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

Heading: The Validity of the April 4, 2001 Supplemental Arbitral Award

Text: 35 Alternatively, even if a clarification was within the arbitrator's power, the Company argues that the supplemental award exceeded that power and should be vacated, claiming it was issued in violation of O.R.C. § 2711.10(D), which states in pertinent part: 36 [I]n any of the following cases, the court of common pleas shall make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration if: 37 . . . . 38 (D) The arbitrators exceed their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 39 In order to determine whether or not the arbitrator exceeded his powers we must acknowledge the breadth of those powers, and how they were applied. As stated above, the arbitrator has the power under the exception of the doctrine of functus officio to go back and clarify an ambiguous or incomplete portion of an award. Behr, 326 F.3d at 782. Now we look to the difference between the December 1998 arbitration award and the April 2001 arbitration award to determine whether or not the latter is in fact a clarification. 40 As to the original December 1998 award, the Union asserted that the remedy portion was unclear regarding precisely how much each affected Longaberger Packer would receive in compensation based on the arbitrator's analysis of the two jobs, the Longaberger Packers and the Glost Packers of traditional ware, and its acknowledgment of their equivalency. The ambiguity arises in what seems to be the original award's denial of any incentive rates above and beyond the documented base rate for a Wage 3 Packer, as set forth in the Job Evaluation Manual. The arbitrator acknowledged that the Union failed to submit evidence regarding the application of the incentive rate to the Glost Packer work on the Longaberger ware, while also acknowledging that the Company submitted persuasive evidence on the reasons the incentive should not be applied. Nevertheless, the incentive rate was never defined in the first award, nor was the higher base rate to which the Longaberger Packers were entitled, making such compensation equivalent to the traditional Glost Packers, as expressed by the arbitrator. 41 In the supplemental award in April 2001, the arbitrator clarified the dispute over what the higher base rate encompassed. Since it is undisputed that the original award increased the Longaberger rate to Wage Grade 3, the real question was whether or not that included what the Union assumed to be a $3 per hour add on rate. The Company argues that the $3 add on rate is the equivalent to the incentive rate to which the original arbitration award did not assent. By applying this rate in the supplemental award, the Company argues the award was altered or changed, thus violating O.C.R. § 2711.10. 42 Conversely, the Union argues that the $3 add on is subject to different criteria than the incentive rate and that the add on was necessary to complete what would have been an incomplete award. As clarification, the April 2001 award defines its previous award as to the exact amount entitled to the Longaberger Packers. The arbitrator specifically states that in the award I refer to the `higher base wage rate' that has been paid to the Glost Packer. I do not refer to the Grade III wage rate of the Glost Packer ... The higher base wage rate includes the $3 add on which has been paid to the Glost Packers for a period of years. (J.A. at 260). The arbitrator further clarifies his award by stating: 43 [i]t is important to underscore that I refer to the Longaberger employees warranting a Labor Grade III position and a wage rate equal to the Glost Packers' rate. In order to equal the wage rate equal to the Glost Packers' rate, by necessity the Longaberger employees are required to be paid the same rate as the Glost Packers, rather than a rate which is $3/hour lower than the Glost Packer. 44 (J.A. at 260). 45 The arbitrator finalized his clarification by stating that he acknowledged his refusal in applying the incentive rate to the award; however, in making [that] statement, the incentive rate is to be distinguished from the $3 add on which replaced the incentive rate and which has been paid to Glost Packers. (J.A. at 261). Therefore, given the need for the award's clarification with respect to the proper compensatory remedy, in addition to the arbitrator's power to properly go back and clarify any inconsistencies of interpretation, the supplemental award is appropriate and valid under O.C.R. § 2711.10(D). Because the arbitrator's authority allows for clarification of an award subject to multiple interpretations, the issuance of the supplemental award was well within the arbitrator's power and was not subject to any limitations found in O.R.C. §§ 2711.09 or 2711.13.