Court Opinion

ID: 9628078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:06:49.592875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:57.360622
License: Public Domain

*155Dore, J.
(dissenting) — The majority avoids reaching the merits of the controversy by holding that the writ of certiorari failed to vest jurisdiction with the superior court. I would uphold the court's jurisdiction and affirm the Superior Court.
Writ of Certiorari Can Challenge Legality of an Arbitrator's Award
RCW 7.16.040 provides that a writ of review (certiorari)
shall be granted by any court . . . when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer . . . or to correct any erroneous or void proceeding, or a proceeding not according to the course of the common law, and there is no appeal, nor in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law.
The superior court's power to review cases upon a writ of certiorari is expressly limited. Standow v. Spokane, 88 Wn.2d 624, 564 P.2d 1145 (1977). Resolution of this jurisdictional dispute hinges on whether the arbitrator, in conducting a hearing on an employee's grievance and in making an award, (1) performed a governmental function, (2) acted as an inferior tribunal, and (3) exercised judicial functions, and whether claimant had a remedy at law or right of appeal.
The majority holds that the subject arbitration concerns interpretation of a private contract rather than one involving a governmental function. Therefore; RCW 7.16.040 is unavailable because there was no governmental tribunal, board or officer involved as required by the statute. I disagree.
The matter in dispute is the interpretation of a written collective bargaining agreement entered into by an employer county with its employees. The arbitrator's decision will, undoubtedly, resolve the wage dispute of employee Williamson as well as many other employees, similarly situated, involving the same issue. Had the county commissioners and Williamson resolved their dispute without the benefit of an arbitrator, the matter would be gov*156ernmental. The lawful delegation by the parties of the right to decide an issue arising out of a collective bargaining agreement, through arbitration, does not make it any less governmental than it was before it was submitted. I would hold that the Superior Court in the subject case had jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 7.16.040 to review the arbitrator's award.
According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1967), an arbitrator is defined as "one with absolute power of deciding” and a tribunal is defined as "a person or body of persons having authority to hear and decide disputes so as to bind the disputants". The arbitrator in the subject case acted as an "inferior tribunal" within the meaning of that term as used in RCW 7.16.040. He was selected by both parties, heard and entered evidence, and made a binding award.
Washington courts have recognized that an arbitrator performs judicial functions, Tombs v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 83 Wn.2d 157, 161, 516 P.2d 1028 (1973) (personnel dispute); Northern State Constr. Co. v. Banchero, 63 Wn.2d 245, 249, 386 P.2d 625 (1963) (construction contract dispute). Certiorari has been used as a means of reviewing the relations between public employers and employees. Francisco v. Board of Directors, 85 Wn.2d 575, 537 P.2d 789 (1975) (dismissal of teacher); Augustine v. Board of Police Pension Fund Comm'rs, 44 Wn.2d 732, 270 P.2d 475 (1954) (pension board decision).
The subject arbitrator's function, when compared with the criteria as set forth in Standow, was "judicial": (1) the court could have been charged with the duty of making the determination in the first instance; (2) historically, courts have performed the duties which were discharged by the subject arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator applied existing law to past and present facts for the purpose of enforcing liability; and (4) the action of the subject arbitrator — by conducting the hearing, listening to testimony, admitting exhibits, and making a binding award — resembles the ordinary business of the courts.
*157Finally, Williamson had no right to appeal the arbitrator's decision, nor did he have any other adequate remedy at law. The collective bargaining agreement entered into by the parties calls for the submission of unsettled grievances to arbitration under RCW 41.56.122(2). The statute authorizes the inclusion of a binding arbitration clause in collective bargaining agreements, but provides for neither an appeal procedure nor any other procedure whereby an aggrieved party may gain review of the arbitrator's decision.
In conclusion, the superior court was vested with jurisdiction for purposes of review of the arbitrator's decision pursuant to RCW 7.16.040. Both parties appointed the arbitrator and authorized him to bind them. The arbitrator was to resolve questions of facts and law. He acted as a tribunal and performed a judicial function. The parties had no right to appeal or other remedy at law to obtain review of his decision.
Superior Court Can Modify Error Apparent on Face of Award
The submission agreement signed by the parties under date of August 7, 1979, contained the following provisions:
II. Arbiter's Jurisdiction
The parties stipulate that this matter will be tried solely by one arbiter, Eaton H. Conant. The parties further stipulate that the arbiter has jurisdiction to decide the issue stated below and that his jurisdiction is based upon the following exhibits, each of which is a true copy of the original:
Exhibit A: Current labor agreement between county and union.
Exhibit B: Grievance by Melvin O. Williamson dated January 4, 1979.
Exhibit C: Request for appointment of arbitrator.
Exhibit D: Letter from Public Employment Relations Commission: List of Arbitrators.
Exhibit E: Letter to Eaton Conant dated June 4, 1979, selecting arbitrator.
Exhibit F: 1977-1978 labor agreement between county and union.
*158III. Issue
Has the County violated its Collective Bargaining Agreement by requiring the grievant to work 8 hours a day while other employees in the bargaining unit are only required to work 7 hours a day pursuant to a longstanding practice? If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
IV. Contract Provision Alleged To Be Involved Article V — Hours of Labor
V. Procedure
C. The arbiter's decision will be based solely on this submission agreement and the evidence introduced at the hearing. . . .
(Italics mine.)
In the official agreement form, claimant Williamson requested an adjustment as follows:
"Authorize my work schedule to revert to a 7 hour day (as all courthouse employees) and be reimbursed for the extra hours worked."
Article IV(b) of the labor agreement states: "All grievances shall be in writing specifying the applicable provisions of the present agreement alleged to have been violated and filed within ten (10) days of its happening". The undisputed facts establish the respondent became a county employee in July 1977, and that he did not file an official grievance until January 4, 1979. In awarding respondent compensation for the extra hours he worked each day since becoming a county employee, the arbitrator completely ignored this critical provision of the labor agreement.
Detroit Coil Co. v. International Ass'n of Machinists, Lodge 82, 594 F.2d 575 (6th Cir. 1979) held that an arbitrator was bound by the time limits of the collective bargaining agreement. The court stated at page 579:
[Wjhile an arbitrator has considerable latitude, his powers are not unlimited in the resolution of labor disputes. The arbitrator is confined to the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement, and although he may construe ambiguous contract language, he is without authority to disregard or modify plain and *159unambiguous provisions . . . Furthermore, " [i]f the arbitrator's award has deviated from the plain meaning of a labor contract provision, it must find support in the contract itself or in prior practices demonstrating relaxation of the literal language".
(Citations omitted.)
Abbott v. California State Auto Ass'n, 68 Cal. App. 3d 763, 137 Cal. Rptr. 580 (1977) reviewed an arbitration proceeding pursuant to a statute which did not allow for vacation of an arbitrator's award despite errors of fact or law. Nonetheless, the court followed the rule that '"where the error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice, the award may be vacated”. (Italics mine.) Abbott, at 769. See Campbell v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 260 Cal. App. 2d 105, 67 Cal. Rptr. 175 (1968). Abbott further held that a stipulation before the reviewing court to the effect that the arbitrator's award was in direct conflict with the terms of the agreement, was tantamount to an error on the face of the award. Similarly, in Service Personnel of Dairy Indus., Teamsters Local 205 v. Carl Colteryahn Dairy, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 341, 344 (W.D. Pa. 1977), the court stated:
Where an award is issued in manifest disregard for the terms of the agreement, the court is bound to overrule it.
An arbitrator exceeds his authority when he ignores a relevant provision of the collective bargaining agreement. Dale v. Leechburg Area School Dist., 42 Pa. Commw. Ct. 339, 401 A.2d 582, 584-85 (1979).
Under the terms of the labor relations agreement between the Union and Grays Harbor County, if the County had granted Williamson his formal request, his work schedule would have reverted to a 7-hour day and he would have been granted compensation retroactive to 10 days before he filed his grievance. The County had no authority or jurisdiction under the agreement to award him more. The parties, in signing the written stipulation agreement, limited the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The collective bargaining agreement (Exhibit A — Article IV(b)) *160requires that all grievances be filed in writing specifying the applicable provisions of the collective bargaining agreement alleged to have been violated and filed within ten days of its happening. The arbitrator's award was, therefore, limited to provide relief to 10 days before the filing of the grievance. This was manifest on the face of the arbitrator's award and could be corrected by the Superior Court.
The Superior Court correctly modified the arbitrator's award to provide "the employer will also pay Mr. Williamson the appropriate hourly amount of compensation he should receive for working one extra hour a day (the 8th hour) since December 26, 1979".
I would affirm the Superior Court award as modified.