The Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association represents Protective Service Officers in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The parties negotiated a contract which included a shift differential of $0.25 per hour for the second shift (11 a.m. – 8 p.m.) and $0.50 per hour for the third shift (8 p.m. – 4 a.m.). Officers Willie Austin, Ryan Moore, and Darrin Kirby all worked the first shift in 2021, and were not contractually entitled to a differential. However, all three officers were paid as though they worked the second shift – an additional $0.25 per hour. The increased wages were not itemized on their paychecks, and only amounted to about an additional $10 per week. Neither the officers nor the County immediately noticed the overpayments.
In 2022, the County conducted a review of shift changes, and discovered the error. Without discussing with the officer nor notifying the Association, the County informed the officers that approximately $200 would be deducted from three consecutive paychecks to cover the overage. As a result, the officers’ hourly wages fell below that to which they were contractually entitled. The CBA between the parties did not specifically address how to rectify this type of overpayment. The Association filed a grievance challenging the County’s recoupment, and an arbitrator ruled in its favor, ordering the County to return the money plus interest, and provide compensation to the officers for any late fees or other financial penalties stemming from the deductions.
The Arbitrator found that the County violated the contract by unilaterally recouping the overpayments with only two weeks’ notice and without giving the officers any opportunity to engage in the development of a repayment plan. Importantly, the Arbitrator framed the issue in dispute not whether the officers were entitled to a shift differential – which they clearly were not – but whether the County could recoup the overpayment under these circumstances. The County sued to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the award required it to pay the officers a shift differential in violation of the CBA. The trial court ruled in favor of the officers, and the County appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. It found that the Arbitrator’s award passed the essence test because it did not violate an express term of the contract, nor did it alter or modify the CBA. The Court reiterated that the issue in dispute was not whether the officers were entitled to the shift differential, but whether how the County recouped the payments violated the contract. The Court found that the Arbitrator properly found a contract violation. The Arbitrator based his decision largely on the first article of the agreement, which provided that “it is the intention of this agreement that all dealings between the parties shall be conducted in a legal manner and consistent with efficient and progressive services towards the employer, the employees, and the public interest; to provide for the equitable adjustment of differences which may arise; and to provide for cooperative employee relations.” The Arbitrator’s conclusion that the deductions were not conducted “in a legal manner” was proper. The deductions were not permitted by the CBA; without the officers’ authorizations the deductions violated state wage laws; and the deductions resulted in the officers’ earning less per hour than what they were entitled to under the contract.
The Arbitrator further concluded that the County’s failure to develop a repayment plan with the officers was inconsistent with Article 1’s requirement of “efficient and progressive services,” nor was it an “equitable adjustment of differences,” nor did it “provide for cooperative employee relations.” The Arbitrator noted that the County was responsible for the overpayments, which it failed to detect and cited testimony from the officers, noting that they incurred financial hardships as a result of the unilateral deductions. Having made these conclusions, the Court found that the Arbitrator reasonably applied the doctrine of estoppel to prevent the County from recouping the overpayments and affirmed.
Cuyahoga County v. Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, 112924, 2024 WL 1432862 (Ohio Ct. App., 2024).