Superior Court Affirms Arbitration Victory For Boston Police Superior Officers Federation
Arbitration decisions are supposed to be "final and binding," in order to provide a relatively quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation to resolve disputes. But some employers refuse to accept the finality of an award, especially when they lose. A Suffolk County Superior Court judge recently rejected City of Bostons taxpayer-funded challenge to an arbitration victory for the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation. Attorneys Leah Barrault and Ian Russell represented the Federation through the arbitration and appeal.
In this case, the Boston Police Department disciplined a superior officer 45 days based on allegations that he improperly assigned himself a detail, was confrontational and threatening to a superior officer, and provided false statements during an investigation into the matter. The Arbitrator concluded that the Department failed to provide credible evidence of two charges, and affirmed only the one about threatening/confrontational behavior. She specifically found that the superior officer was not untruthful. Given that the Department could substantiate only one of the three charges, the Arbitrator reduced the suspension from 45 to 20 working days.
Even though the Arbitrator specifically found that the superior officer was not untruthful, the City nonetheless appealed the "final and binding" arbitration award to court. The City argued that because the arbitrator found that the superior officer was "neither forthcoming nor forthright", her decision must be reversed under the very narrow "public policy" exception.
The Federation viewed the City's argument as patently frivolous. An arbitrator's award can be overturned as against public policy only where it directs the employer to violate a clear, well-established public policy. While the Courts have determined that an arbitrator cannot, in some exceptional circumstances, order reinstatement of a terminated police officer who is found to have lied during official duties, the Department did not actually terminate the superior officer here. The Department merely suspended him. In other words, the arbitrator's reduction of discipline here did not force the Department to employ the superior officer. The award merely reduced discipline. After all, the City, left to its own devices, did not think the alleged conduct warranted termination.
The Superior Court judge ultimately denied the City's appeal because the arbitrator specifically found that the superior officer was not untruthful. He wrote: "Absent evidence of a deliberate falsehood, merely shading or minimizing one's version of an event likely would not violate any well-defined and dominant public policy."
