COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60384 CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : AND vs. : : OPINION AMERICAN FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEES,: LOCAL 2681, AFL-CIO : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT APRIL 2, 1992 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. 022297 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: MICHAEL R. GAREAU Director of Law City of North Olmsted JAMES M. DUBELKO Assistant Director of Law 23823 Lorain Road, Suite 200 North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 For Defendant-Appellee: GEORGE W. PALDA STEVEN D. SHAFRON Berkman, Gordon, Murray and Palda 2121 The Illuminatin Building 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - PARRINO, J.: Plaintiff-appellant the City of North Olmsted ("City") appeals from the trial court's order which affirmed the arbitration decision in favor of defendant-appellee the American Federation of Employees, Local 2681, AFL-CIO ("Union") in this labor dispute. The City's contentions lack merit so we affirm. The following relevant facts gave rise to this appeal: In early January of 1980, the City laid off ten employees in its service department. During the summer of the same year, the City hired a number of temporary part-time summer employees for its service department and did not recall its previously laid off employees. A stipulation was entered into between the parties which revealed that the laid off employees were offered jobs with an independent contractor for solid waste removal. In June, a laborer in the City's service department filed a grievance regarding the City's hiring practices and the failure to recall the laid off employees prior to hiring replacement workers in the summer of 1980. The labor dispute was unable to be resolved through the grievance process and, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the matter was submitted to binding arbitration. In December of 1980, the arbitrator issued his opinion which upheld the grievance and awarded the laid off employees back pay. - 3 - In January 1981, the City then filed its motion to vacate or modify the award of the arbitrator in the court of common pleas pursuant to R.C. 2711.10. The City claimed the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by modifying the collective bargaining agreement. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in October 1987. No further action was taken by the court until June 18, 1990, when the court, sua sponte dismissed the action without prejudice at the City's costs. On July 27, 1990, the Union filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 60(B), ("60(B) Motion"), which was granted. The 60(B) Motion successfully urged the court to decide the case on its merits in the interest of justice. This order also granted judgment in favor of the Union. It is from this adverse ruling that the City appeals assigning two errors for our review. I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION TO VACATE AND IN THEREAFTER ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT FOR APPELLEE, WHERE APPELLANT WAS NOT PRO- VIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE APPELLEE'S MOTION TO VACATE. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR BELOW, WHERE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED THE POWER GRANTED TO HIM UNDER THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. I. In its first assigned error, the City argues the trial court erred in granting the Union's 60(B) Motion before the City was - 4 - able to respond to said motion in the requisite ten-day period from filing to adjudication. The City erroneously asserts that final judgment which granted the Union's 60(B) Motion was rendered on August 2, 1990 when in fact it was journalized on August 9, 1990, more than ten days after said motion was filed. Hence, the record belies the City's contention. The City also argues it was entitled to a hearing on the motion. Assuming one was requested, it is a well settled rule of law that the civil rules do not always entitle the parties to a hearing on every 60(B) motion. Adomeit v. Baltimore (1974), 39 Ohio App. 2d 97, 103. Accordingly, the first assigned error is overruled. II. In its second assigned error, the City argues the arbitrator exceeded his powers by modifying the collective bargaining agreement. In particular, the City avers the arbitrator overlooked the provisions of paragraph 69 of the agreement and erroneously concluded that these laid off employees had the right of recall. The City also argues that the laid off employees were "clearly to be terminated, or permanently laid off" despite the earlier characterization that the employees were just being "laid off." (See The City's brief at p. 9) (Emphasis in original). The degree of judicial restraint in reviewing an arbitrator's award pursuant to R.C. 2711.10(D) is great. - 5 - R.C. 2711.10 provides in pertinent part: "In any of the following cases, the court of common pleas shall make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration if: " *** "(D) The arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made." Moreover, "'[i]t is the policy of the law to favor and encourage arbitration and every reasonable intendment will be indulged to give effect to such proceedings and to favor the regularity and integrity of the arbitrator's acts.' ***"[Citation omitted.] Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Edn. Assn. (1986), 22 Ohio St. 3d 80, 84. *** Arbitration provides the parties with an alternate method of dispute resolution. "It provides the parties with a relatively speedy and inexpensive method of conflict resolution and has the additional advantage of unburdening crowded court dockets." Id. at 83, 22 OBR at 98, 488 N.E. 2d at 875. Accordingly, [the Ohio Supreme] court has placed certain restrictions on a reviewing court's authority to vacate an arbitrator's award pursuant to R.C. 2711.10(D), because the integrity and purposes of the arbitration system of dispute resolution would be seriously undermined in the absence of such restrictions. Findlay City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Findlay Edn. Assn. (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 129, 131-2. Further, "An arbitrator's award draws its essence from a collective bargaining agreement when there is a rational nexus between the agreement and the award, and where the award - 6 - is not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful." (Emphasis in original.) Mahoning, supra, at paragraph one of the syllabus. Paragraph 69 of the agreement reads: "SUB-CONTRACTING "69. The City shall meet and confer with the Union prior to sub-contracting out bargaining unit work, other than emergency work. If the City does contract out work in the Solid Waste Department, no more than ten (10) employees in the Laborer "C" Classification shall be required to leave the employment of the City. The displaced employees shall be offered an opportunity to be employed with the sub-contractor." The parties agreed by way of stipulation that the issue before the arbitrator was: "In light of Paragraph 69, with respect to laid off solid waste employees in the Service Department, should those employees have been called back from layoff in the summer of 1980, instead of the City continuing its program of hiring part-time 'student' summer help at minimum wage?" A letter from the City to the Union dated January 20, 1980, read in pertinent part: "Please be advised that as of this date, the following employees have been laid off work." Regarding the recall of laid off employees, paragraph 44 reads in applicable part: "RECALL FROM LAY-OFF "44. Employees shall be recalled to their classification in accordance with seniority or to other jobs they are qualified to perform in accordance with their seniority in the reverse order of their lay-off. ***." - 7 - Drawing the award's essence from the clear language of the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator's decision is not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful. The arbitrator did not find paragraph 69 dispositive of the narrow issue before him. He correctly consulted other sections, namely paragraph 44, and found that the laid off employees were to have been called back before the City could lawfully hire temporary part-time summer help for those positions previously occupied by the laid off workers. The City's argument that these workers were not laid off but were terminated belies the record in this case. Our review, exercised with judicial restraint, reveals that the arbitrator did not abuse his powers but correctly determined the issue presented to him. Accordingly, the second assigned error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 8 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DAVID T. MATIA, C.J., and ANN McMANAMON, J., CONCUR JUDGE THOMAS J. PARRINO* *Judge Thomas J. Parrino, Retired, Eighth Appellate District, Sitting by Assignment. N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .