If a party to an arbitration wishes to challenge an award for any reason, they need to make an application to a court except in the rare case where the parties' agreement provides for some type of appellate proceeding within the arbitration.
Once an arbitrator issues an award, either an agency or a union may appeal the arbitrator's award by filing an "exception" with the Authority within 30 days after the date on which the Arbitrator served the award on the parties.
The appeal must be commenced within thirty (30) days of the date on which the original award is submitted to the parties and only on the grounds that the original award is based upon “(1) an error of law that is material and prejudicial; or (2) determinations of fact that are clearly erroneous.”11 AAA will then arrange ...
The merits of the dispute are not considered and the award can only be vacated where: (1) the award was procured by fraud or corruption; (2) there was corruption in the arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator committed misconduct resulting in substantial prejudice; (4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers; (5) the arbitrator ...
In California, errors of law committed by the arbitrator, no matter how substantial, are generally not grounds for challenging the arbitrator's award. The rationale is because the parties have agreed that the arbitrator's decision, whether right or wrong, would be final and conclusive.
Under federal and state laws, there are only a few ways to challenge an arbitrator's award. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and some state laws provide the reasons why an award can be vacated (thrown out), modified (changed), or corrected. Those reasons are very limited in general.
Section 69 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 provides parties with the ability to appeal an arbitral award on a point of law. Specifically, this section permits a party to appeal to the court on a question of law arising out of an award made in an arbitration.
The merits of the dispute are not considered and the award can only be vacated where: (1) the award was procured by fraud or corruption; (2) there was corruption in the arbitrator; (3) the arbitrator committed misconduct resulting in substantial prejudice; (4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers; (5) the arbitrator ...