City of Watertown tells Appeals Court arbitrator excluded key evidence; union says arbitrator acted within bounds

A three‑judge panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument on May 19, 2026, in City of Watertown v. Watertown Firefighters Association Local 1347 (Docket No. 25 P1135). The city urged that an arbitration award entered April 7, 2023 should be vacated because the arbitrator refused to admit material evidence and thereby substantially prejudiced the city’s rights under General Laws Chapter 150C, section 5.

"The arbitrator refused to admit into the record," Joseph Fair, counsel for the City of Watertown, told the court, saying the ruling prevented the city from calling the grievant and from presenting expert testimony and other records that it had obtained by subpoena. Fair said some evidence the city sought to introduce covered the 2016–2019 period and would have been used both to challenge findings of fact and to rebut the remedy of reinstatement ordered by the arbitrator.

Fair argued that, under Chapter 150C and applicable arbitration rules, an arbitration is not limited to the record at the disciplinary hearing and that the arbitrator’s approach here — admitting certain out‑of‑court transcripts while declining to allow impeachment or rebuttal — “stacked the deck” against the city and foreclosed its ability to test the union’s evidence.

The union’s lawyer, Leah Bralt, told the panel the arbitrator did allow the expert to testify and admitted documents provisionally but expressly said those materials were not being accepted as proof for merits or remedy because they related to conduct from 2015–2019 rather than conduct after the termination in 2020. "She did allow the expert to testify. She allowed all the documents in provisionally," Bralt said, noting that the arbitrator made legal findings about what constituted just cause based on the material that was in the town’s possession when it made its termination decision.

Bralt emphasized that the arbitration tribunal made factual and legal determinations — including an interpretation of the contract’s residency provision — and that courts defer to arbitrators’ findings unless a party can show the arbitrator’s conduct substantially prejudiced a party’s rights. She also noted the town had the burden of proving just cause and that some of the records the town relied on (cell‑phone and ATM records from 2015–2019) were obtainable before the termination.

The panel questioned both sides about the meaning of "de novo" review in the context of arbitration, the temporal scope of a just‑cause inquiry, and whether excluding live testimony or other evidence can rise to the level of substantial prejudice under 150C. Counsel debated case law that courts and arbitrators have used to allocate deference and to identify circumstances where exclusion of witnesses or evidence would justify vacatur.

The parties agreed the arbitration award ordered reinstatement with full back pay; the city contends after‑acquired evidence bears on whether reinstatement is an appropriate remedy and on public‑policy grounds. The union countered that the evidence the city later obtained did not show continuing misconduct after termination and that the arbitrator permissibly assessed relevance and persuasiveness.

The matter was submitted at the close of argument. The court recessed and will issue a written decision at a later date.

Docket details and cited law: Docket No. 25 P1135; issues discussed under General Laws Chapter 150C (sections cited during argument included references to section 5 and provisions governing vacatur).