Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCP03396, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03396    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 52

Petitioner Los Angeles County Fire Department’s Petition to Vacate or Correct Arbitration Award

Petitioner Los Angeles County Fire Department petitions to vacate or confirm an arbitration award issued against it and in favor of respondent Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (on behalf of its member Benjamin Camarillo).  “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceedings.”  (CCP § 1286.)   

Courts have limited authority to vacate an arbitration award.  “A court’s power to correct or vacate an erroneous arbitration award is closely circumscribed.”  (Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) 7 Cal.5th 350, 367.)  “An arbitrator’s legal or factual error in determining which party prevailed may not be reversed.”  (Ibid.)  “It is within the power of the arbitrator to make a mistake either legally or factually.  When parties opt for the forum of arbitration they agree to be bound by the decision of that forum knowing that arbitrators, like judges, are fallible.”  (Id. at p. 370, internal quotes and alterations omitted.) 

Petitioner contends the arbitrator exceeded his authority.  Courts must vacate an award when “[t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.”  (CCP § 1286.2(a)(4).)

Petitioner relies on two United States Supreme Court cases about judicial review of contractual arbitration awards.  First, Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 17 (2000) 531 U.S. 57, 62 stated that “an arbitrator’s award ‘must draw its essence from the contract and cannot simply reflect the arbitrator’s own notions of industrial justice.’ [Citation.]  ‘But as long as [an honest] arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority,’ the fact that ‘a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.’ ”  Second, United Paperworkers Intern. Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc. (1987) 484 U.S. 29, 38 stated, “The arbitrator may not ignore the plain language of the contract; but the parties having authorized the arbitrator to give meaning to the language of the agreement, a court should not reject an award on the ground that the arbitrator misread the contract.”

Petitioner contends the arbitrator exceeded his authority in two ways.  First, the arbitrator rejected petitioner’s defenses that the Union and its member Benjamin Camarillo did not timely submit the grievance or the request for arbitration.  The award states, “These arguments were first raised in closing argument. …  These arguments have not been considered because they were first raised during closing argument and the issues raised in the arguments, as well as potential counter arguments involving waiver, were not fully briefed by the parties.”  (Pet., Ex. 6, Award, p. 12.) 

The arbitrator did not exceed his authority in exercising his discretion not to consider untimely arguments.  Not considering those defenses was a procedural decision about the conduct of the arbitration proceeding—not an interpretation of the parties’ MOU.  “Arbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.”  (Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 881, 888–889, internal quotes and alterations omitted.) 

The arbitrator’s decision not to consider untimely arguments did not preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.  Petitioner had ample opportunity to present its defenses based on timeliness.  It did not do so until its closing argument.  The arbitrator did not exceed his authority by choosing not to consider those defenses.

Second, petitioner contends the arbitrator exceeded his powers by not considering all the criteria to receive an ARB.  The arbitrator’s award did not specifically address petitioner’s argument that Camarillo could not get an ARB unless the Department and Chief Executive Office approved it.  (Pet. Ex. 1, MOU, Art. 24.) 

Petitioner provides no authority supporting its position that this exceeded the arbitrator’s powers or resulted in an award that did not draw from the essence of the contract.  The award’s analysis begins by quoting “[t]he pertinent MOU provision, Article 24 (Assignment of Additional Responsibilities).”  (Pet. Ex. 6, Award, p. 9.)  That the award does not address petitioner’s argument about Departmental and CEO approval does not mean the arbitrator ignored the MOU’s plain language. 

Petitioner’s argument amounts to saying the arbitrator was wrong.  Even if so, that would not be grounds for vacating the award.  The arbitrator applied the contract.  The award still draws its essence from the MOU. 

Disposition 

Petitioner Los Angeles County Fire Department’s motion to vacate or correct arbitration award is denied.  Respondent Service Employees International Union, Local 721’s motion to confirm arbitration award is granted.  The final award issued by arbitrator Samuel Reyes is hereby confirmed.  The court will sign the proposed order submitted by respondent.