Opinion ID: 2083424
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Judicial Review under the Uniform Arbitration Act

Text: The decision of Kline's union to select an executive branch court to provide the single appellate review, and to waive a second appellate review by any judicial branch court, does not mean that there could be no judicial review of an arbitration award. Separate judicial review is always available to a worker under the Minnesota Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA). The MUAA, which applies to all voluntary arbitration agreements, provides for judicial review to affirm, vacate, modify or correct an arbitration award. Minn.Stat. § 572.18-.20 (2002). The MUAA applies to an arbitration that is conducted under an arbitration clause contained in a collective bargaining agreement. Eisen v. State, 352 N.W.2d 731, 734 (Minn.1984). Of course, the scope of judicial review under the MUAA is narrow. The MUAA authorizes a court to vacate an award only where it (1) was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2) the arbitrator was partial or corrupt or engaged in prejudicial misconduct; (3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) [t]he arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause    or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or conducted the hearing to prejudice substantially the rights of a party; or (5) [t]here was no arbitration agreement   . Minn.Stat. § 572.19. subd. 1. Further, the procedure for seeking review under the MUAA is a petition to the district court, which generally is to be filed within 90 days after receiving a copy of the award. Minn.Stat. § 572.19, subds. 1, 2. Thus, the precise issue before this court is not whether the rules of the Fund can preclude judicial review. Judicial review was available to Kline in the district court under the MUAA and the rules of the Fund do not purport to override the MUAA. The issue before this court is only whether the parties to a collective bargaining agreement can voluntarily adopt ADR rules that waive a second, broader form of judicial review by limiting direct appellate review to the WCCA. That issue turns on the scope of the authorization of private ADR systems granted by the legislature in section 176.1812, which in part depends on whether there are any constitutional impediments to a broad grant of authority.