Brandon Lauck is a firefighter for the City of Columbus, Ohio Fire Department. In 2021, Lauck took an examination for a lieutenant promotion. The CBA between the City and Lauck’s union, IAFF Local 67, implemented a “rule of three,” by which all promotions must be filled by one of the three highest-ranked candidates. Lauck ranked first, but the City promoted another candidate among the top three. The Union grieved on Lauck’s behalf, arguing that the City improperly passed Lauck over for promotion.
The Union alleged that (1) the parties established a past practice by which the eligible candidate with the highest exam score was always promoted; (2) the City failed to otherwise explain to Lauck why he was not promoted; and (3) the City may have improperly considered a years-old traffic accident in its decision not to promote. After a hearing, an arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the City did not violate the contract under these circumstances.
The Union moved to vacate the arbitration award at trial court and succeeded. The trial court was persuaded that the Arbitrator failed to address the issues as presented by the Union, holding that the Arbitrator “failed to determine whether the City’s decision not to promote Brandon Lauck was reasonable, fair and/or non-discriminatory.” The City appealed.
The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, reinstating the Arbitrator’s award. It found that the trial court improperly concluded that the Arbitrator failed to consider whether Lauck’s non-promotion was “reasonable, fair and/or non-discriminatory,” because the following language appeared in the award: “Nothing was presented that suggested the Civil Service Process or the exams themselves were improper in any manner, only that Lauck didn’t get the job for which he was qualified. Pointing to a specific violation would be more helpful. If anything, testimony was that the selection procedure was open, fair to everyone, reasonable and not discriminatory.”
The Court rejected the Union’s argument that the Arbitrator only considered the fairness of the promotional process, but not the actual decision at the end of that process. The Court found the Arbitrator’s focus on the promotional process to be adequate to support his conclusion that Lauck was treated fairly as required by the CBA. The “denial of the grievance draws its essence from the CBA – it was rational and did not conflict with the express terms of the CBA. The Arbitrator’s decision can only reasonably be construed as indicating both his consideration of the requirements of the CBA, and his finding that Lauck was not treated improperly in violation of those requirements.”
International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 67 v. City of Columbus, 23AP-37, 2023 WL 9425285 (Ohio Ct. App., 2023).