Opinion
Civil Action 2:04-CV-883.
June 14, 2005
OPINION and ORDER
On August 18, 2004, Plaintiff, Leland Eugene Lones [hereinafter "Plaintiff"], filed an action in the Common Pleas Court of Fairfield County, Ohio, seeking to vacate an arbitration award denying his grievance in which he challenged his employer's refusal to pay him certain sick leave benefits. The complaint alleges that the arbitration award was procured in violation of O.R.C. § 2711.10. On September 14, 2004, Plaintiff's employer, South Central Power Company [hereinafter "South Central"], removed this action to this Court as an action arising under 29 U.S.C. § 185. The union, Local Union 2359 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers [hereinafter "Local Union 2359"], has been joined as a third-party defendant. With the consent of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this matter is before the Court on South Central's motion to dismiss the action or to supplement the record. Doc. No. 12. On February 3, 2005, plaintiff was granted an opportunity to seek leave to respond to the motion. Preliminary Pretrial Order, at p. 1, Doc. No. 19. Plaintiff has made no response to the motion.
In its motion, Defendant South Central argues that Plaintiff's claim should be dismissed for failure to provide this Court a complete transcript of the arbitration proceedings. Specifically, South Central contends that Plaintiff has failed to include for this Court's consideration the exhibits that were offered into evidence at the arbitration. See Exhibits 1-19 attached to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or to Supplement.
It is well established, under Ohio law, that arbitration awards are presumed to be valid. Marra Constructors, Inc. v. Cleveland Metroparks Systems, 82 Ohio App. 3d 557, 562 (8th Dist. 1993). The public policy favoring arbitration requires that courts be granted only limited authority to vacate an arbitrator's award. Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the International Association of Fire Fighters v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St. 3d 476, 486 (2003). In determining whether an arbitration award should be set aside, the court is precluded from reviewing the merits of the arbitrator's decision. University Mednet v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ohio, 126 Ohio App. 3d 219, 231 (8th Dist. 1997). Instead, judicial review of an arbitration award is limited by Ohio law to claims of corruption, fraud, material mistake or other misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. O.R.C. § 2711.10; Lynch v. Halcomb, 16 Ohio App. 3d 223, 224 (12th Dist. 1984). In making this determination, the reviewing court "is constrained to review the arbitration award based solely on the record of the arbitration proceeding and those facts as contained in the arbitrator's decision." McDonald Local School District v. Dull, 1999 WL 689732, *1 (11th Dist. 1999); Chester Township v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc., 102 Ohio App. 3d 404, 408 (11th Dist. 1995) (reviewing court "must base its decision solely upon the record of the arbitration proceedings, including a transcript of the arbitration hearing"). The failure of the parties to an arbitration award to provide the court "with a verbatim transcript or other complete record of the evidence presented during arbitration proceedings" requires the court to presume the regularity of the proceedings and to confirm the award. Marra Contructors, Inc., 82 Ohio App. 3d at 563; Hochwalt v. Rosser, 28 Ohio Misc. 253, 255 (Ohio Com. Pl. 1970) (In absence of a complete record of the proceedings that were before the arbitrator, a court cannot set aside an arbitration award).
Under Ohio law, an arbitration award may be vacated only if:
(A) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means
(B) There was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or any of them
(C) The arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced
(D) The arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definitive award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
O.R.C. § 2711.10.
As Plaintiff has failed to file a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss, this Court must assume that the record is incomplete. In the absence of a complete record, the arbitration award cannot be vacated. Marra Constructors, Inc., 82 Ohio App. 3d at 562. However, Defendant has proferred the purported arbitration exhibits. Exhibits 1-19, attached to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or to Supplement. It is unclear, based on this record, whether plaintiff agrees to the authenticity of these proffered exhibits or, indeed, whether plaintiff intends to pursue this litigation.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this action, Doc. No. 20, which has been denied. Doc. No. 23.
If plaintiff intends to pursue this litigation, he shall respond to Defendant's alternative motion to supplement the record no later than June 27, 2005. His failure to do so will result in the grant of Defendant's motion to dismiss.