Water Works Emp. Local No. 1045, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Board of Water Works
| Decision Date | 03 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79CA0631,AFL-CIO,79CA0631 |
| Citation | 615 P.2d 52,44 Colo.App. 178 |
| Parties | WATER WORKS EMPLOYEES LOCAL NO. 1045, AFSCME,, and Ted Brennan, Steve Brown, Wilfred Couture, Richard Esgar, Chester Evans, Ben Gomez, Ray Hurt, D. K. Martin, Wes Popp, Anthony Sanchez, Tony Wagner and Gary Winters, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF WATER WORKS and Howard E. Whitlock, Verdon L. Johnson, Bret Kelly, Owen G. McKinney, and Joseph Ott, as Members of the Board, and Individually, and Larry C. Fountaine, as Executive Director of the Board, and Individually, Defendants-Appellees. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Myrick, Newton & Sullivan, P. C., William E. Myrick, James W. Nearen, Jr., Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Petersen & Fonda, P. C., William F. Mattoon, Pueblo, for defendant-appellee Board of Water Works.
Laurence A. Ardell, Mickey W. Smith, Pueblo, for defendants-appellees Howard E. Whitlock, Verdon L. Johnson, Bret Kelly, Owen G. McKinney, Joseph Ott, and Larry C. Fountaine.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing their second claim for relief. We affirm.
In 1977, defendants (the board) entered into a three year working agreement with Local 1045, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (the Union). The working agreement contained a grievance procedure which included as its final step the following:
"Section H (Fourth Step) Either party may, five (5) working days after reply from Executive Director, by written notice, request advisory arbitration." (emphasis added)
Under the agreement, within thirty days after the close of the last hearing on a matter, the arbitrator was required to submit to the Board and to the Union his written report setting forth his findings of fact, reasoning, conclusions, and recommendations.
The agreement further provided that: (T)he board (shall) take official action on the recommendations of the arbitrator at its next regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called for that purpose. The Board may accept, reject or modify the advisory arbitrator's recommendation." (emphasis added)
In the spring of 1978, the Union filed a grievance protesting a reorganization by the Board which resulted in the demotion of several foremen and other employees. After advisory arbitration held pursuant to the above provision of the working agreement, the arbitrator made findings favorable to the union. At its regular meeting on October 17, 1978, the Board rejected the findings and recommendations of the arbitrator. The Union then filed this suit which contained four claims for relief, including a claim for confirmation of the arbitration award as provided in § 13-22-213, C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Cum.Supp.) of the Uniform Arbitration Act. The Board moved to dismiss this claim on the basis that only advisory arbitration had been held, and thus, that the advisory recommendation was not binding on the Board.
The court granted this motion and entered a C.R.C.P. 54(b) order so that an appeal could be taken from the judgment of dismissal.
It is the arbitration agreement between the parties, and not the Uniform Arbitration Act, that controls the nature of the arbitration. Section 13-22-202, C.R.S. 1973 (1979 Cum.Supp.) provides:
"The purpose of this part 2 is to validate voluntary written arbitration agreements, make the arbitration process effective, provide necessary safeguards, and provide an efficient procedure when judicial assistance is necessary."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huizar v. Allstate Ins. Co., 96SC643
...clause is not against public policy merely because it permits nonbinding arbitration, see Water Works Employees Local 1045 v. Board of Water Works, 44 Colo.App. 178, 615 P.2d 52 (1980), the public policy of encouraging arbitration is not served by a meaningless proceeding which unreasonably......
-
Coors Brewing Co. v. Cabo
...by this scheme. Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922, 924 (Colo.1982); see also Water Works Employees Local 1045 v. Bd. of Water Works, 44 Colo.App. 178, 615 P.2d 52 (1980). As such, the CUAA "sets out in precise detail the rules which apply concerning confirmation of an ar......
-
Magenis v. Bruner
...by the terms of that agreement. See Coors Brewing Co., 114 P.3d at 64; Water Works Employees Local No. 1045 v. Bd. of Water Works, 44 Colo.App. 178, 179, 615 P.2d 52, 53 (1980) (the arbitration clause controls the nature the arbitration); see also R.P.T., 917 P.2d at 343 (the arbitrator is ......
-
Hoffsetz v. Jefferson County School Dist. No. R-1, R-1
...remedy. We disagree. The language of an arbitration agreement controls the nature of an arbitration. Water Works Employees v. Board of Water Works, 44 Colo.App. 178, 615 P.2d 52 (1980). Where such an agreement provides only for advisory arbitration, the arbitrator's award is not binding upo......
-
Chapter 3
...1982).[177] . Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-222.[178] . Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-202.[179] . Water Works Employees v. Board of Water Works, 44 Colo. App. 178, 180, 615 P.2d 52 (1980).[180] . Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-223. For the text of the Uniform Arbitration Act, see Appendix B infra.[181] . C......
-
ARTICLE 22 AGE OF COMPETENCE ARBITRATION MEDIATION
...the courts, but not to supersede any agreement entered into by the parties. Water Works Employees Local 1045 v. Bd. of Water Works, 44 Colo. App. 178, 615 P.2d 52 (1980). Court's role is limited. The role of the court is considering an arbitrator's award is strictly limited. Judd Constr. Co......
-
ARTICLE 22
...the courts, but not to supersede any agreement entered into by the parties. Water Works Employees Local 1045 v. Bd. of Water Works, 44 Colo. App. 178, 615 P.2d 52 (1980). Court's role is limited. The role of the court is considering an arbitrator's award is strictly limited. Judd Constr. Co......
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.11 • VOID, INVALID, OR ILLEGAL PROVISIONS IN THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
...such claims, the entire arbitration provision was void.261 --------Notes:[241] Water Works Emps. Local No. 1045 v. Bd. of Water Works, 615 P.2d 52, 53 (Colo. App. 1980).[242] S. Wash. Assocs. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. App. 1992).[243] Id. at 219.[244] Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 254......