Brooks v. City of Tallahassee

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brooks v. City of Tallahassee

778 So. 2d 1051, 166 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1751, 2001 WL 137411

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-499

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 778 So. 2d 1051 (Brooks v. City of Tallahassee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. City of Tallahassee, 778 So. 2d 1051, 166 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1751, 2001 WL 137411 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Orell Brooks, the appellant, appeals an order vacating an arbitration award reducing his dismissal for a positive drug result to a conditional suspension. Because the arbitrator did not exceed her authority as contemplated by section 682.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), we reverse.

Contrary to the trial court’s finding, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. She did not go beyond the authority granted by the parties or the Collective Bargaining Agreement and decide an issue not submitted to arbitration. See Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1329 (Fla.1989). The Agreement provided, under Section 24.9, that a positive drug result “shall result in a recommendation for dismissal.” The appel-lee, however, dismissed the appellant citing their purported zero-tolerance drug policy. At arbitration, the arbitrator found that the word “recommendation” was ambiguous and interpreted the section to allow the appellee discretion in assessing a penalty for the drug infraction. Therefore, the arbitrator found that the appellee violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it dismissed the appellant without considering any mitigating factors.

As the arbitrator found that the appellee violated Article 24.9, it was within her jurisdiction to fashion an appropriate remedy for the violation. The agreement conferred authority on the arbitrator, under Section 5.9, to determine an appropriate remedy for a violation of the Agreement. Thus, the record shows that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority. As such, the arbitration award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(l)(c). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to confirm the arbitrator’s award.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KAHN, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Orell Brooks, the appellant, appeals an order vacating an arbitration award reducing his dismissal for a positive drug result to a conditional suspension. Because the arbitrator did not exceed her authority as contemplated by section 682.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1999), we reverse.

Contrary to the trial court’s finding, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. She did not go beyond the authority granted by the parties or the Collective Bargaining Agreement and decide an issue not submitted to arbitration. See Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1329 (Fla.1989). The Agreement provided, under Section 24.9, that a positive drug result “shall result in a recommendation for dismissal.” The appel-lee, however, dismissed the appellant citing their purported zero-tolerance drug policy. At arbitration, the arbitrator found that the word “recommendation” was ambiguous and interpreted the section to allow the appellee discretion in assessing a penalty for the drug infraction. Therefore, the arbitrator found that the appellee violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it dismissed the appellant without considering any mitigating factors.

As the arbitrator found that the appellee violated Article 24.9, it was within her jurisdiction to fashion an appropriate remedy for the violation. The agreement conferred authority on the arbitrator, under Section 5.9, to determine an appropriate remedy for a violation of the Agreement. Thus, the record shows that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority. As such, the arbitration award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(l)(c). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to confirm the arbitrator’s award.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

KAHN, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 So. 2d 1051, 166 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1751, 2001 WL 137411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-city-of-tallahassee-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack