Employer Claimed Appeal Was Based On Entire Record, But Failed To Provide Court With Entire Record.
Employer ICC Collision Centers, Inc. appealed the trial court’s order denying its motion to compel its employee Ogannesian to arbitrate his wage/hour claims. The trial court had concluded that the employer waived its right to arbitrate by delaying too long and taking actions inconsistent with asserting the right to arbitrate. Ogannesian v. ICC Collision Centers, Inc., G049836 (4/3 6/14/16) (Ikola, Moore, Thompson) (unpublished).
On appeal, the chief problem identified by Justice Ikola was a “woefully inadequate record.” While the employer did include its motion to compel arbitration, which purported to be based on “the documents on file in this action,” in fact the employer did not include the entire court file on appeal.
In particular, the employer failed to include a case management statement filed by ICC’s prior counsel, and stating ICC “may file a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceeding. . . “ This contradicted the employer’s implication on appeal that its prior counsel “was unaware the arbitration agreement even existed.” In addition, the employer opposed efforts to augment the record with the case management statement.
The employer’s opposition to the motion to augment the record seems to have left a sour taste with Justice Ikola. Troubled by the argument, he wrote, “it suggests we should be more concerned about [the employee’s] delay in designating a record than about [the employer’s] own apparent misrepresentation of fact.” Ouch! Affirmed.
Best line: “Apparently, ICC believes that what we do not know cannot hurt it.” Not so, since the “onus is on appellants” to provide a complete record!