National Postal Mail Handlers v. American Postal

• Decision Date: 18 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. 08-5487.,No. 08-5467.,08-5467.,08-5487.
• Citation: 589 F.3d 437
• Parties: NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION, a Division of The Laborers' International Union of North America, Appellant v. AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION and United States Postal Service, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

589 F.3d 437

NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION, a Division of The Laborers' International Union of North America, Appellant v. AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION and United States Postal Service, Appellees.

No. 08-5467.

No. 08-5487.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued September 22, 2009.

Decided December 18, 2009.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:06-cv-01986-JR).

Ray E. Donahue, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellant United States Postal Service. With him on the briefs was R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney. Claire M. Whitaker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.

Ramya Ravindran argued the cause for appellant National Postal Mail Handlers Union. With her on the briefs was Andrew D. Roth.

Anton G. Hajjar argued the cause and filed the brief for appellee American Postal Workers Union.

Before SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GRIFFITH and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH, with whom Circuit Judge GRIFFITH joins.

Dissenting Opinion filed by Chief Judge SENTELLE.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge:

This is an arbitration case. Two unions of postal workers — the American Postal Workers Union and the National Postal Mail Handlers Union — disagreed over which union was entitled to perform certain work at a U.S. Postal Service facility in Oakland. The Postal Service assigned the tasks to NPMHU's mail handlers. According to APWU, that assignment contravened a 1979 Postal Service directive regarding allocation of work. APWU brought the matter to arbitration and prevailed in the arbitration proceeding.

NPMHU then sued in federal court to overturn the arbitrator's decision. NPMHU claimed, in particular, that the arbitrator erred in finding the dispute arbitrable under the parties' contract. Applying the extremely deferential standard of review for labor arbitration decisions, the District Court upheld the arbitrator's decision on arbitrability even though it was, in the court's words, "probably erroneous." 578 F.Supp.2d 160, 162 (D.D.C. 2008). We too acknowledge that the arbitrator probably erred as a matter of contract interpretation. Yet in light of the deference courts must afford to a labor arbitrator's contract interpretation — including an arbitrator's decision on arbitrability where, as here, the parties agree to present that issue to the arbitrator — we agree with the District Court that we must uphold the arbitrator's decision in this case. We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I

A

In 1979, the Postal Service issued a directive allocating responsibility for various mail processing functions between two crafts of postal employees: clerks and mail handlers. The American Postal Workers Union represents clerks, and the National Postal Mail Handlers Union represents mail handlers. We will refer to those unions as APWU and NPMHU.

In 1992, APWU, NPMHU, and the Postal Service agreed on how to resolve disputes over which union should perform certain work (what the Agreement refers to as "jurisdictional disputes"). Under that 1992 Agreement, the parties refer disputes over work assignments to a Local Dispute Resolution Committee that includes representatives of the three parties. If the parties deadlock at that local level, an aggrieved party may appeal to a Regional Dispute Resolution Committee. If deadlock persists, an aggrieved party may appeal to "final and binding" arbitration before an agreed-upon arbitrator.

The 1992 Agreement also provides: "Effective with the signing of this Agreement no new disputes will be initiated at the local level by either union challenging jurisdictional work assignments in any operations as they currently exist. Except as otherwise specifically provided . . . all local craft jurisdictional assignments which are not already the subject of a pending locally initiated grievance will be deemed as a proper assignment for that facility." J.A. 100 (emphasis added).

B

In 2001, a dispute arose over which union was responsible for scanning foreign mail on the loading dock at the U.S. Postal Service's Oakland International Service Center. At the time, mail handlers (represented by NPMHU) performed that work. APWU filed two grievances claiming that clerks, not mail handlers, should perform the tasks in question. The parties referred APWU's grievances to the Local Dispute Resolution Committee, but the committee was unable to agree on a resolution. The parties next referred the issue to a Regional Dispute Resolution Committee; again, no resolution ensued.

APWU then appealed both grievances to arbitration. Before the arbitrator, NPMHU and the Postal Service maintained that the grievances were not arbitrable because (i) they concerned an assignment of work that had initially been made before 1992 and (ii) the parties' 1992 Agreement barred grievances about such pre-1992 assignments.

The arbitrator determined that the dispute was arbitrable. He read the 1992 Agreement to incorporate a "continuing violations" theory under which he could assess the appropriateness of certain pre-1992 assignments to the extent they continued post-1992. The arbitrator then addressed the merits and ruled in favor of APWU, concluding that the Postal Service had improperly assigned the work in question to mail handlers rather than to clerks.

NPMHU filed suit under 39 U.S.C. § 1208(b) and sought to have the arbitrator's award vacated on the ground that the arbitrator had erred in finding the dispute arbitrable. NPMHU contended that arbitration was not available to resolve disputes over work assignments that had initially been made before 1992. The Postal Service agreed with NPMHU that the arbitrator had erred on the arbitrability issue.

The District Court opined that the arbitrator's decision on arbitrability was "probably erroneous." 578 F.Supp.2d 160, 162 (D.D.C.2008). But the court nonetheless granted summary judgment to APWU. Applying the courts' deferential standard of review of labor arbitration decisions, the court found no basis to disturb the arbitrator's determination that the dispute was arbitrable. Id. at 163. NPMHU and the Postal Service appeal; our review is de novo. See U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 553 F.3d 686, 692 (D.C.Cir.2009).

II

A

Section 1208(b) of Title 39 authorizes federal district courts to hear suits "for violation of contracts between the Postal Service and a labor organization representing Postal Service employees, or between any such labor organizations." The Postal Service and a postal workers' union may of course agree to arbitration as a means to efficiently resolve contractual disputes. Section 1208(b) does not supply a standard for judicial review of arbitration decisions. We have held, however, that the standard for judicial review of arbitration awards in the postal context is the same as the standard articulated by the Supreme Court for judicial review of labor arbitration awards under § 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. See U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 553 F.3d 686, 689 (D.C.Cir.2009) (same standard applies because statutes are "virtually identical") (quoting U.S. Postal Serv. v. Nat'l Rural Letter Carriers' Ass'n, 959 F.2d 283, 286 (D.C.Cir.1992)).

The Supreme Court has long applied a very deferential standard for judicial review of labor arbitration decisions. In the foundational case, the Court ruled that a labor arbitrator's decision must be upheld so long as it "draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement." United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). That standard is met, the Court explained, if the arbitrator "premise[d] his award on his construction of the contract." Id. at 598, 80 S.Ct. 1358.

On several occasions, the Supreme Court has reiterated and reinforced that deferential standard of review for labor arbitration decisions. Most recently and perhaps most emphatically, in Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 121 S.Ct. 1724, 149 L.Ed.2d 740 (2001), the Court stated that courts "are not authorized to review the arbitrator's decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties' agreement." Id. at 509, 121 S.Ct. 1724. Sending a clear message to federal courts about their proper role in labor arbitration matters, the Supreme Court did not mince words or sugar-coat the point: If an arbitrator is "even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority," then a court may not overturn his decision, even if the court is convinced the arbitrator committed "serious error." Id. (quoting E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57, 62, 121 S.Ct. 462, 148 L.Ed.2d 354 (2000)). Where "no dishonesty is alleged," a court may vacate a labor arbitration award only if the arbitrator "strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively `dispense[s] his own brand of industrial justice.'" Id. (quoting Enter. Wheel, 363 U.S. at 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358). See also United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36-38, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987); AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986).

In short, the relevant question under the Supreme Court's precedents is not whether the arbitrator erred — or even seriously erred — in interpreting the contract. Rather, the question is whether the arbitrator was "even arguably construing or applying the contract." Garvey, 532 U.S. at 509, 121 S.Ct. 1724 (quoting E. Associated, 531 U.S. at 62, 121 S.Ct. 462). Courts do not review the substantive reasonableness of a labor arbitrator's contract interpretation. See id.; see also Harry T. Edwards, Judicial Review of Labor...