Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02902/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02902-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF ) 

AMERICA, an unincorporated ) 

association, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

SOUTHEASTERN ELECTRIC COOPERA- ) 

TIVE OF DURANT, OKLAHOMA, an . ) 

Oklahoma corporation, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

No. 88-2902 

FILED 

Uflited States Court of Appeals 

TPntb r;~.-,:t 

AUG 11 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the Western District of Oklahoma 

D.C. No. CIV-87-2059-A 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

David M. O'Dens of Lampkin, Mccaffrey & Tawwater, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee. · 

Charles s. Plumb of Doerner, Stuart, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, 

Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 88-2902 Document: 01019836070 Date Filed: 08/11/1989 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The single issue for review 

precludes the enforcement of an 

collective bargaining agreement. We 

is whether public policy 

arbitration award under a 

are persuaded that under 

United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 

29, 108 S. Ct. 364 (1987), the district court properly granted 

summary judgment in favor of Communication Workers of America and 

ordered the employee's reinstatement. We therefore affirm. 

I. 

In May 1986, Southeastern Electric Cooperative of Durant, 

Oklahoma, a rural electric cooperative and public service 

corporation, discharged Willie Gray, one of its district linemen, 

after a customer reported that Gray sexually assaulted her in her 

home. Mr. Gray's union, the Communication Workers of America (the 

Union), filed a grievance under the procedure set forth in its 

collective bargaining agreement (the Agreement) with Southeastern. 

The parties submitted the dispute to arbitration and agreed the 

issue to be resolved was whether Mr. Gray was discharged for just 

cause, and, if not, what the remedy should be. After a hearing in 

which testimony from various company representatives, the 

complainant, and Mr. Gray was received, the arbitrator concluded 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2902 Document: 01019836070 Date Filed: 08/11/1989 Page: 2 
"a one-time offense, albeit it was a sexual offense of a serious 

nature in a sensitive industry, should not lead to discharge." 

To reach this conclusion, the arbitrator compared this case 

to another one in which the employer specifically warned the 

employee that the commission of a second sexual offense while on 

the job would result in his termination. Although discharge was 

then warranted when that employee committed a second offense, the 

arbitrator believed in Mr. Gray's case that some corrective 

discipline was more appropriate "in an effort to salvage the 

career of this long-time employee with such a good work record." 

The arbitrator found that during his nineteen years of employment 

with Southeastern, Mr. Gray maintained a good work record, which, 

despite one disciplinary matter that was ordered expunged from his 

record, reflected no warnings for any "sex-related offenses.'' The 

arbitrator concluded that just cause did not exist for Mr. Gray's 

discharge, but that suspension for one month without pay was 

commensurate with the improper conduct. 

Southeastern now urges ~e set aside the arbitrator's award 

ordering Mr. Gray's reinstatement because it violates public 

policy. 1 While Southeastern agrees that Misco controls our 

review, it gives a broader reading to the Court's statement of the 

public policy exception and implicitly requires we expand the 

narrow focus of appellate review. 

In Misco, the Court underscored that judicial intervention 

into disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements 

1we do not address the Union's statute of limitations argument as 

an alternative grounds for disposition. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2902 Document: 01019836070 Date Filed: 08/11/1989 Page: 3 
necessarily injects the court into that very ongoing collective 

bargaining process. 108 S. Ct. at 371. Thus, courts have limited 

authority to review the merits of labor arbitration awards. 

Bayamon Can Co. v. Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto 

Rico, 843 F.2d 65, 66 (1st Cir. 1988). We are not free, Misco 

teaches us, to reject factual findings with which we disagree or 

the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract. 108 S. Ct. at 

371. "So, too, where it is contemplated that the arbitrator will 

determine remedies for contract violations that he finds, courts 

have no authority to disagree with his honest judgment in that 

respect.'' Id. As long as the arbitrator "is even arguably 

construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of 

his authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious 

error does not suffice to overturn his decision." Id. 

The arbitrator proceeded under Article VII, "Grievance 

Procedure-Arbitration," of the Agreement in which the parties 

agreed the arbitrator would decide only if there was just cause 

for Mr. Gray's termination. 2 Moreover, the Agreement provides the 

arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding upon both 

parties. Article VII, section 4. Thus, "the parties did not 

bargain for the facts to be found by a court, but by an arbitrator 

chosen by them who had more opportunity to observe [the employee] 

and to be familiar with the [company] and its problems." Id. at 

374. 

2Article VIII, section 1, states that no employee covered by the 

collective bargaining agreement shall be suspended, demoted or 

discharged or otherwise disciplined except for "just cause." 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2902 Document: 01019836070 Date Filed: 08/11/1989 Page: 4 
Nevertheless, Southeastern urges that the "valid and welldefined" public policy of preventing "assault and sexual 

oppression of women" must override the arbitrator's factual 

findings and award. In support, Southeastern distinguishes Misco 

factually because, while there was no evidence of the employee's 

actual use of drugs in the workplace in Misco, ·the arbitrator here 

found Gray committed a sexual offense while on his work route. 

Southeastern insists this misconduct goes to the heart of Mr. 

Gray's job responsibilities in a sensitive industry. Southeastern 

relies on Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 

861 F.2d 665 (11th Cir. 1988). 

In Delta Air Lines, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the 

discharge of an airline pilot who operated an aircraft while 

intoxicated. Applying Misco, the court observed the disfavored 

conduct must be "integral to the performance of employment 

duties." Id. at 671. "In deciding to commit the wrong, the 

wrongdoer was . making an employment decision." Id. 

Additionally, the court detailed the laws and legal precedent the 

pilot's action contravened. 

We are satisfied, however, in Mr. Gray's case, the arbitrator 

fully considered the evidence before him at the time of the 

discharge. 3 Our reading of the record and hearing transcript 

reveals the arbitrator entertained substantially conflicting 

evidence 4 and tangential considerations while observing the 

3 In Misco, the arbitrator had refused to consider evidence unknown 

to the employer at the time of the employee's discharge. 

4In his examination of the facts, the arbitrator noted that his 

(Continued to next page.) 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2902 Document: 01019836070 Date Filed: 08/11/1989 Page: 5 
demeanor of the witnesses and evaluating their credibility. 

Albeit preventing the sexual assault and abuse of women is of 

paramount importance, we believe the just cause determination 

fully incorporated this important concern under all of the 

circumstances. 5 Thus, we cannot substitute our understanding of 

the workplace and judgment of Mr. Gray's conduct to conclude the 

conduct was an "employment decision" in which the complained of 

acts were "integral to the performance·of his employment duties." 

Delta Air Lines, 861 F.2d at 665. The arbitrator recognized that 

this was a one-time offense and specifically noted Mr. Gray's 

"penitent and apologetic attitude" in response to his act. Based 

on the Agreement, the arbitrator premised his award on the 

principle that "[p]enalties are designed to correct if possible." 

The arbitrator concluded, "This leaves us with a long-time 

employee - about 19 years - with a good to excellent work record 

and no prior conduct involving a sexual offense, and of course 

. no prior warnings of discharge if such an offense were 

(Continued from prior page.) 

account was a composite of both Mr. Gray's and t~e complainant's 

testimony upon finding the differences insignificant and the 

complainant's version generally more substantiated. Although Mr. 

Gray admitted his arm fell from the complainant's shoulder and 

touched her buttock, the complainant stated he also forced a kiss 

on her and touched her breast. The complainant reported the 

incident to the district ~ttorney, but charges were later dropped. 

5Recently, in Williams v. Maremont Corp., No. 86-1263 (10th Cir. 

May 23, 1989), we recognized the public policy consideration of 

eliminating sexual harassment from the workplace in construing an 

employment contract. While that analysis was appropriate to 

evaluate the employer's response to his employee's conduct in "an 

area of judicially created contracts and contract rights," slip 

op. at 20, it is inapplicable to the narrow confine of our review 

here. However, there is no conflict in the overriding concern for 

protecting women in the workplace. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 88-2902 Document: 01019836070 Date Filed: 08/11/1989 Page: 6 
repeated. I believe that corrective discipline should be applied 

" 

Under all of the circumstances, the arbitrator brought "his 

informed judgment to bear in order to reach a fair solution of a 

problem. This is especially true when it comes to formulating 

remedies." United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car 

Corp., 363 U.S. 591, 597 (1960), quoted in Misco, 108 s. Ct. at 

372 (emphasis added). 

The judgment of the district court 

motion for summary judgment and ordering the 

arbitration award is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-7-

granting the Union's 

enforcement of the 

Appellate Case: 88-2902 Document: 01019836070 Date Filed: 08/11/1989 Page: 7