Electrolux Home Prods. v. United Auto., Aerospace

• Decision Date: 17 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. C04-3005-MWB.,C04-3005-MWB.
• Citation: 343 F.Supp.2d 747
• Parties: ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, and The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 442, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Page 747

343 F.Supp.2d 747

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, and The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 442, Defendants.

No. C04-3005-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

November 17, 2004.

James R. Swanger, Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn, Des Moines, IA, Keith L. Pryatel, Thomas Evan Green, Kastner Westman & Wilkins, LLC, Akron, OH, for Plaintiff.

Iris E. Muchmore, Simmons Perrine Albright Ellwood, John T. Breitbach, Petrzelka & Breitbach, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...............................................749
                     A. Procedural Background ..................................................749
                     B. Factual Background .....................................................750
                 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ............................................................753
                     A. Standards For Summary Judgment .........................................753
                     B. Federal Review Of Arbitration Decisions Generally ......................754
                     C. Review Of Arbitration Decision At Issue In Pending Litigation ..........755
                        1. Essence of collective bargaining agreement ..........................755
                

                2. Manifest disregard of the law .......................................759
                           a. Certification of incapacity ......................................760
                           b. Second medical opinion ...........................................760
                     D. Attorneys' Fees ........................................................761
                III. CONCLUSION ................................................................762
                

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

On January 15, 2003, plaintiff Electrolux Home Products, Inc. ("Electrolux") brought this lawsuit against The United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("The National UAW") and the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 442 ("UAW Local No. 442") (collectively "The UAW" unless otherwise indicated). In its complaint, filed January 15, 2004, Electrolux seeks vacation of an industrial arbitration award in which an arbitrator determined that a UAW member was wrongfully terminated from her position at an Electrolux plant and directed Electrolux to reinstate the UAW grievant to her former position and to compensate her with back pay. Specifically, Electrolux contends that the arbitrator's opinion and award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement between Electrolux and the UAW, and is contradicted by the language of the collective bargaining agreement. Electrolux further contends that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct in rendering his opinion and award. Electrolux also asserts that the arbitrator's opinion and award are without rational support and cannot be rationally derived from the collective bargaining agreement. In addition, Electrolux maintains that the arbitrator's opinion and award are in manifest disregard of the law. Finally, Electrolux asserts that substantial evidence in the record as a whole does not support the arbitrator's opinion and award. The UAW filed an answer and counterclaim on February 6, 2004. In their counterclaim, the UAW seeks enforcement of the challenged arbitration award, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and an award to the UAW grievant to make her whole for any losses incurred as a result of Electrolux's failure to comply with the arbitrator's decision.

On June 4, 2004, Electrolux filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, Electrolux contends that the challenged industrial arbitration award fails to draw its essence or derive rational support from the collective bargaining agreement. In addition, Electrolux asserts that the industrial arbitration award was issued in manifest disregard of the law. Alternatively, Electrolux asserts that the arbitrator, in rendering his opinion and award, exceeded his powers. Finally, Electrolux contends that substantial evidence in the record as a whole does not support the industrial arbitration award. On June 9, 2004, the UAW filed its motion for summary judgment. In its motion, the UAW seeks summary judgment in its favor on Electrolux's claims and on its counterclaim for enforcement of the industrial arbitration award.

The court turns first to a discussion of the undisputed facts as shown by the record, then to the standards applicable to motions for summary judgment and, then, to the legal analysis of whether either of the parties are entitled to summary judgment on any of the claims at issue in this litigation.

B. Factual Background

The following facts are undisputed. Plaintiff Electrolux owns and operates a production plant in Webster City, Iowa, which manufacturers clothing washers and dryers. The National UAW and UAW Local No. 422 are the collective bargaining representatives for hourly-compensated production and maintenance workers of the plant. Electrolux, the National UAW and UAW Local No. 442 maintain a collective bargaining agreement defining the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment for hourly-compensated production and maintenance employees of the Webster City plant. The collective bargaining agreement states that:

The Company shall have the right to discharge, suspend, demote, or give verbal or written warning notices to employees governed under this agreement for just cause.

Defendants' App. at 17. The collective bargaining agreement also states in relevant part:

(a) Attendance related disciplinary actions shall be in line with the provisions of the plaint's Attendance Policy.

Compl. ¶ 8; Answer ¶ 8.

The Attendance Policy incorporated into the Electrolux-UAW collective bargaining agreement has been in effect since November 10, 1995, and allots eight banked attendance points to each worker. Employees who exhaust their allotment of eight banked attendance points are subject to termination of their employment with Electrolux. The Attendance Policy provides that zero points are removed if the leave qualifies as FMLA leave. The Attendance Policy also states in pertinent part:

Any absences of Sickness and Accident leave which do not qualify for FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) and are less than 10 working days = 1 [removed attendance] point.

Compl. ¶ 9; Answer ¶ 9.

The Electrolux-UAW collective bargaining agreement also provides:

The Company shall establish and publish a Family and Medical Leave of Absence Policy consistent with the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. The Company may, from time to time, amend its policy, but under no circumstances shall an employee receive less benefits than those provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Compl. ¶ 10; Answer ¶ 10; Defendants' App. at 18. Consequently, Electrolux published for its workers, and enforced a Family Medical Leave Act Procedures Policy that stated:

Any leave forms not returned within the required time frame, incomplete or improperly completed leave forms, or leave requests which are denied, could result in the loss of attendance points and employees could be subject to other applicable contractual language regarding unexcused absences from work.

. . . . .

Any eligible employee applying for FMLA leave must obtain a form from Human Resources.

. . . . .

If circumstances occur where the employee cannot reasonably provide the required thirty (30) day notice [for leave], the employee must notify HR as soon as possible. The employee must obtain the required form and return the completed document as soon as reasonably possible.

Compl. ¶ 9; Answer ¶ 9. However, Electrolux has not always compelled employees to submit medical certifications for medically-induced absences of three or more consecutive days.

On August 2, 2002, Deborah Cook was fired by her employer, Electrolux, after Electrolux concluded that she had exhausted her attendance points. Until her termination from employment, Cook was an hourly-compensated production worker employed at Electrolux's Webster City plant, and a member of UAW Local No. 442 subject to the collective bargaining agreement. On July 31, 2002, Cook left work early with the knowledge of her supervisor. Cook notified her supervisor that she was not feeling well and that her stomach was hurting. Cook's supervisor gave her permission to leave. Cook worked her full shift on August 1, 2002. Prior to July 31, 2002, Cook had accumulated seven absentee infractions. Thus, prior to July 31, 2002, Cook had one remaining attendance point.

Electrolux credited Cook with FMLA leave for three days in July 2001, five days in April 2002, and three days in June 2002. On an Electrolux sickness and accident form dated July 17, 2001, Cook's attending physician indicated that Cook was suffering from "gastroenteritis." Defendants' App. at 27. On the Electrolux sickness and accident form Cook submitted for her absence on April 17, 2002, the attending physician stated that the nature of her illness was "gastritis." Defendants' App. at 29. On the Electrolux sickness and accident form Cook submitted for her absence on June 19, 2002, the attending physician stated that the nature of her illness was "Abd. Pah, Diarrhea." Defendants' App. at 31. Electrolux did not require medical certification for these three periods of absence. Medical records Cook gave to Electrolux prior to July 31, 2002, indicated that Cook suffered from gastroenteritis.

Cook attempted to see her regular physician on July 31, 2002, but was not able to see anyone in that office until August 1, 2002. On August 1, 2002, following her Electrolux work shift, Cook visited the Tri-Mark Family Clinic in Fort Dodge, Iowa, and was examined by Physician's...