Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Helpers and Food Processors, Local Union 657 v. Stanley Structures, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1236,83-1236 |
| Citation | 735 F.2d 903 |
| Parties | 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2119, 101 Lab.Cas. P 11,116 TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, HELPERS AND FOOD PROCESSORS, LOCAL UNION 657, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANLEY STRUCTURES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Hicks, Gillespie & James, James L. Hicks, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
James T. Phelps, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before GOLDBERG, RUBIN, and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.
When an employer and a union contract that all disputes and controversies that may arise between them shall be settled by arbitration, they do not simply substitute an arbiter for a judge. They adopt a different method of dispute resolution. They alter pretrial procedures, the method of trial, the standards for admissibility of evidence, and the method of rendering a decision, and they limit the scope of judicial review of the arbitration award. Because the district judge vacated an arbitration decision that drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, we reverse the judgment and remand for enforcement of the award.
Stanley Structures suspended five employees for alleged gross misconduct during a strike, effective January 27, 1982. After conducting an investigation, the company discharged these five employees on February 19. The Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Helpers and Food Processors Local Union objected to both the suspensions and the discharges. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with Stanley, the union submitted to arbitration the company's failure to notify it and the employees that the employees would be or had been discharged within five working days of the occurrence of the alleged misconduct. 1
Article XII of the collective bargaining agreement provides:
The Company may discharge or suspend any employee for service not deemed satisfactory, but in respect to such discharge or suspension the Company shall give at least one (1) warning notice of the complaint against the employee in writing, with a copy to the Union within five (5) working days after the occurrence of the offense upon which the Employer bases the discharge, suspension or warning notice....
No warning notice need be given an employee before discharge if the cause of such discharge is ... gross misconduct.... The employees and/or Union shall have all rights of protesting warning letters, suspensions or discharges in accordance with the grievance procedure of this Agreement.
The union asserted before the arbitration committee that, because at least twenty-two days had passed between the time of occurrence of the offenses relied upon as cause for discharge and the actual discharge of the employees and between the event and the date of notice to them and the union, Stanley had breached the five-day promptness requirement imposed by the first paragraph of this provision. The committee agreed and ruled the employees' discharge improper.
When Stanley refused to comply with the arbitration committee's ruling, the union sought enforcement of the award. In response to cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found that the committee "failed to consider whether the notice requirements ... of the agreement were suspended because of the gross misconduct of the employees in question." The court therefore remanded the case to the arbitration committee for express decision whether the notice requirements of the agreement were applicable to discharges for employee misconduct of the kind alleged. On remand the arbitration committee reaffirmed its earlier decision, explaining:
[U]nder Article XII(12) of the Contract, an employee discharged upon allegations of gross misconduct is not entitled to a prior written warning of the complaint against the employee. However, regardless of the cause for the discharge, the Employer is obligated to submit to the discharged employee and the Union a written notification within five (5) working days after the occurrence of the offense upon which the Employer bases the discharge. It is clear from the facts presented in this case that the Employer did not comply with this latter requirement.
Stanley still declined to comply with the arbitration award. The union filed a motion to enforce the award; the company filed a motion to vacate it. The district court disagreed with the arbitration committee's interpretation of Article XII, stating that the committee's interpretation contravened the express language of the bargaining agreement. It therefore granted Stanley's motion seeking a vacation of the award and dismissed the case with prejudice.
I.
Judicial review in arbitration cases is constricted. In the Steelworkers Trilogy, 2 the Supreme Court set forth the basic framework for deciding questions concerning the relationship of federal courts to arbitration proceedings. United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424, 1428 (1960). Id., 363 U.S. at 599, 80 S.Ct. at 362, 4 L.Ed.2d at 1429.
Arbitration agreements do not grant arbitrators carte blanche, so federal courts have the power to vacate awards that are arbitrary or capricious. An arbitrator may not disregard or modify plain and unambiguous provisions of the agreement. 3 His award must have a "foundation in reason or fact." International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District No. 145 v. Modern Air Transport, Inc., 495 F.2d 1241, 1244 (5th Cir.1974). But an award should be enforced so long as it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rasheed v. International Paper Co.
...v. Schwerman Trucking Co., 668 F.2d 1204 (11th Cir.1982); see also Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Helpers and Food Processors, Local Union 657 v. Stanley Structures, Inc., 735 F.2d 903, 905 (5th Cir.1984). Generally, enforcement of an arbitration award will be upheld, and the finality......
-
Tucker v. Ernst & Young, LLP
...Our review is restricted to determining whether the procedure was fundamentally unfair.’ See Teamsters, Local Union 657 v. Stanley Structures, Inc., 735 F.2d 903, 906 (5th Cir.1984) ; accord Concourse Beauty School, Inc. v. Polakov, 685 F.Supp. 1311, 1318 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (‘The misconduct mus......
- Collins v. Nat'l Football League
-
Dist. No. 72 & Local Lodge 1127 v. Teter Tool & Die
...Center v. Union De Tronquistas Local 901, 763 F.2d 34 (1st Cir.1985); Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, Helpers and Food Processors, Local Union 657 v. Stanley Structures, Inc., 735 F.2d 903 (5th Cir.1984); Storer Broadcasting Co. v. American Fed'n of Television and Radio Artists, Clevel......
-
CHAPTER 11 PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF ARBITRATION AND OTHER ADR METHODS IN NATURAL RESOURCES DISPUTES
...be confirmed. Sobel v. Hertz Warner & Co., 469 F.2d 1211 (2nd Cir. 1972). See also, Teamsters Etc. Local Union 657 v. Stanley Structures, 735 F.2d 903 (5th Cir. 1984), applying an arbitrary and capricious standard to judicial review of an arbitration award. The fact that an unintentional er......