|
An appellate court in California ruled that it had authority to appoint an arbitrator in a dispute because the selection method agreed to by the parties did not contemplate or account for the consolidated proceedings in this case.
In City of Oakland v. Superior Court, No. A117646, 2007 WL 3247272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1 Dist. Nov. 05, 2007), police officers (Officers) for the City of Oakland (City) filed for arbitration against the City based on their Union employment agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The Officers' claims were consolidated into one.
After a failed attempt by the parties to select an arbitrator, the City filed a motion to order the Officers to select an arbitrator in accordance with the MOU. It also asked that the court award any other relief which it found just and proper.
The process outlined in the MOU provided a list of qualified applicants randomly selected by the Director of Personnel for the City, from which an arbitrator could be assigned in the order presented on the list. The list was created, but the parties could not agree on its implementation.
The Officers contended that under the MOU, each individual officer had a peremptory challenge. The City contended that the MOU should be interpreted as written; that the Officers had one challenge as a whole, regardless of the fact that the claims of the Officers were consolidated.
The trial court issued an order specifying the method for selection of an arbitrator due to the parties' different positions relating to interpretation of the selection process. The City challenged the trial court's order.
This Court agreed with the trial court. Relevant California law provides that, "In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed…the court…shall appoint the arbitrator." Cal. Civ. Pro. § 1281.6.
The MOU did not provide for a method to select an arbitrator "under the unique circumstances of this case." There was no guidance provided on the number or exercise of peremptory challenges where claims of Officers were consolidated.
Further, the Court noted that the City had requested in its order requesting selection of an arbitrator that the court award any other relief which it found just and proper. By this request, the City "consented to the [trial] court's jurisdiction to fashion a just resolution to the parties' dispute over the manner of arbitration selection. It may not now complain."
Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court's ruling was proper in its implementation of the default selection procedures of § 1281.6.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|