Opinion ID: 2745970
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to Contest Arbitrator’s Award

Text: The Union next advances several arguments challenging the Town’s ability to contest the arbitrator’s award. The Union first argues that the “PELRB erred when it contravened the stipulated power of the arbitrator to determine if a past practice existed and to fashion a remedy.” It asserts that the Town authorized the arbitrator to bind the parties, and, therefore, waived its ability to contest the arbitrator’s decision. We disagree. Simply because the Town agreed to submit a stipulated issue to arbitration does not mean that it agreed to be bound by a decision that violates public policy. As we explained above, the PELRB has the authority to decline to enforce an arbitrator’s award that violates a strong and dominant public policy. See Amalgamated Transit Union, 144 N.H. at 327-30 (finding without merit Union’s argument that public employer committed unfair labor practice by rejecting the arbitrator’s decision and affirming PELRB’s finding that arbitrator’s award violated public policy); Appeal of Merrimack County, 156 N.H. 35, 47 (2007) (affirming PELRB decision ordering county to comply with arbitrator’s award because it did not violate public policy). Therefore, the PELRB did not err in deciding the issue. Next, the Union raises three arguments asserting that the Town was time-barred from contesting the enforceability of the arbitrator’s award. The Union first argues that the Town alleged that the Union made a wrongful demand to arbitrate but failed to oppose the arbitration within the necessary timeframe. In the alternative, the Union asserts that the Town did not timely challenge the substantive arbitrability of the dispute. Finally, the Union contends that the Town did not timely challenge the enforceability of the arbitrator’s award. The Union argues that, under each of these theories, the Town did not contest the arbitration within the statutory time limits established in RSA chapter 273-A, and, therefore, the PELRB was without jurisdiction to decide whether the arbitrator’s award violated a strong and dominant public policy. The Union mischaracterizes the assertions that the Town made to the arbitrator. The Town did not allege that the Union made a wrongful demand to arbitrate. Rather, it alleged that it had the discretion to stop paying the step increases during the status quo period. Also, as the arbitrator noted, the Town did not argue that the dispute was not substantively arbitrable, and nothing in the Town’s filings before the PELRB can be read to challenge the substantive arbitrability of the Union’s complaint. Because the Town did not contend that 7 the Union made a wrongful demand to arbitrate and did not challenge substantive arbitrability, it was not restricted by the statutory time frames. Instead, as the PELRB noted, the Town challenged the validity of the arbitrator’s decision on public policy grounds. Because such a challenge necessarily could not arise until after the arbitrator issued his decision, the Town was not time-barred from contesting the enforceability of the decision. We recognize that the Town’s answer to the Union’s PELRB complaint asserted a “counterclaim” that “[i]t is an unfair labor practice for the Union to seek enforcement of an arbitration award that is unlawful” or “contrary to public policy.” The PELRB, however, noting that its rules “do not allow for the filing of a counterclaim,” treated these allegations “as part of the Town’s answer and defense . . . and not an unfair labor practice charge.” Even if we were to assume that the Town’s allegation constituted an unfair labor practice charge, it would not have been time-barred because the claim arose only upon the Union’s attempt to enforce the arbitrator’s award. See RSA 273-A:6, VII (2010) (requiring PELRB to dismiss complaints regarding alleged violations that occurred more than six months before complaint was filed). Thus, we conclude that the Town did not waive its right to challenge the award on public policy grounds by not raising the issue earlier.