Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631

• Decision Date: 11 July 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77-2060,77-2060
• Citation: 600 F.2d 1263
• Parties: 101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2838, 86 Lab.Cas. P 11,416 FEDERATED EMPLOYERS OF NEVADA, INC., Home Lumber Company of Nevada, Henderson Builders Supply, L & H Builders Supply Company, Oneill Lumber Company, Van's Builders Supply, Inc., Ed Von Tobel Lumber Company and Toto Purchasing & Supply Co., Petitioners-Appellants, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 631, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1263

600 F.2d 1263

101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2838, 86 Lab.Cas. P 11,416

FEDERATED EMPLOYERS OF NEVADA, INC., Home Lumber Company of Nevada, Henderson Builders Supply, L & H Builders Supply Company, Oneill Lumber Company, Van's Builders Supply, Inc. Ed Von Tobel Lumber Company and Toto Purchasing & Supply Co., Petitioners-Appellants, v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 631, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 77-2060.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

July 11, 1979.

Brian L. Rexon, Stephen A. Mazurak (argued), Rexon & Mazurak, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners-appellants.

Joseph J. Kaplon (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents-appellees.

Appeal from Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before CHOY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BARTELS, ^* District Judge.

J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

A single issue is presented by this appeal: Does the arbitrator's award draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement? We hold it does not and reverse.

The collective bargaining agreement, which the parties agree is valid, provides for arbitration of annual wage increases if an accord is not reached in negotiations. The arbitrator's authority is narrow:

"The arbitrator shall be instructed by the parties that in issuing his findings he must select as his award either the last offer made by the Employers or the last offer made by the Union at the conclusion of negotiations as of the above anniversary dates with no modification or compromise in any fashion."

The Union's final offer was "67cents per hour wage package plus 7% Interest on increase effective October 31, 1975." October 31, 1975, was the date the prior wage package expired. The Employers' final offer was 53 cents and no interest.

The arbitrator awarded an increase of 67 cents without interest. The Employers petitioned the district court to vacate the award, and the Union cross-petitioned for enforcement. The district court denied the petition to vacate and granted the petition to enforce. Neither the arbitration award nor the district court's judgment explains the award.

On appeal the Employers contend that by deleting interest from the award, the arbitrator modified the Union's final offer in violation of the bargaining agreement. We agree.

The judicial role in enforcement of arbitration awards is limited. If the award draws its essence from the bargaining agreement, enforcement is granted. United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.,363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). To determine whether the standard has been satisfied, this court simply asks: Is the arbitrator's interpretation of the...