properly submitted to arbitration. [3] Arbitration in Nebraska is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act if it arises from a contract involving interstate commerce [5] ; otherwise, it is governed by Nebraska's Uniform Arbitration Act. [6] In this case, there is no claim that the transaction involved interstate commerce, so Nebraska law applies. We note, however, that because the applicable provisions of the Uniform Arbitration Act and the Federal Arbitration Act are similar, we look to federal case law explaining the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards. We have explained that judicial review of an arbitrator's award is severely circumscribed. [7] Appellate review of an arbitrator's award is necessarily limited because 'to allow full scrutiny of such awards would frustrate the purpose of having arbitration at allthe quick resolution of disputes and the avoidance of the expense and delay associated with litigation.' [8] Strong deference is due an arbitrative tribunal. [9] [4] And when parties agree to arbitration, they agree to accept whatever reasonable uncertainties might arise from the process. [10] Because the parties to a collective bargaining agreement have contracted to have disputes settled by an arbitrator chosen by them rather than by a judge, it is the arbitrator's view of the facts and the meaning of the contract that they have agreed to accept. [11] Courts do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal error by an arbitrator as an appellate court does in reviewing decisions of lower courts. [12] In other words, a court may not overrule an arbitrator's decision simply because the court believes that its own interpretation of the contract, or the facts, would be the better one. [13] Therefore, in this case, we do not revisit the arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the CBA, or ultimate conclusion that the State Patrol violated the CBA in its termination of Henderson's employment. Nor do we revisit the arbitrator's discussion of constitutional issues, although his conclusions on those issues are highly suspect. [14] The State Patrol does not contend, nor is there any basis in the record to conclude, that any of the statutory bases under the Uniform Arbitration Act for vacating an arbitration award are applicable in this case. [15] Instead, the issue in this appeal is whether the district court correctly determined that the arbitrator's award can be vacated, as the State Patrol contends, because reinstating Henderson to the State Patrol would be contrary to public policy. In that regard, we note that the sole matter submitted to the arbitrator for disposition was, Did the Nebraska State Patrol violate the [CBA] or its own operating procedures or policies when it disciplined the Grievant, . . . Henderson, on March 15, 2006? If so, what shall be the remedy? The issue submitted for arbitration was consistent with the CBA, which defines a grievance subject to arbitration as a claimed breach, misinterpretation, or misapplication of the terms of this Agreement. The arguments of the parties, and the decision of the arbitrator, touch on constitutional issues. But we view those issues, in light of the scope of the CBA and arbitration agreement, to be subsumed in the question whether the CBA was violatedand thus in the question whether the remedy for that violation violates public policy. In other words, we do not view this case as presenting a civil rights claim and do not address what remedy, if any, might be appropriate for any alleged violation of Henderson's constitutional rights. We note that compensatory damages might be available to a plaintiff injured by a breach of contract even when specific performance of the contract would violate public policy. [16] But the only issue before the arbitrator in this case was the application of the CBA, and the only issue before this court is whether the arbitrator's remedy for violation of the CBA is enforceable.