From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pacific Motor Trucking v. Automotive Mach

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 21, 1983
702 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1983)

Summary

holding that arbitrator's award was properly vacated where CBA provided that the company could select Working Foremen without regard to seniority but arbitrator concluded, based on past practice, that an employee could not be demoted from the Working Foreman position due to his long tenure in that position, thus "disregard[ing] a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice"

Summary of this case from Teamsters Local 856 v. Delta Dental of Cal.

Opinion

No. 82-4517.

Argued and Submitted March 17, 1983.

Decided March 21, 1983.

David A. Rosenfeld, Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg Roger, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-cross-complainant-appellant.

Patrick Jordan, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-cross-defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before WRIGHT, CANBY and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.


We affirm the court's order vacating the arbitration award.

We enforce an arbitration award if it represents a "plausible interpretation of the contract in the context of the parties' conduct." Holly Sugar Corp. v. Distillery, Rectifying, Wine Allied Workers International Union, 412 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 1969). An award that conflicts directly with the contract cannot be a "plausible interpretation." Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir. 1979).

Article 7, Section 2(c) of the contract provided that the company could select Working Foremen without regard to seniority. The arbitrator acknowledged that this section gave the company discretion over the Working Foreman position. Nonetheless, he ruled that the company could not demote Turner from Working Foreman because to do so would be "unreasonable and unconscionable" in light of the "incredibly long" time Turner had held the job.

The arbitrator attempted to justify the award on the basis of past practice. He acknowledged, however, that there was no practice indicating that the employer lacked discretion over maintaining the Working Foreman position. The retention of an employee in a certain position for a long time does not, by itself, constitute a past practice for the purpose of construing the contract provisions.

The arbitrator disregarded a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice. Although an arbitrator has great freedom in determining an award, he may not "dispense his own brand of industrial justice." See United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). Because the award conflicts directly with the contract, the court properly vacated the award.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Pacific Motor Trucking v. Automotive Mach

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 21, 1983
702 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1983)

holding that arbitrator's award was properly vacated where CBA provided that the company could select Working Foremen without regard to seniority but arbitrator concluded, based on past practice, that an employee could not be demoted from the Working Foreman position due to his long tenure in that position, thus "disregard[ing] a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice"

Summary of this case from Teamsters Local 856 v. Delta Dental of Cal.

vacating arbitral award because "[t]he arbitrator disregarded a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice"

Summary of this case from Hawaii Teamsters L. 996 v. United Parcel Serv

vacating arbitral award because "[t]he arbitrator disregarded a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice"

Summary of this case from Hawaii Teamsters v. United Parcel Serv

applying federal law to reverse arbitration award that conflicts with unambiguous clause in contract

Summary of this case from Apex Fountain Sales, Inc. v. Kleinfeld

In Pacific Motor Trucking v. Automotive Machinists, 702 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court stated: "We enforce an arbitration award if it represents a `plausible interpretation of the contract in the context of the parties' conduct.

Summary of this case from Edward Hines Lumber v. Lumber Sawmill Wkrs

In Pac. Motor Trucking, the Ninth Circuit affirmed vacatur of an arbitral award where "[t]he arbitrator disregarded a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice.

Summary of this case from Aspic Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors, LLC

In Pacific Motor, the arbitrator looked to a provision of a collective bargaining agreement that gave the employer discretion to fill the "Working Foreman" position without regard to seniority.

Summary of this case from McCabe Hamilton Renny v. Intl. Long. Ware. Union
Case details for

Pacific Motor Trucking v. Automotive Mach

Case Details

Full title:PACIFIC MOTOR TRUCKING CO., PLAINTIFF-CROSS-DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 21, 1983

Citations

702 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1983)

Citing Cases

Aspic Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors, LLC

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that "[a]lthough an arbitrator has great freedom in determining an award,…

United States ex rel. Urata & Sons Concrete, Inc. v. Gilbane Fed.

Federal courts are not empowered to second guess an arbitrator's findings and will enforce an arbitration…