 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State2/25/2005
director. RIBCO countered that the arbitrator's findings and conclusions were rationally based on the arbitrator's independent evaluation of the evidence before him.
After considering these arguments, the Superior Court justice ruled that the arbitrator's findings were not irrational, and that the arbitrator did not substitute his judgment for that of the director. The Superior Court justice also found that the arbitrator's awardof back pay from April 25, 1993, to March 12, 1997, was rational and supported by the terms of the CBA and relevant DOC rules. Furthermore, the Superior Court justice ruled that Mr. Algasso's post-discharge criminal conduct did not prohibit the award of back pay after that conduct. The Superior Court justice found that there was no evidence that the DOC discovered Mr. Algasso's misconduct in 1995, and noted that the DOC's Code of Ethics and Conduct expressly indicates that discipline is warranted upon a criminal conviction or a plea of nolo contendere. With respect to prejudgment interest, the Superior Court justice found that the doctrine of sovereign immunity insulates the state from paying interest, and that the state neither had expressly nor implicitly waived that protection. The Superior Court justice denied the state's motion to vacate the arbitrator's award of back pay and benefits and granted RIBCO's motion to confirm the arbitrator's award of back pay and benefits. He further granted the state's motion to vacate the arbitrator's award of prejudgment interest and denied RIBCO's motion to confirm the arbitrator's award of prejudgment interest.
Standard of Review
At the outset, we note that judicial authority to review an arbitration award is statutorily prescribed and very limited. Town of North Providence v. Local 2334 International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, 763 A.2d 604, 605 (R.I. 2000). Limited judicial review of these proceedings is based on the strong public policy favoring private settlement of collective bargaining grievances. Rhode Island Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State, 714 A.2d 584, 588 (R.I. 1998); Belanger v. Matteson, 115 R.I. 332, 356, 346 A.2d 124, 138 (1975). However, " lthough public policy favors the final resolution of disputes * * * by arbitration, this policy relies on the premise that arbitrators act within their power and authority." Town of Coventry v. Turco, 574 A.2d 143, 147 (R.I. 1990).
"The general rule is that ' bsent a manifest disregard of a contractual provision or a completely irrational result, [an arbitration] award will be upheld.'" Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers v. State Department of Corrections, 707 A.2d 1229, 1234 (R.I. 1998) (quoting Turco, 574 A.2d at 146). The standard of review in this situation is governed by § 28-9-18(a), which requires a court to vacate an arbitrator's award in three circumstances.
Specifically, § 28-9-18(a)(2) states that an award must be vacated " here the arbitrator or arbitrators exceeded their powers." An arbitrator may exceed his or her powers in one of several ways. "First, if the arbitration award does not 'draw its essence' from the or is not based upon a 'passibly plausible' interpretation thereof, a court may determine that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded a contractual provision or reached an irrational result and thereby exceeded his or her authority." Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers, 707 A.2d at 1234. Second, an arbitration award will be vacated if, for example, the issue determined was not arbitrable in the first place. See, e.g., Rhode Island Court Reporters Alliance v. State, 591 A.2d 376, 378-79 (R.I. 1991). Similarly, an arbitrator may exceed his or her powers by interpreting a C
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|