Trevathan v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.
| Citation | 752 F. Supp. 698 |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 90-333-N. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | Julian W. TREVATHAN, Plaintiff, v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY, Defendant. |
Charles S. Montagna, for plaintiff.
William C. Bell, for defendant.
By order of September 25, 1990, and pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the motions for summary judgment filed by each of the parties were referred to The Honorable William T. Prince, United States Magistrate, to conduct such hearings as were necessary and submit to this Court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by a judge of this Court. Such report and recommendations were filed by Judge Prince on October 22, 1990, with direction to the Clerk to mail a copy thereof to counsel for the parties and notifying them that they might file objections to the report and recommendations. Further, they were notified that a District Judge would make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or recommendations to which objections were made. Plaintiff duly filed objections to the (1) finding by Judge Prince that plaintiff lacked standing to maintain this action, and (2) that the arbitrator's award draws its essence from the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement. In such objection, plaintiff says that he "realleges and incorporates herein plaintiff's brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's own motion for summary judgment and brief in support thereof." (Par. 2, page 1 of objections filed October 31, 1990)
The record establishes and neither party challenges the finding that the grievance procedure provided by the Collective Bargaining Agreement was followed, and that the matter was thereafter submitted to arbitration. A copy of the opinion and award of the arbitrator, along with copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement are attached to plaintiff's complaint filed herein on June 15, 1990.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff was an employee of defendant and had been for some approximately 22 years; that plaintiff's work was governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement; that plaintiff, along with others in the same type of employment, was required to take an annual requalification test; that on or about October 20, 1988, plaintiff took such test; that plaintiff, following such test, was terminated from his employment for cheating on the test by having with him a flow chart containing pertinent guidelines and procedures; that following a hearing of evidence from each side, the arbitrator found that the examination was a closed book exam and that plaintiff was guilty of cheating; that defendant company's regulations provide that defendant may discharge an employee for "falsification of company records," and that plaintiff's conduct constituted falsification of company records. The arbitrator found that the discharge of plaintiff by defendant was in accord with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and for good cause.
In his complaint filed herein, plaintiff moves the Court to enter a judgment declaring that the award of the arbitrator is invalid and the Court should set the award aside, declare that plaintiff's termination was without just cause and in violation of the aforesaid agreement, and that the Court award plaintiff damages for his loss of earnings.
Plaintiff has not here, nor has he at any stage of the proceedings, contended that the question of his discharge was not covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or that the matter was improperly referred to arbitration. In fact, he asserts that such action was proper. In his complaint, plaintiff says that the arbitrator's award failed to properly interpret the said agreement, misapplied the defendant's rule, and therefore the decision did not take its essence from said agreement.
Defendant answered and also filed a motion for summary judgment. In said motion, defendant asserted plaintiff lacked standing to maintain this action because he was not a party to the aforesaid agreement; that the complaint is insufficient because of a failure to allege fraud, deceit or that the union breached its duty of fair representation and thereby subverted the arbital process; and that defendant is entitled to summary judgment because the arbiter's award draws its essence from the agreement.
Plaintiff likewise filed a motion for summary judgment. Therein, plaintiff says the parties agree that plaintiff was subject to discharge by defendant for just cause, and the agreement permitted such discharge for violating company rules. However, plaintiff there asserts the arbitrator failed to read the rules "in its usual sense," but stretched the terms of the rules beyond their clear meaning thereby exceeding the scope of his authority.
The facts as found by the arbitrator, the procedural background, the contentions of the parties, the issues and applicable law are all clearly set forth in Judge Prince's report and recommendation. Upon a complete de novo review, the Court adopts the report and recommendation as its own.
In accord with the report and recommendation, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is treated as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this action is dismissed for plaintiff's lack of standing to maintain it, upon the grounds and applicable law set out in the report.
But even if plaintiff had standing to maintain this action, he would not be entitled to the relief prayed for. He seeks to have the Court substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator. The Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10, provides the only basis for the Court to make an order vacating the award "upon the application of either party to the arbitration." The "federal Arbitration Act provides the exclusive remedy for challenging acts that taint an arbitration award ..." Corey v. New York Stock Exchange, 691 F.2d 1205, 1211 (6th Cir. 1982). As the report makes clear, the Supreme Court is United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987), again pointed out that the Courts exercise limited review of arbitrators' decisions and findings. It there restated that Courts are not authorized to reconsider the merits of an award even though the parties may allege that the award rests on errors of fact or on misinterpretation of the contract, and that such is the proper approach to arbitration under collective bargaining agreements. Courts do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal errors by an arbitrator as do appellate courts of a lower court's decisions, nor should a Court reject an award on the ground that the arbitrator misread the contract and even where the Court is concerned the arbitrator committed serious error, such does not suffice to overturn the arbitrator's decision. See Misco, 108 S.Ct. at 370, 371. All of this is fully set forth in the report. Since it is clear, as the report sets forth, that the arbitrator's decision and findings draw their essence from the relevant collective bargaining agreement covering plaintiff, defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. This action is therefore DISMISSED.
WILLIAM T. PRINCE, United States Magistrate.
United States District Judge John A. MacKenzie, by an order entered on September 25, 1990, designated the undersigned magistrate to conduct a hearing and to submit to a judge of the court proposed recommendations for disposition by the judge of defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed on August 20, 1990 and also of plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed on September 5, 1990.
A hearing was held on September 27, 1990 at which Charles S. Montagna, Esquire, appeared for plaintiff, Julian W. Trevathan, while William C. Bell, Esquire, appeared for defendant, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company.
Plaintiff Trevathan was an employee of the defendant, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company hereinafter "Newport News" for approximately twenty-two (22) years. As a Newport News employee, Trevathan was covered by a collective bargaining agreement existing and in force between the defendant and the United Steelworkers of America hereinafter "United Steelworkers".
On October 20, 1988, Newport News required Trevathan to take an acid spot test to identify various metals. Each employee who wishes to qualify as an inspector in the 053 Department must take an initial qualification test and then pass annual re-qualification tests. During his October 20, 1988 requalification examination, Trevathan allegedly cheated by having with him a flow chart containing pertinent guidelines and procedures.1 As a result, defendant terminated plaintiff's employment. As its basis for discharge, defendant cited plant regulation 10 which states that Newport News may discharge an employee for "falsification of Company records."2
Thereafter, United Steelworkers, the union representing Trevathan in his employment, filed a grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement on plaintiff's behalf against Newport News protesting Trevathan's discharge. The disputed discharge proceeded through the various steps required by the grievance procedures existing under the collective bargaining agreement.3 Next, after exhausting the grievance procedures, Newport News and United Steelworkers submitted the matter to arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. See Agreement between Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and the United Steelworkers of America, June 1, 1987 through March 31, 1991, Art. 12, sec. 1 hereinafter "Agreement". Arbitrator James M. Litton conducted the arbitration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trevathan v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.
...Clay Bell, Office of the General Counsel, Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Newport News, Va., for appellee. E.D.Va., 752 F.Supp. 698. Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, WIDENER, Circuit Judge, and THOMAS SELBY ELLIS, III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virgi......