Eastern Associated Coal v. United Mine Workers, A.

11 Citing briefs

  1. In the Matter of the Arbitration between Shenendehowa Central School District Board of Education, Appellant, and Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 864, et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed January 3, 2013

    The District concedes that in the absence of a criminal conviction for driving under the influence or certain other drug-related offenses, reinstatement of a school bus driver who has tested positive for drugs does not violate State law, making the second prong of this test inapplicable. The District further acknowledges that the USDOT regulations governing drug and alcohol testing for commercial vehicle drivers do not prohibit, “in an absolute sense” the reinstatement of a commercial vehicle driver who has tested positive for drugs (Eastern Associated - 34 - Coal Corp., 531 US at 65). The reinstatement award thus does not violate any federal policy.

  2. Colvin v. Muy Pizza Southeast, Llc

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed December 28, 2016

    Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064, 2068 (2013) (quotingE. Assoc. Coal Corp. v.Mine Workers,531 U.S. 57,62,121 S. Ct. 462, 466 (2000)). The only question for the reviewing Court "is whether the arbitrator (even 6 Case 3:16-cv-00646-MCR-GRJ Document 10 Filed 12/28/16 Page 12 of 27 arguably) interpreted the parties' contract, not whether [she] got its meaning right or wrong."

  3. Piedmont Airlines, Inc. v. Air Lines Pilots Association, International

    Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 9, 2017

    we v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 974 F.2d 101 (8th Cir. 1992) ..............................................................25 Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. SEIU, Local 32BJ, 846 F.3d 716 (4th Cir. 2017) ...............14, 15, 18, 23 Burchell v. Marsh, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 344 (1855) ........................................................................11 Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Dist. 28, United Mine Workers, 720 F.2d 1365 (4th Cir. 1983) ....................................................................................................................14 Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299 (1989).............................................11 CSX Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union, 29 F.3d 931 (4th Cir. 1994) .....................................22 de la Rosa Sanchez v. E. Airlines, Inc., 574 F.2d 29 (1st Cir. 1978) .............................................25 Dist. 17, United Mine Workers v. Island Creek Coal, 179 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 1999) ..............18, 24 E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57 (2000) ........................24 Goldinger v. Datex-Ohmeda Cash Balance Plan, 701 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (W.D. Wash. 2010) ............................................................................................................20 Gunther v. San Diego & E. Ry., 382 U.S. 257 (1965) ...................................................................12 Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (1994) ................................................................25 Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Central Airlines, Inc., 372 U.S. 682 (1963) .......................................10 Int’l Chem. Workers Union, Local No. 566 v. Mobay Chem. Corp., 755 F.2d 1107 (4th Cir. 1985) ..............................................................................................................15, 18 Case 1:16-cv-03263-GLR Document 26-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 4 of 35 iv Jenisio v. Ozark Airlines, Inc. Ret. Plan, 187 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 1999) ........................................25 Keebler Co

  4. Ncr Corporation v. Goh

    MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Goh's

    Filed September 15, 2016

    233.1550 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000). “[T]he question for a judge is not whether the arbitrator construed the parties’ contract correctly, but whether he construed it at all.”

  5. National Hockey League v. National Hockey League Players' Association

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 13 MOTION to Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, To Confirm Arbitration Award. . Document

    Filed July 29, 2016

    25 Case 1:16-cv-04287-AJN Document 14 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 29 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Andros Compania Maritima, S.A. v. Mark Rich & Co., 579 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1978)...............................................................................................17, 25 E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57 (2000) .............................................................................................................17, 20 Garcia v. Bd. Of Educ., 520 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................................20 Harry Hoffman Printing, Inc. v. Graphic Commc’ns, Int’l Union, Local 261, 912 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1990).....................................................................................................15 Kappos v. Hyatt, 132 S. Ct. 1690 (2012) .............................................................................................................19 Kruse v. Sands Bros. & Co., 226 F. Supp. 2d 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ................................................................................13, 15 Lobaito v. Chase Bank, No. 11-Civ-6883, 2012 WL 3104926 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012) .............................................14

  6. Sussex et al v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC et al

    RESPONSE to 114 MOTION to Disqualify

    Filed September 27, 2013

    As the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Oxford Health, the parties are strictly bound to their agreement to arbitrate and their arbitration agreement contractually limits judicial review: Because the parties “bargained for the arbitrator's construction of their agreement,” an arbitral decision “even arguably construing or applying the contract” must stand, regardless of a court's view of its (de)merits. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62, 121 S.Ct. 462, 148 L.Ed.2d 354 (2000). 133 S.Ct. 2064 at 2068.

  7. In the Matter of the Arbitration between Shenendehowa Central School District Board of Education, Appellant, and Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 864, et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed January 3, 2013

    Dist. of City of N.Y. v. McGraham, 17 N.Y.3d 917, 919, 958 N.E.2d 897, 898, 934 N.Y.S.2d 768, 770 (2011). Indeed, in its brief, Appellant dedicates significant time attempting to distinguish McGraham, and has now acknowledged the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 537 U.S. 57 (2000), wherein the Court refused to vacate an arbitrator’s award which ordered reinstatement of a truck driver who twice tested positive for marijuana, and of this Court in N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 99 N.Y.2d 1, 780 N.E.2d 490, 750 N.Y.S.2d 805, wherein the Court refused to vacate two arbitration awards which reinstated public employees who committed safety infractions resulting in accidents. Nevertheless, Appellant continues to request vacatur on public policy grounds.

  8. In the Matter of the Arbitration between Shenendehowa Central School District Board of Education, Appellant, and Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 864, et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed January 3, 2013

    -23 Indeed, the federal courts have have rejected the argument advanced by the District. In both United Paperworkers International v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29 (1987), and Eastern Associated Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers ofAmerica, 531 U.S. 57 (2000), the Supreme Court found that the reinstatement of employees who tested positive for marijuana did not violate public policy. Moreover, citing Misco, the Second Circuit found that a nuclear power plant worker's positive test result for cocaine did not bar his conditional reinstatement.

  9. Tenet Healthsystem Philadelphia, Inc. v. Rooney

    MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION SETTING FORTH THE REASONS WHY THE COURT IS GRANTING MOVANT'S MOTION TO CONFIRM THE CLAUSE CONSTRUCTION AWARD

    Filed August 17, 2012

    However, if an “arbitrator is [ ] arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of h[er] authority, the fact that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn h[er] decision.” Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000) (internal quotes omitted). Mr. Rooney asserts only two arguments: (1) the arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of applicable law by failing to give controlling weight to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) decision In re D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184, 2012 WL 36274 (Jan. 3, 2012), and (2) the arbitrator exceeded her authority by ignoring the express terms of the FTP.

  10. Sussex et al v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC et al

    RESPONSE to 85 MOTION to Vacate Arbitration Ruling

    Filed April 28, 2011

    MORRIS PETERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 900 BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA 300 SOUTH FOURTH STREET LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89101 702/474-9400 FAX 702/474-9422 is convinced that the arbitrator made a serious mistake, this is not enough to overturn his decision. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.s. 57, 62 (2000). The award must be confirmed as long as arbitrators “even arguably construed or applied the contract and acted within the scope of their authority,” Barnes v. Logan, 122 F.3d 820, 822 (9th Cir. 1997), as much as courts may disagree with the decision.