788.10
788.10
Vacation of award, rehearing by arbitrators. 788.10(1)(1) In either of the following cases the court in and for the county wherein the award was made must make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration:
788.10(1)(a)
(a) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means;
788.10(1)(b)
(b) Where there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators, or either of them;
788.10(1)(c)
(c) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced;
788.10(1)(d)
(d) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
788.10(2)
(2) Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired, the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.
788.10 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.10.
788.10 Annotation
A court may order arbitrators to hear further testimony without establishing a new panel. Gallagher v. Schernecker, 60 W (2d) 143, 208 NW (2d) 437.
788.10 Annotation
The interjection of a new contract time period in an amended final offer after the petition is filed presents a question beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the arbitrators. Milw. Deputy Sheriffs' Asso. v. Milw. County, 64 W (2d) 651, 221 NW (2d) 673.
788.10 Annotation
Arbitration awards are presumptively valid, and award may not be attacked on the grounds that a portion of it could conceivably be allocable to an allegedly improper item. Scherrer Constr. Co. v. Burlington Mem. Hosp. 64 W (2d) 720, 221 NW (2d) 855.
788.10 Annotation
Contacts between the arbitrator and one party outside the presence of the other do not in themselves justify vacating an award to the party involved where the challenger does not demonstrate either improper intent or influence by clear and convincing evidence. Manitowoc v. Manitowoc Police Dept. 70 W (2d) 1006, 236 NW (2d) 231.
788.10 Annotation
Arbitrator exceeded authority within meaning of (1) (d) in determining that discharge of city employe for violation of ordinance residency requirement was not for just cause within meaning of collective bargaining agreement. WERC v. Teamsters Local No. 563, 75 W (2d) 602, 250 NW (2d) 696.
788.10 Annotation
Arbitrator did not exceed powers by adopting ministerial-substantive distinction in determining scope of unfettered management function provided by agreement. Arbitrator did exceed powers by ordering maintenance of past practice without finding that agreement required such action. Milw. Pro. Fire Fighters Local 215 v. Milwaukee, 78 W (2d) 1, 253 NW (2d) 481.
788.10 Annotation
Arbitrator did not exceed powers by arbitrating grievance under "discharge and nonrenewal" clause of bargaining agreement where contract offered by board was signed by teacher after deleting title "probationary contract" and board did not accept this counteroffer or offer teacher 2nd contract. Jt. Sch. Dist. No. 10 v. Jefferson Ed. Asso. 78 W (2d) 94, 253 NW (2d) 536.
788.10 Annotation
Although report of arbitrator did not explicitly mention counterclaim, trial court did not err in determining that denial of counterclaim was implicit in report. Failure of arbitrator to set forth theories or support finding is not grounds for objection to arbitrator's award. McKenzie v. Warmka, 81 W (2d) 591, 260 NW (2d) 752.
788.10 Annotation
Disclosure requirements for neutral arbitrator discussed regarding vacation of award under (1) (b). Richco Structures v. Parkside Village, Inc. 82 W (2d) 547, 263 NW (2d) 204.
788.10 Annotation
Courts should apply one standard of review of arbitration awards under municipal collective bargaining agreements. Madison Metropolitan School Dist. v. WERC, 86 W (2d) 249, 272 NW (2d) 314 (Ct. App. 1978).
788.10 Annotation
Arbitrator appointed under specific contract had no power to make award under successor contracts not in existence at time grievance was submitted. Milw. Bd. Sch. Dirs. v. Milw. Teachers' Ed. Asso. 93 W (2d) 415, 287 NW (2d) 131 (1980).
788.10 Annotation
Arbitrator exceeded power by directing that grievant be transferred where contract reserved transfer authority to city and chief of police. Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Police Asso. 97 W (2d) 15, 292 NW (2d) 841 (1980).
788.10 Annotation
Although contract gave management right to determine job description classifications, arbitrator did not exceed powers by overruling management's determination that employe with 8 years of job experience was not qualified for promotion to job requiring 2 years of college "or its equivalent as determined by management". Oshkosh v. Union Local 796-A, 99 W (2d) 95, 299 NW (2d) 210 (1980).
788.10 Annotation
Burden of proving "evident partiality" of arbitrator was not met where apparently biased remarks of arbitrator represented merely an initial impression, not final conclusion. Diversified Management Services v. Slotten, 119 W (2d) 441, 351 NW (2d) 176 (Ct. App. 1984).
788.10 Annotation
Award was vacated for "evident partiality" because arbitrator failed to disclose past employment with entity supplying party's counsel. Spooner Dist. v. N. W. Educators, 136 W (2d) 263, 401 NW (2d) 578 (1987).
788.10 Annotation
Party cannot complain to courts that arbitrator acted outside scope of authority if objection not raised before arbitrator. DePue v. Mastermold, Inc., 161 W (2d) 697, 468 NW (2d) 750 (Ct. App. 1991).
788.10 Annotation
A party disputing the existence of an agreement to arbitrate may choose not to participate in arbitration and challenge the existence of the agreement by motion to vacate the award under sub. (10) (d). Scholl v. Lundberg, 178 W (2d) 259, 504 NW (2d) 115 (Ct. App. 1993).
788.10 Annotation
Where arbitrators had a reasonable basis for not following case law, the arbitrators' decision will not be interfered with by the court. Lukowski v. Dankert, 184 W (2d) 142, 515 NW (2d) 883 (1994).
788.10 Annotation
"Evident partiality" under sub. (1) (b) exists only when a reasonable person knowing previously undisclosed information would have such doubts about the arbitrator's impartiality that the person would have taken action on the information. DeBaker v. Shah, 194 W (2d) 104, 533 NW (2d) 464 (1995).
788.10 Annotation
This section does not prevent vacation of an arbitration award on the basis of a manifest disregard of the law. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 202 W (2d) 674, 552 NW (2d) 420 (Ct. App. 1996).
788.10 Annotation
That an arbitrator makes a mistake by erroneously rejecting a valid legal defense does not provide grounds for vacating an award unless the arbitrator deliberately disregarded the law. Flexible Manufacturing Systems v. Super Products Corp. 86 F (3d) 96 (1996).
788.11
788.11
Modification of award. 788.11(1)
(1) In either of the following cases the court in and for the county wherein the award was made must make an order modifying or correcting the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration:
788.11(1)(a)
(a) Where there was an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award;
788.11(1)(b)
(b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them unless it is a matter not affecting the merits of the decision upon the matters submitted;
788.11(1)(c)
(c) Where the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy.
788.11(2)
(2) The order must modify and correct the award, so as to effect the intent thereof and promote justice between the parties.
788.11 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.11.
788.11 Annotation
Intent of parties controls determination under (1) (b) whether matter was submitted to arbitrator. Milw. Pro. Fire Fighters Local 215 v. Milwaukee, 78 W (2d) 1, 253 NW (2d) 481.
788.11 Annotation
Court had no jurisdiction to vacate or modify award where grounds under 788.10 or 788.11 did not exist. Milwaukee Police Asso. v. Milwaukee, 92 W (2d) 175, 285 NW (2d) 133 (1979).
788.12
788.12
Judgment. Upon the granting of an order confirming, modifying or correcting an award, judgment may be entered in conformity therewith in the court wherein the order was granted.
788.12 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.12.
788.13
788.13
Notice of motion to change award. Notice of a motion to vacate, modify or correct an award must be served upon the adverse party or attorney within 3 months after the award is filed or delivered, as prescribed by law for service of notice of a motion in an action. For the purposes of the motion any judge who might make an order to stay the proceedings in an action brought in the same court may make an order, to be served with the notice of motion, staying the proceedings of the adverse party to enforce the award.
788.13 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64;
1979 c. 176; Stats. 1979 s. 788.13.
788.13 Annotation
See note to 788.09, citing Milwaukee Police Asso. v. Milwaukee, 92 W (2d) 145, 285 NW (2d) 119 (1979).
788.13 Annotation
Under federal labor law, this section governs challenges to arbitration decisions. Teamsters Local No. 579 v. B&M Transit, Inc., 882 F (2d) 274 (1989).
788.14
788.14
Papers filed with motion regarding award; entry of judgment, effect of judgment. 788.14(1)
(1) Any party to a proceeding for an order confirming, modifying or correcting an award shall, at the time the order is filed with the clerk of circuit court for the entry of judgment thereon, also file the following papers with the clerk of circuit court:
788.14(1)(a)
(a) The agreement, the selection or appointment, if any, of an additional arbitrator or umpire, and each written extension of the time, if any, within which to make the award;
788.14(1)(c)
(c) Each notice, affidavit or other paper used upon an application to confirm, modify or correct the award, and a copy of each order of the court upon such an application.
788.14(2)
(2) The judgment shall be entered in the judgment and lien docket as if it was rendered in an action.
788.14(3)
(3) The judgment so entered shall have the same force and effect, in all respects, as, and be subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in an action; and it may be enforced as if it had been rendered in an action in the court in which it is entered.
788.14 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.14;
1995 a. 224.
788.15
788.15
Appeal from order or judgment. An appeal may be taken from an order confirming, modifying, correcting or vacating an award, or from a judgment entered upon an award, as from an order or judgment in an action.
788.15 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.15.
788.15 Annotation
An order or judgment of the court directing the parties to submit a dispute to arbitration is not appealable. Teamsters Union Local 695 v. Waukesha County, 57 W (2d) 62, 203 NW (2d) 707.
788.15 Annotation
An order to proceed with arbitration is not appealable. Worthington v. Farmers Ins. Exch. 64 W (2d) 108, 218 NW (2d) 373.
788.17
788.17
Title of act. This chapter may be referred to as "The Wisconsin Arbitration Act".
788.17 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.17.
788.18
788.18
Not retroactive. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to contracts made prior to June 19, 1931.
788.18 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.18.
