METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1363, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the circuit court's confirmation of an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by interpreting the collective bargaining agreement to resolve a dispute between the county and union.
An arbitrator does not exceed his authority when he interprets a collective bargaining agreement to determine its meaning as applied to the facts of a dispute.
[1] An arbitrator does not exceed his authority under a collective bargaining agreement by interpreting the agreement to determine its meaning as applied to the facts of a di…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMetropolitan Dade County and Dade County Employees, Local 1363 had a collective bargaining agreement containing an arbitration provision. A dispute ar…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitrator Exceeding Powers cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Metropolitan Dade County appeals an order of the circuit court confirming an arbitration award in a dispute growing out of a collective bargaining agreement between the County and Dade County Employees, Local 1363, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO.
The dispute, concerning the interpretation and application of the agreement, could not be amicably settled. The union invoked the arbitration provision of the agreement and arbitration proceeded regularly before a mutually selected arbitrator, who found for the union. The County, being dissatisfied, filed a motion in the circuit court to vacate the arbitration award and urged that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by modifying or ignoring the language of the agreement. The union contended that the arbitrator merely interpreted the agreement in order to determine its meaning as applied to the facts of the dispute. The circuit court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in applying the agreement. This appeal is from .that order. The County makes the same argument here that it did in the circuit court. We hold that no error has been demonstrated. The arbitrator did exactly what the agreement to arbitrate provided. He settled a dispute concerning the application of the collective bargaining agreement. See Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So. 2d 102 (Fla.1951); and Dairyland Insurance Company v. Hudnall, 279 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)…, 425 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), because of direct and express conflict with Cobb v. State, 376 So. 2d 230 (Fla.1979); Tacoronte v. State, 419 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and Oliva v. State, 346 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 348 So. 2d 951 (Fla.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1010, 98 S.Ct. 719, 54 L.Ed.2d 752 (1978). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Respondent was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. The di…
-
Blair v. State, 406 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1981)…nsupported statements. As for the other comments complained of, we cannot say that they were “of such a nature so as to poison the minds of the jurors or to prejudice them so that a fair and impartial verdict could not be rendered.” Oliva v. State, 346 So. 2d 1066, 1068-69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1010, 98 S.Ct. 719, 54 L.Ed.2d 752 (1978). They did not “materially contribute to this conviction”, Zamot v. State, 375 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) were not “so harmful or fundamentally tain…
-
Ashley v. State, 370 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…v. State, supra. Therefore, we find no error under this point. The fifth point on appeal urges error because of the denial of various motions for mistrial. No error was presented. See Johnsen v. State, 332 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1976); and Oliva v. State, 346 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). On the separate ground that one of the comments objected to was invited error, see Jackson v. State, 359 So. 2d 1190 (Fla.1978). The sixth point presented urges error upon the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress his con…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1951)
- Jerline Lee Montgomery Hendricks v. Farrel Bradley Hendricks, 279 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)