Pacific Motor Trucking Co. v. Automotive Machinists Union

Decision Date21 March 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-4517,82-4517
Citation702 F.2d 176
Parties112 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3262, 96 Lab.Cas. P 14,147 PACIFIC MOTOR TRUCKING CO., Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, v. AUTOMOTIVE MACHINISTS UNION, Defendant-Cross-Complainant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

David A. Rosenfeld, Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg & Roger, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-cross-complainant-appellant.

Patrick Jordan, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-cross-defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before WRIGHT, CANBY and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the court's order vacating the arbitration award.

We enforce an arbitration award if it represents a "plausible interpretation of the contract in the context of the parties' conduct." Holly Sugar Corp. v. Distillery, Rectifying, Wine & Allied Workers International Union, 412 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir.1969). An award that conflicts directly with the contract cannot be a "plausible interpretation." Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1979).

Article 7, Section 2(c) of the contract provided that the company could select Working Foremen without regard to seniority. The arbitrator acknowledged that this section gave the company discretion over the Working Foreman position. Nonetheless, he ruled that the company could not demote Turner from Working Foreman because to do so would be "unreasonable and unconscionable" in light of the "incredibly long" time Turner had held the job.

The arbitrator attempted to justify the award on the basis of past practice. He acknowledged, however, that there was no practice indicating that the employer lacked discretion over maintaining the Working Foreman position. The retention of an employee in a certain position for a long time does not, by itself, constitute a past practice for the purpose of construing the contract provisions.

The arbitrator disregarded a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice. Although an arbitrator has great freedom in determining an award, he may not "dispense his own brand of industrial justice." See United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). Because the award conflicts directly with the contract, the court properly vacated the award.

AFFIRMED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • CSX Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 14 de junho de 1991
    ...F.2d 1413, 1415-16 (9th Cir.1986) (arbitrator erred in misinterpreting clear phrase "no longer"); Pacific Motor Trucking Co. v. Automotive Machinists Union, 702 F.2d 176, 177 (9th Cir.1983) (arbitrator ignored plain import of contract); Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline &......
  • Lake Communications, Inc. v. ICC Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 2 de agosto de 1984
  • Curtis G. Testerman Co. v. Buck
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 de setembro de 1995
  • Apex Fountain Sales, Inc. v. Kleinfeld
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 19 de maio de 1987
    ...on the choice of law question not addressed by the parties. See discussion supra at 1094. Compare Pacific Motor Trucking Co. v. Automotive Machinists Union, 702 F.2d 176 (9th Cir.1983) (applying federal law to reverse arbitration award that conflicts with unambiguous clause in contract) and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT