Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,767 chars

of arbitration awards. Title 7.04A RCW. Generally, the law remains unchanged in that upon

receipt of an arbitration award, a party may move to modify, correct, vacate, or confirm the award.

RCW 7.04A.220. A party may file a motion for an order confirming the award. RCW 7.04A.220.

When the superior court enters an order confirming the arbitration award, the court must enter a

judgment on the award. RCW 7.04A.250(1).

Yet, the reasoning in Channel does not apply to Billings’s case. RCW 7.04A.030(4) very

clearly states: “This chapter does not apply to any arbitration agreement between employers and

employees or between employers and associations of employees.” Accordingly, Channel’s

reasoning would not apply to this case because the statute does not apply to the CBA. The parties

agreed in the CBA that if the grievance was not resolved by the parties, the SOA could appeal the

decision to a neutral arbitrator. The CBA also provided that the arbitrator’s written decision would

10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
49631-3-II

be “final and binding.” CP at 153. Under the CBA then, the parties agreed that the arbitration

award would constitute a final judgment.2

C. PARTIES

Billings argues that the parties are not identical. We disagree.

In a labor arbitration proceeding, a union represents a plaintiff-employee. When an

employee’s interest is represented by his union, he is in privity with the union. Christensen v.

Grant County Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 152 Wn.2d 299, 308 n.5, 96 P.3d 957 (2004).

Here, Billings’s union represented his interest in the arbitration proceedings, and thus, he

was in privity with the union. Because Billings was in privity with the union, the parties are

identical.