Opinion ID: 4146596
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Where the arbitrators exceeded or so

Text: imperfectly executed their powers that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. [N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8.] Here, the issue is whether the arbitrator impermissibly transmuted Count II’s allegation of unbecoming conduct into a charge of hostile work environment sexual harassment and thus measured the Board’s claim against an improper legal standard, namely the standard articulated by this Court in Lehmann, supra, 132 N.J. at 603-04. This particular claim of error implicates subsection (d) of N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8. “[L]imits to the arbitrator’s authority . . . are defined by statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8,” as well as “by the questions framed by the parties in a particular dispute.” Local No. 153, Office & Prof’l Emps. Int’l Union v. Tr. Co. of N.J., 105 N.J. 442, 449 (1987). Indeed, an arbitrator’s award “should be consonant with the matter submitted. Otherwise, the determination is contrary to the authority vested in him.” Grover v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 80 N.J. 221, 231 (1979); cf. Trentina v. Fitzpatrick & Assocs., 135 N.J. 349, 359 (1994)(“If the arbitrators decide a matter not even submitted to them, that matter can be excluded from the award.” (quoting 10 Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479, 548 (1992))). The Third Circuit addressed “allegation[s] that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by resolving an issue the parties did not intend to submit” under 9 U.S.C.A. § 10(a)(4), which is virtually identical to N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8(d), by considering “whether the arbitrators manifestly exceeded their authority in interpreting the scope of the parties’ submissions.” Metromedia Energy, Inc. v. Enserch Energy Servs., 409 F.3d 574, 579 (3d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1089, 126 S. Ct. 1021, 163 L. Ed. 2d 852 (2006). The Third Circuit described how courts review claims that arbitrators have exceeded their authority: [A]rbitrators have the authority in the first instance to interpret the scope of the parties’ submissions in order to identify the issues that the parties intended to arbitrate. When confronted with an allegation that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by resolving an issue the parties did not intend to submit, we will review the arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ intentions under a “highly deferential” standard. Nonetheless, this deference is not a rubber stamp, and our review must focus upon the record as a whole in determining whether the arbitrators manifestly exceeded their authority in interpreting the scope of the parties’ submissions. [Metromedia Energy, Inc., supra, 409 F.3d at 579 (discussing Matteson v. Ryder Sys. Inc., 99 F.3d 108, 112-14 (3d Cir. 1996), cert. 11 denied, 546 U.S. 1089, 126 S. Ct. 1021, 163 L. Ed. 2d 852 (2006)).] We agree that a claim that an arbitrator decided a legal question not placed before him or her by the parties is tantamount to a claim that the arbitrator “imperfectly executed [his or her] powers” as well as a claim that the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8(d). Having concluded that subsection (d) frames our review of this matter, we turn to the substance of the Board’s claim.