Opinion ID: 2510533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: FMCS guidelines

Text: The FMCS utilizes the Code of Professional Responsibility for Arbitrators of Labor-Management Disputes (the Code) for its arbitrators. [46] The Code is a set of standards and guidelines for professional behavior developed by the FMCS. Amicus, the National Academy of Arbitrators, states that one of the primary purposes of the drafters [of the Code] was flexibility, and therefore, the Code does not have any bright line rules for disclosure. Instead, the facts and circumstances of each case must be weighted when determining whether the standards have been violated. Under section 2(B)(1) of the Code, an arbitrator must disclose any current or past managerial, representational, or consultative relationship with any company or union involved in a proceeding in which the arbitrator is being considered for appointment or has been tentatively designated to serve. Disclosure must also be made of any pertinent pecuniary interest. An explanation following the rule states: The duty to disclose includes membership on a Board of Directors, full-time or part-time service as a representative or advocate, consultation work for a fee, current stock or bond ownership (other than mutual fund shares or appropriate trust arrangements) or any other pertinent form of managerial, financial or immediate family interest in the company or union involved. Thomas and Armstrong argue that Goldberg had a duty to disclose his panel membership under the [d]isclosure must also be made of any pertinent pecuniary interest language. They argue that Goldberg was required to disclose his panel appointment because he had an ongoing pecuniary interest in doing work with Metro and the PPA/PMSA. [47] Further, Thomas and Armstrong assert that Goldberg's interest was pertinent to this case because Metro and the NLVPD's health insurance was interrelated and because the two departments worked closely together. We do not agree. Goldberg's membership on the arbitration panel was not a managerial, representational, or consultative relationship. The comment following the disclosure requirement outlines the types of disclosures that must be made, and none are applicable to this situation. Further, the disclosure of pertinent pecuniary interest language must be read in context with the managerial, representational, or consultative relationship language. Goldberg has no such relationship with Metro and the PPA/PMSA. Thus, under section 2(B)(1), Goldberg's panel membership did not give rise to a reasonable impression of partiality, and he had no duty to disclose it. Under section 2(B)(3) of the Code, an arbitrator must disclose any close personal relationship or other circumstance ... which might reasonably raise a question as to the arbitrator's impartiality. Under subsections 4 and 5 of the Code, the arbitrator has a continuing burden of disclosure and must withdraw if the arbitrator discovers a conflict of interest. The National Academy of Arbitrators has previously interpreted the disclosure provisions of section 2(B)(3)-(5) of the Code. In Opinion No. 22, an arbitrator had been appointed to an administrative agency to hear a discharge case in which the parties were employer and Union A. [48] Before and during that matter, the arbitrator regularly served as an expedited arbitrator in cases between the same employer and Union B. The biographical material provided by the arbitrator to the appointing agency and by the appointing agency to Union A did not reference the arbitrator's position as a regular expedited arbitrator for the employer and Union B. The National Academy of Arbitrators held: Previous or current service as a neutral arbitrator for a particular employer and/or union is not a relationship requiring disclosure under the Code. Absent some personal relationship or other special circumstance mandating disclosure, such service is not a circumstance ... which might reasonably raise a question as to the arbitrator's impartiality. [49] We give deference to administrative interpretations. [50] Opinion No. 22 is the equivalent of an agency interpretation of the FMCS guidelines, and it holds that there is no duty to disclose the arbitration relationship in situations analogous to that before us. Additionally, we too conclude that under the FMCS guidelines, service on a neutral, rotating arbitration panel does not give rise to a reasonable impression of partiality. Thus, Goldberg did not have a duty to disclose his Metro/PPA/PMSA panel membership, and his nondisclosure did not demonstrate evident partiality. The district court erred by vacating the arbitration awards.