Garner v. City of Tulsa, 58072

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Citation651 P.2d 1325
Docket NumberNo. 58072,58072
Parties113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3613, 1982 OK 104 Ronald N. GARNER and Thomas L. Baker, Petitioners, v. The CITY OF TULSA, Oklahoma, a municipal corporation, Respondent.
Decision Date28 September 1982

Donald M. Bingham, Chapel, Wilkinson, Riggs, Abney & Henson, Tulsa, for petitioners.

Neal E. McNeill, City Atty. by Gerald W. Wright, Asst. City Atty., Tulsa, for respondent.

LAVENDER, Justice:

This is an application to assume original jurisdiction and for a writ of mandamus. The essential and undisputed facts on the basis of which jurisdiction and relief are sought are as follows:

Respondent, City of Tulsa, is a municipal corporation and a city of the first class under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Respondent operates under a home-rule charter approved by the Governor on January 5, 1909.

Petitioner Thomas L. Baker is president of Local No. 176, International Association of Fire Fighters, an unincorporated association, which is the exclusive bargaining agent for the Tulsa Fire Department in matters pertaining to collective bargaining and labor disputes between said fire fighters and Respondent.

Petitioner Ronald N. Garner is a member of the union who filed the grievance which is the subject of this action.

On August 26, 1980, the Union and the City entered into a written Collective Bargaining Agreement pursuant to statutes now codified as 11 O.S.1981, § 51-101, et seq.

On October 27, 1980, the Union filed a grievance on behalf of Garner alleging that the City had violated Art. 11, § 5 1 of the agreement in that Garner had been on a disability retirement and was reinstated to the position of Firefighter after his medical situation had improved. Union contended Garner should be reinstated as a Relief Fire Equipment Operator and receive Relief Fire Equipment Operator pay. City contended Garner did not then meet the training requirements of the agreement to entitle him to that education pay.

On April 16, 1981, the controversy was submitted to arbitration pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp.1977, § 51-106, et seq., and the arbitrator considered the following issues:

1. Whether the grievant, who was an acting and qualified Relief Driver of the Tulsa Fire Department at the time of his service-connected disability retirement in 1977, is entitled to the additional $35 per month pay which Relief Drivers are entitled under Art. 11, § 5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement if his health is restored and he returns to work in 1980 under the provisions of 11 O.S.Supp.1977, § 49-109 2 which provides that he shall "be restored to active service at the salary attached to the rank held at the time of his disability retirement";

2. Whether a Relief Driver is a "rank" within the meaning of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and 11 O.S.Supp.1977, § 49-109;

3. If the position of Relief Driver is a rank, whether grievant is entitled to the $35 per month provided for in Art. 11, § 5 of the Agreement;

4. If the position of Relief Driver is not a rank, whether the management of the Tulsa Fire Department can deny grievant the right to exchange duty under Art. 22 with any FD-01 whether or not such FD-01 may or may not be a Relief Driver.

The arbitrator made the following award on July 13, 1981:

"The grievance of the Union is arbitratable. The arbitrator has the authority to interpret 11 O.S.Supp.1977, § 49-109. He finds that that section was intended by the parties to be deemed a part of their collective bargaining agreement. A firefighter in the Tulsa Fire Department who has qualified as an R.F.E.O. is deemed to hold the rank of R.F.E.O. for the purpose of receiving the benefits contemplated by § 49-109 of Title 11, Oklahoma Statutes (1971). The grievance of the Union is sustained in accordance with the Opinion expressed above.

"The monetary portion of this Award shall be paid to the grievant not later than the end of the second pay period following the date of this Award."

The City of Tulsa failed and refused to honor the award and to implement the same, contending:

The Arbitrator exceeded his authority in that he determined that the provisions of 11 O.S.Supp.1977, § 49-109 were within the contemplation of the parties to the arbitration agreement and in that he applied the same in determining the issues before him in the arbitration hearing, thereby making the Fireman's Pension Fund law a part of the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Union.

The City raised other objections to the award which, by reason of our holding in this cause, are unnecessary for us to consider.

Petitioners thereupon filed a petition in this Court seeking our assumption of original jurisdiction and a writ of mandamus.

The collective bargaining agreement provides (Art. 7--Grievance Procedure):

"Sec. 10. The arbitrator's authority is strictly limited to the interpretation and application of the terms of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall have no jurisdiction to establish a new agreement or any variation or modification of the present Agreement, nor to arbitrate away, in whole or in part, any provision of this Agreement or any supplements thereto or amendments thereof; nor shall any wage structures or structure of job classifications covered by this Agreement be subject to arbitration. This shall not preclude individual wage grievances." (Emphasis added.)

"Sec. 9. With respect to the interpretation, enforcement, or application of the provisions of the AGreement, the decisions, findings, and recommendations of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this Agreement; however, the authority and responsibility of Employer as provided by the Charter of the City of Tulsa shall not be usurped in any manner unless specifically amended or modified by this Agreement."

"Sec. 11. It is specifically and expressly understood that taking an appeal to arbitration constitutes an election of remedies and a waiver of any and all rights by the appealing party and all persons it represents to litigate or otherwise contest the appealed subject matter in any court or other forum. This Section shall not apply to the judicial enforcement of an arbitration award."

As a part of the Arbitrator's findings and award, it is stated:

"If one assumes ... that the agreement is silent on the subject of when, if and under what circumstances a firefighter is to receive benefits for an on-the-job injury and what are the conditions of his returning to work if his disability subsides, is it not to be said that a state statute on that subject would impact on the 'manner of conducting the operation and administration of the Tulsa Fire Department ...? The answer is patently obvious that it would. In which case it necessarily follows that the extent of the impact and/or the nature of the relief to be afforded a firefighter can properly be the subject of a grievance whenever there is a difference of opinion over whether or not the Employer is properly exercising its right to conduct the operation and administration of the Department. [S]uch a matter can be the subject of a grievance. It is equally clear that the dispute before him is a proper grievance. .... The question is, being a grievance how is it to be resolved. That is to say, must it be resolved on the basis of the limited language within the 'four corners of the collective bargaining agreement' or may it be decided by applying both the agreement and the applicable 'external law' (11 O.S.Supp.1977, § 49-109)? The undersigned believes the latter course is the better because he believes it more correctly reflects the parties' original intent. Moreover, he also believes that in order for certain of the agreement's sections to have a full and complete meaning it is necessary that 'external law' be utilized ...."

Reduced to its essence, the issue here presented is simply this: In interpreting and applying the terms of a collective bargaining agreement wherein the interpretation and application of the provisions of the agreement are final and binding on the parties to the agreement, and where the meaning of the provisions of the agreement as determined within the four corners of the agreement is unclear and uncertain, may the arbitrator find and determine that "external statutory law" was within the contemplation of the contracting parties, and when applied to the facts as determined by the arbitrator both clarify and establish the interpretation and application of the provisions of the agreement as applied to such facts? We answer in the affirmative.

In so determining, we specifically point out that it is not the interpretation of 11 O.S.Supp.1977, § 49-109 which is challenged by the City, but rather its applicability as an aid to the arbitrator in determining the interpretation and application of the provisions of the agreement to the facts which is placed in issue.

The courts generally look with favor upon arbitration statutes and contracts as a shortcut to substantial justice with a minimum of court interference. 3

Art. 7, § 9 of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Farley v. City of Claremore, 115,400
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 5 Mayo 2020
    ...of Highways , 1960 OK 89, 350 P.2d 948, 950 ; Saxon v. Macy , 1990 OK 60, 795 P.2d 101 ; Garner v. City of Tulsa , 1982 OK 104, 651 P.2d 1325.152 Renewable Fuels Ass'n v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency , 948 F.3d 1206, 1231 (10th Cir. 2020) quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , 578 U.S. –......
  • Osage Nation v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Osage Cnty., 113414
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 2 Mayo 2017
    ...official to perform an alleged duty "was in the nature of a writ of mandamus") (emphasis added), Garner v. City of Tulsa, 1982 OK 104, 651 P.2d 1325 (mandamus will issue against a public official where an obligation is imposed by law).57 Compare, Moore v. Porterfield, 1925 OK 914, 113 Okla.......
  • World Pub. Co. v. White, 95,518.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 12 Junio 2001
    ...30, ¶ 6, 958 P.2d 128; Keltch v. Alfalfa County Election Bd., 1987 OK 8, ¶ 1, 737 P.2d 908; Garner v. City of Tulsa, 1982 OK 104, ¶ 30, 651 P.2d 1325; Carpet City, Inc. v. Stillwater Municipal Hosp. Auth., 1975 OK 75, ¶ 28, 536 P.2d 335. There can be little doubt that the criminal activity ......
  • Raines v. Independent School Dist. No. 6 of Craig County, 6
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 17 Julio 1990
    ...all our previous cases. Long v. DeGeer, 753 P.2d 1327 (Okla.1987); Taylor v. Johnson, 706 P.2d 896 (Okla.1985); Garner v. City of Tulsa, 651 P.2d 1325 (Okla.1982); City of Midwest City v. Harris, 561 P.2d 1357 (Okla.1977). With this abrupt departure from our earlier precedents the Court und......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT