Local No. 7 UFCIW Union v. King Soopers, 99-1339

• Decision Date: 02 August 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-1339,99-1339
• Citation: 222 F.3d 1223
• Parties: (10th Cir. 2000) LOCAL NO. 7 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KING SOOPERS, INC., a division and subsidiary of (respectively) Dillon Companies, Inc., Kroger Company, Defendant - Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1223

222 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2000)

LOCAL NO. 7 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KING SOOPERS, INC., a division and subsidiary of (respectively) Dillon Companies, Inc., Kroger Company, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 99-1339

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

August 2, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 99-B-515) Emily Fontelle Keimig (Raymond M. Deeny with her on the briefs), Sherman & Howard, LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for the appellant.

Michael J. Belo, General Counsel, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 7, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for the appellee.

Before LUCERO, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and ALLEY, District Judge.^*

LUCERO, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local No. 7 ("the Union") under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The Union successfully sought to enforce an arbitrator's award made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the Union and defendant-appellant King Soopers, Inc. We inquire as to whether the district court erred in holding that the arbitration award drew its essence from the CBA and was enforceable. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I

The relevant facts in this case are undisputed. In June 1997 Lally Parbhu, an employee of King Soopers and a Union member, took a leave of absence from her job as an all-purpose clerk (cashier/checker) at a King Soopers store in order to visit her ailing father in India. After her return from India in July, she returned to work but then herself fell ill, and a physician wrote a note requesting that she be excused from work until August 4, 1997. Without further notifying King Soopers, however, Parbhu did not return to work on August 4 due to her continued illness.

On August 19, 1997, she called the store to check her work schedule and spoke to the head clerk, who informed her that her employment with King Soopers had been terminated and that she needed to speak with Joe Hernandez, the store manager. Several days later, a meeting was held between Parbhu, Hernandez, and Kim Cordova, a business agent of the Union. At that meeting Parbhu explained she had not reported for work between August 4 and August 19, 1997, because she was ill, though she acknowledged that she should have informed store management of her ongoing absence. Following the meeting, Hernandez suspended her pending further investigation. He consulted with his supervisor, Anna Martinez, and thereupon terminated Parbhu for violation of King Soopers's "no call/no show" policy.

The King Soopers no call/no show policy provides that "[u]nexcused absences, (i.e., not calling or reporting for work for three (3) consecutive work days) will be grounds for immediate discharge." (I Appellant's App. at 94.) Article 40, Section 114 of the CBA governing relations between King Soopers and the Union and employees provides that "no employee who falls within the bargaining unit shall be discharged without good and sufficient cause."¹ (Id. at 45.) The CBA nowhere defines "good and sufficient cause" for termination, nor does it give examples of conduct rising to the level of "good and sufficient cause." Article 6, Section 14 (the "Rights of Management" section) of the CBA further states that "[t]he Employer retains the right . . . to make necessary reasonable rules and regulations for the conduct of business, providing that said rules and regulations are not in conflict with the terms of this Agreement in any way." (Id. at 17.)

On September 19, 1997, the Union filed a grievance, protesting the decision to terminate Parbhu. Pursuant to the CBA's grievance procedure, which provided for an arbitrator to interpret the terms of the CBA, the Union and King Soopers submitted the following question for arbitration:

Was the Grievant, Ms. Lally Parbhu, terminated for good and sufficient cause? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?

(Id. at 100.)

After reviewing prior arbitration cases involving grievances filed as a result of a termination decision, the arbitrator in the instant case determined that King Soopers had not terminated Parbhu for good and sufficient cause, despite the fact that the no call/no show policy was reasonable. "While it is possible," he held, "for violations of the no call/no show rule to be grounds for immediate termination, Ms. Parbhu's discharge did not meet the tests of just cause." (Id. at 111.) He based that determination on the following factors, gleaned from his review of past arbitration decisions: (1) Termination for a single offense is usually restricted to particularly grave breaches of proper conduct such as assault, fighting, or theft, while for less serious violations such as Parbhu's progressive discipline is applied; (2) Parbhu would have likely responded well to progressive discipline, and there was no reason to apply the severe penalty of termination; (3) Arbitrators in previous cases gave consideration to mitigating circumstances such as seniority and prior work history, and because Parbhu had been disciplined only once previously in the six years she had worked for King Soopers, those mitigating circumstances should have been considered; (4) It was King Soopers's practice to call employees who do not report for work, and the termination decision in the instant case was made without attempting to contact Parbhu. As a result, the arbitrator ordered that Parbhu be reinstated with full seniority to her former position or a comparable one, but because she violated the no call/no show rule, he ordered that the termination decision be converted to a term of suspension without pay.

Both the Union and King Soopers thereupon filed suit in United States District Court for the District of Colorado under Section 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), the former to enforce the arbitrator's award and the latter to vacate it. The Union and King Soopers filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment to the Union, ordering that the arbitrator's award be enforced. See United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 7 v. King Soopers, Inc., 52 F. Supp.2d 1215 (D. Colo. 1999). King Soopers now appeals.

II

Our standard of review is well-established: "We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard used by the district court." Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel Dep't of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 53 (1999); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

With respect to our review of arbitral awards in labor disputes, we are guided by the following standard, "among the narrowest known to the law," Litvak Packing Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, Local Union No. 7, 886 F.2d 275, 276 (10th Cir. 1989):

The courts are not authorized to reconsider the merits of any award even though the parties may allege that the award rests on errors of fact or on misinterpretation of the contract. The refusal of courts to review the merits of an arbitration award is the proper approach to arbitration under collective bargaining agreements.

United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29, 36 (1987) (internal quotations and citation omitted). "The parties have contracted for an arbitrator to resolve their disputes, not a court," Litvak Packing Co., 886 F.2d at 276 (citing Misco, 484 U.S. at 37-38) (further citation omitted), and thus "so far as the arbitrator's decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts have no business overruling [the arbitrator] because their interpretation of the contract" differs, United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599 (1960). That policy of exceedingly narrow judicial review is based on the fact that

the arbitrators under . . . collective [bargaining] agreements are indispensable agencies in a continuous collective bargaining process. They sit to settle disputes at the plant level--disputes that require for their solution knowledge of the custom and practices of a particular factory or of a particular industry as reflected in particular agreements.

Id. at 596 (footnote omitted). "Nonetheless, an arbitrator is confined to interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement; he does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice, . . . . his award is legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement." Id. at 597. That will be the case "as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority," Misco, 484 U.S. at 38. But an award does not draw its essence from the CBA if

it is contrary to the express language of the contract . . . or . . . is so unfounded in reason and fact, so unconnected with the working and purpose of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator . . . . [or] if viewed in the light of its language, its context, and any other indicia of the parties' intention, it is without factual support.

Mistletoe Express Serv. v. Motor Expressmen's Union, 566 F.2d 692, 694 (10th Cir. 1977) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

A

As an initial matter, we disagree with King Soopers's contention that its no call/no show policy has been incorporated into the CBA and therefore a violation of that policy always constitutes "good and sufficient cause" for termination under the CBA. Although the CBA negotiated between King Soopers and the Union gives King Soopers "the right . . . to make necessary reasonable rules and regulations for the conduct of business, providing that said rules and regulations are not in conflict with the terms of ...