Local Union No. 251 v. Narragansett Imp. Co., 74-1157
| Decision Date | 24 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1157,74-1157 |
| Citation | 503 F.2d 309 |
| Parties | 87 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2279, 75 Lab.Cas. P 10,326 LOCAL UNION NO. 251, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NARRAGANSETT IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Patrick A. Liguori and Adler, Pollock & Sheehan Inc., Providence, R.I., on brief for appellant.
Dennis J. Roberts, II, and Roberts & Willey Inc., Providence, R.I., on brief for appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.
This appeal stems from confirmation by the district court of an arbitration award pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 185 (1970) and 9 U.S.C. 9 (1970). The appellant contends that the district court erred in ruling that no grounds for vacating the award existed under 9 U.S.C. 10 (1970).
Arbitration is the final dispute-resolving mechanism in the collective bargaining agreement between Narragansett (the company) and its employees. This dispute arose out of the discharge of a truck driver after a heated argument with his supervisor. The employee contended that his discharge lacked just cause and therefore violated the collective bargaining agreement. The company claimed that the employee was discharged because he had an excessive accident record and was otherwise delinquent, and that he had in fact been discharged on two previous occasions. It put forward some partially contested evidence at the arbitration hearing with regard both to the accident record and the previous discharges. In his award, the arbitrator stated that the accident record had not been stressed as a reason for the discharge until the hearing. He also stated regarding the contested discharges that company records verified only one such incident, that that incident was a threatened rather than actual discharge, that that warning had occurred over two years ago, and that 'warnings of this type are usually nullified after such a period of time.' The arbitrator concluded that the driver was discharged for the verbal altercation with his supervisor and for threatening him with a steel pipe. The arbitrator held this to be justification for disciplinary layoff but not 'just cause' for discharge, and therefore ordered reinstatement. When the company did not reinstate the employee, the union sought confirmation of the award in the district court.
The company's answer affirmatively alleged grounds for vacating the award. At the arbitration hearing the company had sought a postponement to present further testimony about the previous discharges and the accident record. No reason for such a postponement seems to have been offered the arbitrator, nor was one voiced below. The arbitrator denied the request, and the company sought to have his award vacated on the ground that the refusal constituted 'misconduct' within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. 10(c). 1 The district court confirmed the award, and the company appeals.
The district court did not err. Congress has carefully limited the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards. Where judicially enforceable arbitration is agreed to and confirmation of the award is sought, 'the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.' 9 U.S.C. 9 (1970). The courts are precluded from considering factual or legal issues which are by voluntary agreement made the subject of arbitration. Judicial intrusion is restricted to extraordinary situations indicating abuse of arbitral power to exercise of power beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Transport Workers Union v. Philadelphia Transp. Co., 283 F.Supp. 597 (E.D.Pa.1968). The burden is on the party challenging the arbitral award to establish substantially more than an erroneous conclusion of law or fact. Saxis Steamship Co. v. Multifacs Int'l Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1967).
The appellant attempts to meet this burden by arguing that under 10(c) the failure to postpone and the resulting exclusion of allegedly material and relevant evidence rise to the level of unfairness or misconduct. While a postponement and the subsequent reception of additional testimony might have provided some support for the company's claims, deprivation of this possibility alone does not constitute misconduct under 10(c). In a case in which the disciplinary record of an employee is at issue in determining whether good cause for discharge existed, it is not misconduct for an arbitrator to discount disputed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Industries, Inc. v. Mor-Flo Industries, Inc.
... ... Modine Mfg. Co. v. Allen Group, Inc., 917 F.2d 538, 542-43, 16 ... See, e.g., Local Union No. 251 v. Narragansett Improvement Co., ... ...
- Lemma v. York & Chapel, Corp.
-
M&L Power Services v. American Networks Intern.
...34, 38-39 (1st Cir.1985) (arbitrator has wide latitude, including discretion to sequester witnesses); Local Union No. 251 v. Narragansett Improvement Co., 503 F.2d 309, 312 (1st. Cir.1974) (arbitrator has discretion not to postpone hearing); Burns v. Segerson, 122 R.I. 123, 404 A.2d 500, 50......
-
Derwin v. General Dynamics Corp., 82-1934
...spoken of the act as applying to collective bargaining agreements. See, e.g., Local Union No. 251, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Narragansett Improvement Co., 503 F.2d 309, 311-12 (1st Cir.1974); Electronics Corp. v. International Union of Electrical Workers, 492 F.2d 1255, 1258......