At Work: Solutions for Employers & Employees

When the Linden Education Association filed a grievance on behalf of one of its members who had been terminated by the Linden Board of Education, it likely did not anticipate having the matter decided by the state’s highest court. However, that is exactly what happened when an application to vacate the arbitration award made its way up through the court system.

In the recent case of Linden Board of Education v. Linden Education Association o/b/o Mizichko, decided by the State’s Highest Court on June 8, 2010, the parties entered into binding arbitration as per the collective bargaining agreement between the labor association and board. The arbitrator found no just cause for the employee’s termination and instead imposed the lesser penalty of a suspension. He found that a type of progressive and corrective discipline should be imposed to satisfy just cause, and that the employee’s misconduct was not so egregious to support just cause to terminate him.

The board sought to vacate the award in the Superior Court, Law Division and the award was confirmed. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that there was just cause to terminate the employee and that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by considering other remedies. Because there was a dissenting judge at the appellate level, the labor association was able to appeal to the Supreme Court as of right.

Writing for the majority of the Court, Justice Wallace held that the fair and reasonable interpretation of the arbitrator’s decision is that he found no just cause to terminate the employee and that he imposed an appropriate, lesser sanction, which satisfied the reasonably debatable standard of review and did not exceed the limits of his authority.

Employers, labor associations and employees should take note that the court favored both the use of arbitration to resolve labor disputes and the preference for judicial confirmation of arbitration awards. Courts also have limited review of arbitration awards, especially in the public sector where such awards will be confirmed so long as they are reasonably debatable. With this in mind, all parties should focus on the importance of the arbitration proceeding, which is likely to be binding absent a showing of fraud, undue procurement or other misconduct.

When entering into collective bargaining agreements that include arbitration provisions, boards of education and labor associations should remember the court’s explanation of what arbitration really is – a vehicle by which meaning and content are given to a collective bargaining agreement. Hence, the arbitrator’s construction of the agreement becomes the actual bargain between the parties.

In the Mizichko case, the court was persuaded that the issue for arbitration was framed such that the arbitrator was within his purview to determine the appropriate remedy if termination was not found to be the proper remedy. The collective bargaining agreement at issue did not define just cause, which according to the court gave the arbitrator the authority to properly fill in the gap and give meaning to the term.

While every case is determined by its own the specific facts and circumstances, the Mizichko decision also provides a general word of caution: parties that engage in arbitration will face an uphill battle if they attempt to vacate an arbitration award. Hence, parties should be mindful of the importance of zealous advocacy at the arbitration level. This case may strengthen the judicial preference for both resolution by arbitration and confirmation of arbitration awards in the future.