Sullivan v. Endeavor Air, Inc.
Decision Date | 08 May 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 16-1653,16-1653 |
Citation | 856 F.3d 533 |
Parties | Michael SULLIVAN, Petitioner–Appellant v. ENDEAVOR AIR, INC., formerly known as Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., formerly known as Express Airlines, Inc., formerly known as NWA Airlink, Defendant–Appellee |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Counsel who represented the appellant was Paul Egtvedt of Minneapolis, MN.
Counsel who represented the appellee was Alec J. Beck, of Minneapolis, MN., and Nancy Van der Veer Holt of Washington, DC.
Before BENTON, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Michael Sullivan appeals the district court's1 denial of his Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The petition seeks to vacate an arbitration award issued by a System Board of Adjustment pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq . The RLA states: 45 U.S.C. § 153(q) . See United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc ., 484 U.S. 29, 37-38, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987) () ; Hunt v. Northwest Air., Inc. , 600 F.2d 176, 179 (8th Cir.) (, )cert. denied , 444 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 3083, 62 L.Ed.2d 315 (1979). Although Sullivan disputes some of the facts set forth in the award, they are "conclusive," and are the basis for the following facts.
Sullivan was a pilot for a predecessor to Endeavor Air, Inc. from 2001 until his termination in December 2006. Endeavor's pilots are represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International. The ALPA and Endeavor have a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
Before 2006, Sullivan received "nondisciplinary counselings about such things as being late for a flight, trying to change out times to avoid a recorded late departure, and appearance." He was never disciplined formally. On October 17, 2006, Endeavor issued him two "Written Letters of Warning," for missing a flight and failing to keep certifications current. He did not grieve either warning; pursuant to the CBA, they became binding. Two weeks later, Endeavor disciplined him for violating company dress code and arriving late to a flight. It scheduled a meeting to discuss these violations. He missed the meeting, but the parties met the next day.
On November 29, Endeavor gave Sullivan a "Final Written Letter of Warning" about his "overall duty performance," including:
duty performance, poor decision-making causing delayed flights, late arrival to the aircraft for showtime, inappropriate use of the ACARS system, failure to remain contactable, failure to report for meetings with company management, unprofessionalism, and substandard uniform compliance.
The letter stated his appearance and conduct had "fallen below the standards expected of you" and cautioned that "any further infractions against company policies and procedures will result in additional disciplinary action up to and including termination." He again did not grieve the warning. It became binding.
On December 10, Sullivan made at least two sexually explicit comments to a female flight attendant. On December 11, he showed up late for a flight. Two weeks later, Endeavor fired him. In the termination letter, Endeavor cited his late arrival to the December 11 flight and inappropriate comments to the flight attendant in violation of the company's anti-harassment policy.2
Sullivan grieved his termination to a three-member System Board of Adjustment under the CBA. Arguing his termination was without "just cause," he contended: (1) his comments to the flight attendant were not unlawful or violative of the anti-harassment policy; (2) his conduct did not warrant termination; and (3) Endeavor terminated him in retaliation for complaints he made to the Federal Aviation Administration. The Board rejected the claims, finding "just cause to terminate him."
Sullivan petitioned the district court to vacate the arbitration award for three reasons: (1) it violated his due process rights; (2) the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by not drawing the essence of the award from the CBA; and (3) the Board improperly ignored past practice that requires less serious disciplinary measures. The court denied the petition. He appeals.
This court reviews the district court's "findings of law de novo and its factual findings on a clearly erroneous standard." Brotherhood of Maint. of Way Emps. v. Soo Line R.R. , 266 F.3d 907, 909 (8th Cir. 2001). Id. ,quoting Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey , 532 U.S. 504, 509, 121 S.Ct. 1724, 149 L.Ed.2d 740 (2001).
Under the Railway Labor Act, "a Board's decision may be set aside only for (1) failure to comply with RLA requirements, (2) failure to confine itself to matters within its jurisdiction, or (3) fraud or corruption by a Board member." Goff v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp. , 276 F.3d 992, 996 (8th Cir. 2002), citing 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (q) ; Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sheehan , 439 U.S. 89, 93, 99 S.Ct. 399, 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978). See Ozark Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l , 744 F.2d 1347, 1350 (8th Cir. 1984) ( ). "In addition to the statutorily created parameters of review, courts have recognized that ... arbitration decisions are reviewable for possible due process violations," Goff , 276 F.3d at 997, and violations of "well-defined and dominant public policies." Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union , 3 F.3d 255, 258 (8th Cir. 1993).
Sullivan claims a violation of "industrial due process," arguing "[t]he Award allows Endeavor to terminate Sullivan without proper notice as to the quality of conduct for which he could be subject to termination." Although "arbitration decisions are reviewable for possible due process violations," review is limited to the procedural due process afforded by the arbitration itself, not alleged due process in the underlying action challenged. Goff , 276 F.3d at 997 (, )quoting 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i), (j) (citation omitted). Sullivan does not allege any procedural deficiencies in the arbitration process. His procedural due process claim is without merit.
Alternatively, Sullivan says the award violates public policy because the "[p]rovision of due process to airline employees is a dominant and well-defined part of public policy." Courts may vacate arbitration awards that violate "well-defined and dominant" public policies only if those policies "can be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests." United Transp. Union , 3 F.3d at 258, 260-261, quoting W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, Int'l Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Am. , 461 U.S. 757, 766, 103 S.Ct. 2177, 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Sullivan does not explain how the award violates public policy. Rather, he contends the award affirms an action (his termination) that violates public policy (his due process rights). But this is not a valid reason to set aside an award. See generally id. at 261 ( ). Instead, it is an improper attempt to have this court decide the merits of the Board's decision. See Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 878 v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. , 613 F.2d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 1980) (), quoting Kewanee Mach. v. Local U. No. 21, Int'l Bro . , 593 F.2d 314, 316-317 (8th Cir. 1979). Courts are not "free to overturn any award with which they disagree." United Transp. Union , 3 F.3d at 260. As the district court said, "it was the province of the [Board] to decide whether Sullivan's termination was conducted with the necessary procedural due process," and "the [Board] concluded that no violation occurred." See generally Chauffeurs , 613 F.2d at 720-21 ( ). Sullivan's disagreement with the Board's determination that Endeavor did...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krakowski v. Allied Pilots Ass'n
...Labor Act provides limited judicial review of adjustment-board decisions, 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (q); see Sullivan v. Endeavor Air, Inc. , 856 F.3d 533, 537 (8th Cir. 2017), which is consistent with a scheme that is completely preemptive, see Johnson , 701 F.3d at 251–52.2 The standards for ......
-
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal
...merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement." Sullivan v. Endeavor Air, Inc. , 856 F.3d 533, 537 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Brotherhood of Maint. of Way Emps. v. Soo Line R.R. , 266 F.3d 907, 909 (8th Cir. 2001) ). When reviewin......
-
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal
...merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties' agreement." Sullivan v. Endeavor Air, Inc. , 856 F.3d 533, 537 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey , 532 U.S. 504, 509, 121 S. Ct. 1724, 149 L. Ed. 2d 740 (2......
-
Boles v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
... ... summary judgment. [ 1 ] See Miller v. Toxicology Lab ... Inc. , 688 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2012) ... ... the underlying action challenged.” Sullivan v ... Endeavor Air, Inc. , 856 F.3d 533, 537 (8th Cir. 2017) ... ...