An arbitrator is the final judge of both law and fact.  This is a statement made in hundreds of decisions regarding the decisions made by arbitrators during hearings.  Under that premise, it is incredibly difficult for parties to contest the findings of arbitrators.  However, when an arbitrator’s decision directly contradicts a statute or public policy, courts have the opportunity to overturn the arbitrator’s decision.

In 2019, two court reporters, appointed to their positions by district court judges, were terminated by those same judges for “disruptive and disrespectful conduct.”  As they were both members of the Teamsters Local 320 unit, they filed administrative complaints under their collective bargaining agreement and requested arbitration.  The Minnesota Judicial Branch (“MJB”), the employer, moved to dismiss the complaints, claiming that the terminations were not arbitrable, as court reporters are to serve at the pleasure of their appointing judges.

During the hearing to determine the arbitrability of the complaints, the arbitrator recognized that both the CBA and state law allowed an appointing judge to “remove a reporter from their courtroom,” he found that the judge had no authority to terminate the court reporter’s employment with MJB.  MJB appealed to district court, which vacated the arbitrator’s award.

The union then appealed the decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which had to resolve the question of whether court reporters who had been terminated by their appointing judges were entitled to arbitration the terminations under either their collective bargaining agreement or the law in State of Minnesota, Minnesota Judicial Branch v. Teamsters Local 320.

Minn. Stat. §486.01 states, “Each judge…may appoint a competent stenographer as reporter of the court, to hold office during the judge’s pleasure, and to act as the judge’s secretary in all matters pertaining to official duties.”  To the contrary, PELRA states that all CBAs must “include a grievance procedure providing for compulsory binding arbitration of…all written disciplinary actions.”  At the same time, PELRA also states that “judges may appoint and remove court reporters at their pleasure.”

On top of this statutory authority, the parties also agreed, in their CBA, that “powers granted to the Appointing Authority under statute or this contract are not subject to the Administrative Complaint Process,” and granted the appointing authority the power to appoint and remove an employee from serving.

This led to the court’s analysis or what it means to “remove” an employee from service.  Review of the collective bargaining agreement led to the determination that the parties used the words “remove” and “terminate” interchangeably, including a section that stated, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit in any way the right of the Appointing Authority to terminate their Court Reporter at their pleasure.”

In addition, since the parties negotiated their first collective bargaining agreement, 25 court reporters were terminated by their appointing judges, and none resulted in the arbitration of their termination.

While the court found the plain language of the contract to bar the arbitration of court reporter terminations, the court continued by analyzing the intent behind the word “pleasure” (which sounds weirder and weirder the more you say it).  A review of caselaw found when an employee can be removed “at pleasure” of the appointing authority, he can be removed at will, with or without cause.  With that, the court upheld the district court’s decision to vacate the arbitrator’s award.

Now, the union had to realize it faced an uphill battle heading into court to try and argue that judges did not have the authority to terminate their appointed court reporters, seeing as they had to make these arguments in front of judges.  However, it is always a challenge for employers to contest the determinations of arbitrators at the judicial level.  In this case, the employer needed clear contractual language and statutory language on its side to overrule the findings of the arbitrator.  If you, or your organization need assistance in the arbitration of your disputes, or the challenging of arbitrator’s awards, contact Wiley Reber Law, for experience that works.