Cuyahoga County

Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association collective bargaining agreement arbitration award overpayments recoupment equitable estoppel. The county overpaid several grievants in 2021 by mistake, and when the county realized its mistake, it unilaterally deducted the grievants' pay over three pay periods in 2022. The issue on appeal is whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority when he determined that the county's unilateral recoupment of the 2021 overpayment by deducting the grievants' 2022 pay did not comport with the provisions of the CBA. Our review indicates the arbitrator did not exceed his powers because the arbitration award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, the arbitrator's application of equitable estoppel is supported by a detailed analysis of the arbitration and court precedent. Because we find no statutory grounds exist to vacate the arbitrator's award pursuant to R.C. 2711.10, the trial court's judgment affirming the award is affirmed.

Collective bargaining agreement arbitration award public policy de novo factual finding waiver. The trial court's judgment vacating arbitration award reversed where trial court erroneously concluded that the arbitration award violated public policy.

Political-subdivision tort liability—R.C. 2744.09(B)'s exception to immunity for civil actions by an employee "relative to any matter that arises out of the employment relationship between the employee and the political subdivision"—R.C. 2744.09(B) does not require that the alleged tortious conduct underlying a claim against a political subdivision have occurred during the plaintiff's employment by the political subdivision—Plaintiff's claim for false-light invasion of privacy is relative to a matter that arose out of her employment relationship with county—Court of appeals' judgment affirming trial court's rejection of county's assertion of immunity affirmed.

R.C. 2744.02, political subdivision immunity, summary judgment, R.C. 2744.09, employment relationship, employee. Plaintiff's claims arose out of her employment relationship with the county, and the county is not immune from liability pursuant to the exception in R.C. 2744.09(B).