American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal Service
| Decision Date | 18 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-5167,AFL-CI,A,85-5167 |
| Citation | 789 F.2d 1,252 U.S.App.D.C. 169 |
| Parties | 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2094, 252 U.S.App.D.C. 169, 54 USLW 2572, 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,937 AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION,ppellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 83-02921).
Arthur M. Luby, for appellant.
Scott T. Kragie, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Royce C. Lamberth and R. Craig Lawrence, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on brief, for appellee.
Before: EDWARDS and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges, and FAIRCHILD, * Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge EDWARDS.
The instant appeal challenges a decision of the District Court refusing to enforce a labor arbitration award. Because we find that the trial judge simply substituted his judgment for that of the arbitrator, thereby effectively disregarding the legal mandates of the Supreme Court concerning judicial review of labor arbitration awards, we reverse.
The arbitration matter in this case involved a grievance brought by the American Postal Workers Union (the "Union") on behalf of an employee who had been fired for alleged dishonesty in handling postal transactions. At the arbitration proceeding, the employer sought to introduce statements of the grievant made during a custodial interrogation by federal law enforcement officers; the arbitrator found that these statements were elicited before the grievant had been given Miranda 1-type warnings and, on that account, ruled the statements inadmissible. The arbitrator then concluded that "[h]aving excluded the Grievant's statements which form the fundamental basis of the Postal Service charges, the removal action is not sustainable." 2 The arbitrator accordingly overturned the employee's dismissal and reduced it to a long disciplinary suspension without back pay. When the employer refused to comply with the arbitrator's award, the Union sought enforcement in District Court.
In a brief Memorandum Opinion, the District Court expressly acknowledged that the arbitrator's judgment was based on a plausible reading of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. However, the trial judge adopted an alternative interpretation of the agreement and found that the grievant's statements were admissible; the court then concluded that the arbitrator's award could not be enforced because it did not "draw its essence" from the contract as reinterpreted by the trial judge.
We reverse because the trial court's judgment is wholly at odds with federal law regarding labor arbitration. A court has no authority to discard a labor arbitration award which is concededly based on the collective bargaining agreement and then substitute its own view of the proper interpretation of the contract. The Supreme Court has explicitly prohibited a court from making such a substitution. An arbitrator's award must be upheld when it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement; it is the arbitrator's construction of the contract that the parties bargained for and not that of the court, and it does not matter whether In the instant case, the collective bargaining agreement clearly states that, under the contract, the Postal Service promises to comply with "applicable laws." Therefore, as the District Court acknowledged, the arbitrator plainly had the authority to consider legal rules, including the possible requirement of a Miranda warning, in construing the contract. It is irrelevant whether the arbitrator's judgment was correct with respect to the applicability of Miranda. An arbitrator's reading of the contract is entitled to enforcement unless the award itself violates established law or seeks to compel some unlawful action. Here, the arbitrator's judgment was nothing more than a ruling on the admissibility of evidence, which drew its essence from the parties' contract and violated no established law. A court has no choice in such a circumstance but to uphold and enforce the arbitrator's award.
the court disagrees with the arbitrator's judgment on the merits. See United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1362, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960)
The grievant in the underlying dispute, Arthur Zimmerman, is a postal window and supply clerk. An investigation by the Postal Inspection Service revealed some irregularities in Zimmerman's accounts which led the Inspectors to believe that Zimmerman might be converting postal funds to personal use. Accordingly, an Inspector interviewed Zimmerman in the Postal Inspector's office regarding the suspected misappropriation of funds. After approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes of questioning, the Inspector read Zimmerman his Miranda rights and presented him with a waiver. Zimmerman then signed two statements admitting dishonesty in the handling of postal transactions.
The Inspection Service removed Zimmerman from his position and brought criminal charges against him. At the criminal trial, the court excluded Zimmerman's statements, ruling that they were the result of interrogation prior to the recitation of Miranda warnings and, therefore, were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Zimmerman was acquitted.
Hearings were later held before an arbitrator to determine whether the collective bargaining agreement allowed Zimmerman's removal from his position as postal clerk. Since the collective bargaining agreement provided that an employee could be removed only for "just cause," the parties agreed that the issue before the arbitrator was whether just cause existed for the discharge of Zimmerman. Although the Postal Service introduced evidence at the arbitration hearings which showed that Zimmerman had not followed postal regulations concerning the handling of postal funds, Zimmerman's own statements were the only evidence of his wrongful conversion of funds. The Postal Service urged the arbitrator to consider the statements. The Union argued that the statements should be excluded because they had been obtained through a custodial interrogation which was conducted before Zimmerman had been read his Miranda rights.
The arbitrator ruled that "just cause" for dismissal was absent. At the outset of his opinion, the arbitrator identified the Articles of the collective bargaining agreement and the postal regulations relevant to his inquiry. 3 Among the provisions cited by the arbitrator was Article 3, Management Rights, which requires that the discharge of a Postal Service employee must be "consistent with applicable laws and regulations."
The arbitrator's ruling turned on his judgment that Zimmerman's statements were inadmissible because they were obtained in violation of Miranda. In reaching The arbitrator refused to uphold Zimmerman's dismissal because the grievant's excluded statements were the only evidence of wrongful conversion. However, the arbitrator decided that Zimmerman's failure to follow postal regulations warranted some discipline. The discharge was accordingly reduced to a long disciplinary suspension without pay, to be recorded on Zimmerman's personnel record.
the conclusion that Zimmerman had been subject to a "custodial interrogation" prior to receiving Miranda warnings, the arbitrator noted that Postal Inspectors are federal law enforcement officers, that Zimmerman was an acknowledged suspect and that Zimmerman had been isolated from all outside contact during the questioning. The arbitrator then observed that Miranda warnings are a well-known safeguard to prevent individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves when faced with criminal charges. Any statements made by the defendant during a custodial interrogation must be excluded from his criminal trial unless the Government shows that the defendant was warned of and validly waived his Miranda rights. The arbitrator concluded that Zimmerman's statements should be excluded in the civil removal proceedings, apparently because the Postal Inspectors sought to obtain the statements for a criminal prosecution.
When the Postal Service declined to comply with the arbitrator's judgment, the Union brought an action in District Court to enforce the award. The District Court dealt with the case on cross-motions for summary judgment. In reviewing the arbitrator's award, the trial court correctly acknowledged that an arbitration award is entitled to deference from courts, so long as it "draws its essence" from the collective bargaining agreement. The District Court also clearly recognized that there was language in the parties' collective bargaining agreement that "suggest[ed] other applicable law be applied which conceivably would include Miranda warnings." 4 The District Court, however, overturned the arbitration award based on its interpretation of Article 17, Sec. 3 of the collective bargaining agreement, which provides that "[i]f an employee requests a steward or Union representative to be present during the course of an interrogation by the Inspection Service, such request will be granted." 5 The District Court reasoned that this section of the contract revealed that the parties to the collective bargaining agreement must have considered the rights of employees during an interrogation and agreed to procedures other than those provided by Miranda. The District Court therefore concluded that, under this alternative reading of the contract, Miranda warnings need not be given to employees prior to a custodial interrogation.
Having substituted its judgment for that of the arbitrator, the trial court had no trouble in concluding that the arbitrator's award did not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. The District Court accordingly denied the Union's motion for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MATTER OF CHROMALLOY AEROSERVICES (ARAB REPUBLIC)
...statutory or case law, `not from general considerations of supposed public interest.'" Id. (quoting American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service, 789 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir.1986)). The U.S. public policy in favor of final and binding arbitration of commercial disputes is unmistaka......
-
International Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local 97 v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
...Cir.1989)(en banc); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 808 F.2d 76, 83-84 (D.C.Cir.1987); Postal Workers v. Postal Serv., 789 F.2d 1, 8 (D.C.Cir.1986). We need not adopt this narrow view because even the courts that have adopted a broader view have, nonetheless, drawn......
-
Stead Motors of Walnut Creek v. Automotive Machinists Lodge No. 1173, Intern. Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
...a]nd the award did not otherwise have the effect of mandating any illegal conduct' ") (quoting American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Serv., 789 F.2d 1, 8 (D.C.Cir.1986)), cert. granted, 484 U.S. 984, 108 S.Ct. 500, 98 L.Ed.2d 499 (1987), cert. dismissed, 485 U.S. 680, 108 S.......
-
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Fraternal Order of Police
...ending this opinion, we shall respond to two of the dissent's points. The first is that American Postal Workers Union v. U.S. Postal Service , 789 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1986), supports the dissent's position. Dissent at 343. But that case is not at all comparable to this one. It involved, as th......
-
DC Register Vol 68, No 17, April 23, 2021 Pages 004171 to 004581
...Labor Comm., 66 D.C. Reg. 6056, Slip Op. No.1702 at 4, PERB Case No. 18-A-17 (2019) (citing Am. Postal Workers Union v. U.S. Postal Service,789 F.2d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1986), accord MPD v. FOP/MPD Labor Comm. ex rel. Pair, 61 D.C. Reg. 11609, Slip Op. No. 1487 at 8, PERB Case No. 09-A-05 (2014......
-
DC_Register Vol 65, No 23, June 8, 2018 Pages 06123 to 06441
...59 D.C. Reg. 9798, Slip Op. No. 1271 at p. 2, PERB Case No. 10-A-20 (2012) (citing American Postal Workers Union v. U.S. Postal Service, 789 F.2d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGISTER VOL. 65 - NO. 23 JUNE 8, 2018 006439 Decision and Order PERB Case No. 18-A-02 Page 6 to be ......
-
DC_Register Vol 66, No 3, January 18, 2019 Pages 000580 to 000897
...Ann Hoffman, Barbara Somson, and Douglas Warshof. Washington, D.C. November 15, 2018 22 American Postal Workers v. US Postal Serv., 789 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. FOP/Dep’t of Corr. Labor Comm. v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 59 D.C. Reg. 9798, Slip Op. 1271 at p. 2, PERB Case No. 10-A-20 (2012) (citing W.R......
-
DC Register Vol 64, No 3, January 20 2017 Pages 419 to 734
...Comm., 59 D.C. Reg. 3959, Slip Op. No. 925, PERB Case No. 08-A-01 (2012) (quoting Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. US Postal Serv., 789 F. 2d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1986). 42 D.C. Metro. Police. Dep’t v. Fraternal Order of Police/ D.C. Metro. Police Dep’t Labor Comm., 63 D.C. Reg. 4573, Slip O......