Truck Drivers & Helpers Union Local 784 v. Ulry-Talbert Co.

• Decision Date: 14 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 17453.,17453.
• Parties: TRUCK DRIVERS & HELPERS UNION LOCAL 784, Appellant, v. ULRY-TALBERT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

330 F.2d 562 (1964)

TRUCK DRIVERS & HELPERS UNION LOCAL 784, Appellant, v. ULRY-TALBERT COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee.

No. 17453.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

April 14, 1964.

David D. Weinberg, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

Robert A. Nelson, of Nelson, Harding & Acklie, Lincoln, Neb., for appellee, with Harold A. Prince, Grand Island, Neb.

Before VOGEL, MATTHES and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges.

VOGEL, Circuit Judge.

The appellant, Truck Drivers & Helpers Union Local 784, was the duly certified collective bargaining agent for employees of Ulry-Talbert Company, appellee. Appellant and appellee are parties to a collective bargaining agreement effective August 27, 1962, covering wages, hours and working conditions of employees of the bargaining unit. It includes provisions for grievances, disputes and arbitration. On November 5, 1962, employee Roy Owings was discharged by the appellee for dishonesty in falsifying his records as to work hours. Subsequently the appellant requested the submission of the matter of discharge of Roy Owings to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining contract. An agreement was entered into whereby the parties designated George A. Gorder as the arbitrator. The matter was submitted and on February 15, 1963, the arbitrator entered his findings and award as follows:

"It is the finding of the arbitrator:

"1. That Roy Owings was guilty on the 26th day of October, 1962, November 2, 1962, and at other times, of conduct which justified discipline to him as an employee.

"2. It is the further finding that said discharge was an excessive penalty for said misconduct.

"3. It is the further finding that said Roy Owings is now entitled to be reinstated in his employment without pay from November 5, 1962.

"AWARD

"It is awarded that the said Roy Owings be reinstated to the job which he held on or before his discharge on November 5, 1962, or the equivalent thereof, subject to the ordinary rules of employment, without pay for time off since said discharge.

"Sioux City, Iowa, this 15th day of February, 1963.

"George A. Gorder "Arbitrator."

Appellee refused to abide by the conditions of the arbitrator's award. Appellant commenced this suit for enforcement. The District Court held that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and it denied enforcement of the award. This appeal followed.

The main, if not the sole question with which we are concerned is whether the arbitrator, after finding Roy Owings guilty of conduct which justified discipline, exceeded his authority in further holding that discharge was an excessive penalty for Owings' misconduct and that he should be reinstated in his employment but without pay from November 5, 1962, until February 15, 1963, the date of the award.

As arbitration is a matter of contract, the answer to the question must lie within the four corners of the agreement between the parties. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 84 S.Ct. 909. If the authority to make the foregoing award cannot be found or legitimately assumed from the terms of the arbitration agreement, then the arbitrator did exceed his authority in holding that discharge was an excessive penalty for Owings' misconduct and in directing that he be reinstated.

The collective bargaining agreement between the parties provided, inter alia:

"ARTICLE IV — MANAGEMENT, DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE

"Section 1. The management of the plant * * * including the right to hire, transfer, promote, discharge, discipline, or relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or other legitimate reasons, the determination of efficiency of employees, * * * is vested exclusively in the Company; provided, however, that such action by the Company does not conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. The Union may question the determination of the Company with respect to the efficiency of employees and the quality and quantity of work to be performed on the basis of abuse of judgment in such determinations.

* * * * *

"Regular employees may be discharged for proper cause. Drunkenness, the use of intoxicating liquors on the job, repeated tardiness, gross insubordination, willful disobedience to any reasonable and proper instructions not in conflict with this Agreement, dishonesty, incompetence, excessive or unreasonable absenteeism, or violation of any of the provisions of this contract shall be grounds for discharge, but the enumeration of these grounds shall not preclude the Company from discharging, suspending, demoting or otherwise disciplining employees for other proper causes.

"Employees shall not be discharged for any of the aforementioned reasons except for drunkenness, the use of intoxicating liquors on the job or dishonesty, without having been given one written warning notice prior to the commission of the act giving rise to such discharge and a copy of such warning notice having been sent to the Union." (Emphasis supplied.)

"ARTICLE XII — GRIEVANCES, DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION

* * * * *

"Section 5. Should any dispute arise between the Company and the Union with reference to the interpretation or application of the provisions of the contract which cannot be settled by conference between the parties, then such dispute shall, upon the request of either party, be submitted to a board of arbitration * * *. Its award shall be written, shall be rendered within five days, and shall be binding upon the Company and the Union and upon the employees involved in the controversy."

Such grant of power to the arbitrator by Section 5, supra, is specifically limited by the next section as follows:

"Section 6. Such arbitration board shall have no power or authority to add to, subtract from or in any way modify the terms of this Agreement, but shall have authority only to interpret and apply the provisions of this contract which shall constitute the basis upon which the arbitration board\'s decision shall be rendered, and if any grievance, arising out of any action taken by the Company in discharging, suspending, disciplining, transferring, promoting, or laying off any employee, is carried to arbitration, the arbitration board shall not substitute its judgment for that of the management and shall only reverse the action or decision of the management if it finds that the Company\'s complaint against the employee is not supported by the facts, and that the management has acted arbitrarily and in bad faith or in violation of the express terms of this Agreement." (Emphasis supplied.)

The arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties is narrowly drawn. It appears to be the clear intendment of the agreement that in the event of the discharge of an employee by the employer the...