ORELL BROOKS, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2001-02-20
No. 1D00-499
KAHN, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
778 So. 2d 1051 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The appellate court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by interpreting the Collective Bargaining Agreement's provision regarding drug results.


Facts & Procedural History

An employee was dismissed for a positive drug test, but the arbitrator found the employer violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement by not consider…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

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.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw