Court Agrees With Attys Russell and Cochran That Final & Binding Arbitration Victory Is Final & Binding

Most collective bargaining agreements provide for arbitration, a relatively informal and inexpensive method to resolve disputes between employers and unions. Without final and binding arbitration, the parties are forced to use time-consuming and expensive process of court litigation. (In the private sector, parties arguably could resort to economic weapons, such as strikes and lockouts, if a contract did not contain arbitration or "no strike/lockout" clauses).

Some employers, despite agreeing to "final and binding" arbitration in a contract, still refuse to accept the results. On occasion, an employer asks a judge to throw out an arbitration award. Thankfully, courts rarely disturb an arbitrator's decision.

In this case, an employer terminated a Boston Housing Authority worker represented by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 122 for allegedly threatening a co-worker. An arbitrator found the allegation to be baseless, given that all participants in a conversation understood the worker's comment to be in jest. The arbitrator directed the employer to reinstate the worker.

Instead, the employer asked court to intervene. On rare occasions, a judge can overturn an award if it was obtained "by corruption, fraud or other undue means"; the arbitrator was biased or corrupt; the arbitrator exceeded their powers; and/or the award required the employer to violate a law or public policy. The judge agreed that none of those factors were present here. He dismissed the appeal.

For now, the "final and binding" language is upheld.