NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 09a0331n. 06 Fi l ed: M ay15, 2009 N o. 08- 3616 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
C O L U M B IA G A S O F O H IO , IN C ., P lain tiff -A p p e llan t,
v. UT I L I T Y WORKE RS UNI ON OF AM E RI CA , L O C A L 349, D efe ndant
- A ppel l ee. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he N or t her n D i s t r i ctof O hi o at T ol edo

/
B efore: G U Y , R O G E R S , an d G R IF F IN , C i rcu i t Jud ges. R A L P H B . G U Y , JR . , C i rcui t Judge. P la in tif f C o l u m b i a G a s o f

O h io , In c ., ap p ea ls from the d istri ct co u rt ’s en tryo f ju d g m en t in f av o r of d ef en d an t U ti li tyW o rke rs U ni on of A m er i ca, L ocal 349, confi r m i ng t he arbi t r at i on aw ar d t hatr ei ns t at ed the gr i evant W i l l i am R os e— w i t hout back pay or benef i t s but al s o w i t h no l os s of s eni or i t y
— t o hi s pr i or pos i t i on as a s er vi ce t echni ci an. O n appea l , pl ai nt i ff cont ends t hat t he di s t r i ctcour ter r ed by
r e f u s i n g t o v a c a t e t h e a w a r d o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t s e n f o r c e m e n tw o u l d v i o l a t e p u b l i c p o l i c y. S e e W. R. Gr a c e & Co. v . LocalU ni on 759 , 4 6 1 U .S . 7 5 7 , 7 6 6 (1 9 8 3 ); E
. A s s oci at ed C oal C or p. v. U ni t ed M i ne W

or ker s ofA m . , D is t . 17 , 531 U
. S. 57, 62- 67 ( 2000)
. A ft err evi ew ofNo. 08-3616 2

t he r ecor d and t he ar gum ent s pr es ent ed on appe al , w e af fi r m t he jud g m en t confi r m i ng t he
aw ar d. I. C ol um bi a G as i s a publ i c ut i l i t y t hat pr ovi des natur al gas s er vi ces t o cus t om er s i n t he T ol edo ar ea. W hen a c us t om err epor t s a pos s i bl e gas l eak, C olum b ia s en d s a s er vi ce t echni ci an t o chec k t he i nt egr i t yof t he s y s t em. I f a l eak i s found i n t he l i ne runni ng bet w een the cu rb an d the reside n ce , the t ec h n ici an turn s the ga s o ff an d d ir ec ts the cu stom er to h ir e a pl um bert o m ake the r epai r s . T he D epar t m ent of Tra ns por t at i on ( D O T ) r equi r es t hats uch
r epai r s be made byorunder t he supervi s i on of a pl um ber w ho i s cer t i fi ed t o do t hatw or k ( an “ou t si de q uali fi ed” o r “O Q ” plum ber)
. W hen t he repair s ar e com plet e, C olum bia s end s a
s er vi ce t echni ci an t o vi s ual l yi ns pectt he r epai r , pr es s ur e t es tt he l i ne, and r es t or e gas s er vi ce. O nl yt hen mayt he out s i de pl um berbackf i l l t he exc avat i on. C ol um b ia p er m i t t ed i t s s er vi ce t echni ci ans t o “moonl i ght , ” i ncl udi ng pr ovi di ng t he
o u tsid e se rv ice s th a t C o lu m b ia d id n o t, su b jec t to re stric tio n s g o v e rn in g p o ten tial c o n f licts of i nt er es t . V ar i ous not i ces t o i t s empl oy ees i dent i fi ed the ac t i vi t i es t hatcoul d be cons i der ed
a c o n f lict o f in ter e st, in c lu d in g , s p e c if ic a lly , an yso licita tio n o r re f e rra l o f o u tsid e w o rk to
o n e s e l f o ra n yo t h e rp a r t y , a n d p e r f o r mi n g t h e f

o l l o w- u p i n s p e c t i o n o f a n e mp l o y e e ’ s o wn
o u t s i d e wo r k
. Ro s e , l i k e s e v e r a l o t h e r o f Co l u mb i a ’ s s e r v i c e t e c h n i c i a n s , wa s a c e r t i f i e d OQ pl um ber
. H e per for m ed out s i de l i ne re pai r s er vi ces for C ol um bi a’ s cus t om er s overa per i od
o f m o re th a n tw e n tyy e a rs, a n d w a s th e U n io n ’s lo n g -tim e p re sid e n t. I n t he s p r i n g o f

2 0 0 6 , Col u mbi a r e c e i v e d s e v e r a l c o mpl a i n t s s u g g e s t i n g t h e r e h adNo. 08-3616 3

been vi ol at i ons of i t s ant i
- s ol i ci t at i on and i ndepende nt i ns pect i on pol i ci es . T he i nves t i gat i on t hatfol l ow ed i ni t i al l yr es ul t ed i n t he dis char ge of e l even Col um bi a empl oy ees , al t hough
s even of t hem w er e re i ns t at ed under“l as tchanc e” a gr eement s aft era one- m ont h s us pens i on. T hos e s even ha d been di s char ged for fal s el y r epor t i ng t hatt heyhad made vi s ual i ns pect i on of out s i de l i ne r epai r s per form ed byt he ot herfourt echni ci ans w hen, i n fac t , t heyhad not beca us e t he t r enche s had bee n backf i l l ed al r eadyand t hey had not i ns i s t ed t hatt he t r enche s b e re -ex ca v ated
. T h e o ther f o u r t e c h n ic ians

— Jef

f C h ri sti an , R ick R ad d e, M ark G all ah er, and W i l l i am R o se— oft en per for m ed out s i de l i ne r epai rw or k t oget her
. R os e w as char ged
w i t h “en gag [i ng ] i n im perm i ssi ble and unethi cal beh avior , w hich had the p otent i al t o ex po se the C o m p an yto sa fe tyim p lic ati o n s, as w ell as re g u lat o ryan d civil l iabili ty , ” a n d , m o re
s peci fi cal l y , for“r efe r r [i ng] a cus t om ert o cow or ker s dur i ng t he cour s e of the w or kdayfor t he purpos e of pe r for m i ng aft er - hour s natur al gas j obs forper s onal gai n. ” R os e dec l i ned an offe rt o r et i r e w i t h ful l benef i t s , and w as di s char ged. R os e fi l ed an unsuc ces s ful gr i evanc e, and t he U ni on m ade a t i m el yr eques tforarbi t r at i on. A ft era hea r i ng conduct ed overt hr ee da y s , t he arbit ratori s s ued a 58- page de ci s i on f in d in g , in tera lia , t hatC ol um bi a fa i l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence t hatR os e had s ol i ci t ed
cus t om er s forhi m s el f orot her s t o per for m t he out s i de r epai rw or k. T he arbi t r at oral s o found, h o we ve r , t h a tCo l u mb i a h a d p r o v e d : ( 1 ) t h a tRo s e h a d o n o n e o c c a s i o n p e r f o r me d s o me
w or k on a j ob r epai r i ng a l i ne t hathe had t aken outof s er vi ce i n vi ol at i on of t he conf l i ct - ofi nt er es trul es ; and ( 2) t hatR os e vi ol at ed companypol icy and D O T r egul at i ons on t w el ve
occa s i ons bybackf

i l l i ng t r enche s and r es t or i ng s er vi ce be for e a C o lum b ia t echni ci an hadNo. 08-3616 4

i ns pect ed and t es t ed t he r epai r s . W i t h r es pectt o t he l at t er
— w hi ch i s m os tper t i nentt o t he publ i c p o l i c yc h a l l e n g e
— Ros e o f f e r e d e x p l a n a t i o n s f

o rwhyh e d i d n o twai tf o rt he i ns pect i on, i ncl udi ng notw ant i ng t o l eave r es i dent s w i t houtheat and bei ng conce r ned about t he haz ar ds pr es ent ed by an open t r ench. R os e al s o conce ded, how ever , t hathe s houl d not have done t hi s , and t hathi s conductpl ace d hi s cow or ker s i n t he unt enabl e s i tuat i on of havi ng t o r epor t hi m , i ns i s t t hat he r e- exca vat e t he l i ne t o conduct t he i ns pect i on, o r fa lsi fy the i ns pect i on r epor t . L at er exca vat i on at one r es i dence r evea l ed t hat t he r epai r had notb een per for m ed pr oper l ybeca us e i thad noti ncl uded t he i ns t al l at i on of an a node t o pr event
cor r os i on. I n or der i ng r ei ns t at ement , t he arbi t r at ors t at ed:

T a k in g in to c o n sid e ra tio n th a t th e s e v io la tio n s w e re th e f irst o f th e ir ki nd t o be made t he s ubj ectof di s ci pl i ne, and M r . R o se’s lon g p er i od of se rv ice , b u t n o t o v e rlo o k in g h is 2 0 0 5 su sp e n sio n f o r f a lsif ica tio n o f

h is D a ily W or k A s s i gnm ent l og [t o r efl ectt hathe w as ata s i t e w hen he w as not ] , t he A rbi t r at o r f

inds thatt he G r i evanti s ent i t l ed t o r ei ns t at ement t o hi s for m er pos i t i on w i t houtl os s of s eni or i t y , butw i t houtback pa yoracc rual of ot her benef i t s dur i ng t he per i od of hi s s epar at i on fr om s er vi ce. T hi s aw ar d, i f enf

or ced, eff

ect i vel yconver t s t he di s char ge t o a 14- m ont h s us pens i on w i t hout payor t he acc rual of b enef i t s. C ol um bi a G as pr om pt l yfi l ed t hi s act i on s eeki ng t o vaca t e t he arbi t r at i on aw ar d, and the U n ion co u n terclai m ed fo r co n firm ati o n o f th e a w a rd
. C ross -m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t w e re f

iled , an d th e d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t C o lu m b ia G a s f a iled to demonst r at e t hatenfor cementof t he aw ar d w oul d vi ol at e publ i c pol i cy . J udgm entw as ent er ed i n favorof t he U ni on, and t hi s appea l fol l ow ed.No. 08-3616 5

Columbi a Gas co nce des that the grie vance was ar bi tr ab le and doe s not

argue that the award f

ai ls 1 to “draw its essence” fro m the contract. See Mi c h. Fam i l y Res . v . Se rv . Em

ploy e es Lo c al

51 7M , 47 5 F
. 3d 746, 750-53 (6th Cir
. ) ( e n b anc ), cert. den ied , 127 S. Ct. 2996 (2007). II. 1 A l t hough a dec i s i on t o gr ants um m aryj udgm enti s r evi ew ed de novo , “cour t s pl ay onl ya l i m i t ed r ol e w hen as ked t o r evi ew t he deci s i on of an arbi t r at or . ” U nit ed P ap erw orkers I nt ’ lU ni on v. Mis co, I

nc. , 484 U
. S. 29, 36 ( 1987)
. W hen, as her e, t her e i s no cl ai m t hatt he
a rb itrato r a c ted o u tsid e h is a u th o rity , th e a rb itrato r’s a w a rd m u st b e tre a ted a s if it rep re se n ts a contr actual agr eementbet w een the empl oy erand uni on as t o t he m eani ng of t he col l ect i ve b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t. E
. A s s oci at ed C oal , 531 U
. S. at 62. “[A ] cour t ’ s r efus al t o enfor ce an arbi t rat or’ s i nt er

pr etat i on of s uch cont r act s i s l i m i t ed t o s i tuat i ons w her e t he contr actas in te rp re te d w o u ld v io la te s o m e e x p lic it p u b lic p o lic yth a t is w e ll d e f in e d a n d d o m in a n t,”
w hi ch, i n tur n, m us tbe “a s cert ai ned byr efe r ence t o t he l aw s and l egal pr ece dent s and not fr om gener al cons i der at i ons of suppos ed publ i c i nt er es t s . ” Mis co , 484 U
. S. at43 ( i nt er nal q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ); s ee al s o E
. A s s oci at ed C oal , 531 U
. S. 62. W het her t he contr act , as i nt erpr et ed byt he arbi t r at or , i s contr aryt o publ i c pol i cyi s a ques t i on t o be
re s o lv e d b yth e c o u rt s . Mis co , 484 U
. S. at43. A . E x pl i ci t P ubl i c Pol i cy C ol umbi a r e l i e s , a s b e f o r e , o n t h e Pi p e l i n e Sa f e t y Act a n d i t s s t a t e d p u rp o s e of pr ovi di ng “ade quat e pr ot ect i on agai ns tr i s ks t o l i fe a nd pr op erty p o sed bypi pel i ne tra n sp o rta tio n a n d p ip e lin e f a c ili ties b yim p ro v in g th e re g u lato ry a n d e n f o rc e m e n t au th o rity of t he Secr et ar yof Tra ns por t at i on. ” 4 9 U
. S. C
. § 60102( a) ( 1)
. M or e s peci fi cal l y , t he A ctNo. 08-3616 6

r equi r es t hatan oper at orof a pi pel i ne fa ci l i t y( 1) ens ur e t hatempl oy ees w ho oper at e and
m ai nt ai n t he fa ci l i t yare q u ali fied to do s o ( 49 U
. S. C
. § 60102( a) ( 3) ) ; and ( 2) devel op a q u a lific a tio n p ro g ra m to e n su re th a t in d iv id u a ls w h o p e rf o rm c o v e re d tas k s a re q u a lifie d to d o so (49 U
. S
. C
. § 6 0 1 3 1 (a)). C o lum b ia also re lie s o n th e fe d era l r eg u lat ion s tha t r eq u ir e p ipeline jo ints to be c ap ab le of resist ing ex p an sion an d co n tr ac ti o n (49 C
. F
. R
. § 1 9 2
. 2 7 3 ), and t hat p rov ide t es t i ng s t andar ds fors er vi ce l i nes and pl as t i c pi pel i nes ( 49 C
. F. R
. §§ 192. 511 and 192. 513)
. A s for state law , O hi o has adopt ed the fe der al gas pi pel i ne
r egul at i ons ( O hi o A dm i n. C ode § 4901: 1- 16- 03) , and has gr ant ed ci vi l enfor cementpow er to i t s pub l i c uti l i t i es com m i ssi on (O hio R ev. C od e § 4 90 5. 95 (B )( 1)( b))
. In addit i on , O hio i m pos es vi car i o u s l i abi l i t yon natur al gas oper at or s byi m put i ng t o t hem t he ac t s and
om i s s i ons of empl oy ees act i ng w i t hi n t he s cope of t hei rempl o y m ent( O hi o R ev. C ode § 4 9 0 5
. 9 3 ). T h e d istric t co u rt f

o u n d th a t th e se law s a n d re g u latio n s, tak e n to g e th e r, se rv e p u b lic pol i cypurpos es of ens ur i ng t he s afe oper at i on of na tural g as pi pel i nes , ens ur i ng t hat empl oy ees ar e t r ai ned and qua l i fi ed, and hol di ng pi pel i ne op era tors li abl e forer r or s and
m i s conductbyempl oy ees act i ng w i t hi n t he s cope of t hei rempl oy m ent . T he par t i es acc ept t hi s det er m i nat i on and focus i ns t ead on w het heri tw oul d vi ol at e publ i c pol i cyt o enfor ce the
arbi t r at i on aw ar d i n t hi s cas e. B . “C ont rary t o” C o lu m b ia G a s a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t c o u rt e rre d b y im p ro p e rly n a rro w in g th e p u b lic p o li cyex ce p ti o n to o n lytho se situation s in w h ich a statu te or reg u lat ion ex p resslyb arsNo. 08-3616 7

Thi s di s t i nc t i o n i s i l l us tr at e d b y o ur de c i s i o n i n Sh elby Count yH e al th C areC or p. v . AF SCM E, 2 Loc al 1733 , 967 F. 2d 1091 (6th Cir
. 1992 ). Ther e, ap harmac y te chnic ian was dis charg ed f or her r ol e in r ei ns t at ement of an e m pl oy ee w ho vi ol at es i t . T he empl oy eri n E as t er n A s s oci a t ed C oal
a rg u e d sim ilarlyth a t th e d istric t co u rt h a d “ e rre d b ya sk in g , n o t w h e th e r th e a w a rd is

‘ cont r a r y t o ’ p u b l i c p o l i c y ‘ a s a s c e r t a i n e d b y r e f e r e n c e ’ t o p o s i t i v e l a w, b u t whe t her t he
a w a rd ‘v io late s’ p o sitiv e law .” 5 3 1 U .S
. a t 6 3
. T h e C o u rt sta ted , a s C o lu m b ia r e p e a ted ly emphasi zes , t hat“i n pr i nci pl e, [t he] cour t s ’ author i t yt o i nvoke t he publ i c pol i cyexce pt i on i s notl i m i t ed s ol el yt o i ns t ance s w her e the arbi t r at i on aw ar d i t s el f vi ol at es pos i t i ve l aw . ” Id ., buts ee i d. at67- 68 ( Scal ia, J. , co n cu rr i ng) ( cr i t i ci zi ng s t at ement as di ctum )
. I n t he next
s en tence, notquot ed byC ol um bi a, t he C our tadded: “N ever t hel es s , t he publ i c pol i cy
exce pt i on i s nar r ow and m us t s at i s fy t he pr i nci pl es s etfor t h i n W
. R
. G r ace and Mis co . ” Id
. In th is c a se , the d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlya n a ly z e d th e a w a rd in re lati o n to th e e x p licit p u b lic pol i cyon w hi ch C ol um bi a r el i ed. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s m a d e c lea r th a t th e p e rtin e n t q u e stio n a t th is ju n c tu re is
w h et hert he contr act , as i nt erpr et ed— i
. e. , a c o n t r a c tu a l a g r e e me n t t o s u s p e n d r a t her t han di s char ge R os e— fal l s “w i t hi n t he leg al e x cept i on t hatm akes unenfor cea bl e ‘ a col l ect i vebar gai ni ng agr eementt hati s cont r ary t o publ i c pol i cy . ’ ” Id
. at62 ( quot i ng W
. R
. G r ace , 461 U
. S. a t 7 6 6
. ) W e a r e a l s o mi n d f u l o f t h e Cou r t ’ s f

u r t h e r a d mon i t i o n t h a t t h e i s s ue i s not
w he t he rt he gr i e va nt ’ s conduct vi ol at es publ i c pol i cy , butw het herenfor cementof t he
c o n tr a c t, a s in te rp re te d , w o u ld b e c o n tr a ry t o p u b lic p o lic y . Id . at 6 2 -6 3 ; se e a lso In tersta te B r ands C or

p. v. Team s t ers LocalU ni on N o. 135 , 9 0 9 F .2 d 8 8 5 , 8 9 3 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); N e tJe ts A vi ati on , Inc. v. Int ’l

B hd
. of Team st ers , 4 8 6 F
. 3 d 9 3 5 , 9 3 9 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). 2No. 08-3616 8

a strike that violated 2 9 U.S.C. § 15 8(g)’s prohibitionof strikes b y healthcare workers un less at least ten days’ prior notice is given. Anemploy ee wh o en gages in a strike inviolation of the notice requiremen t loses the pr ot ec ti ons normal ly af fo rde d stri ki ng wor

ke rs unles s and until she is re emp lo y ed. 29 U. S.C. § 158(d). Alth oughthese prov isions were foun d to set o ut a well-d efinedstatement of public p olicy , that policy was actually to vest the emplo y er with the discretion to disch arge or retain the employ ee. Sin ce the employ er had a gr ee d in a

s ettl eme nt wi th the unio n that dis cipl inar

y dec is io ns b as ed o n il le gal s tr ik e ac ti vi ty wo uld b e s ub je c tto the gri e v anc e and ar b i tr at i o n p r o c e dur e s i n the c o l l e c t i v e b ar g a i ni nga g r e e me nt , the c o urtf o und th atth e aw ar dw a s n otco n tr ary to publ i c po l i c y. W hi l e obvi ous l y not i nvol vi ng t he s ame publ i c pol i cy , t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n E a ste rn A ss o c ia tedC o a l confi r m i ng an a rbi t r at i on aw ar d r ei ns t at i ng an empl oy ee truck dr i verw ho had t w i ce t es t ed pos i t i ve form ar i j uana i s i ns t ruct i ve. T he C our tas s um ed thatt he cont r act , as i nt erpr et ed, r equi r ed re i ns t at ement , and aske d w het her s uch an agr eementw as
c o n tra ryto p u b lic p o licy . T h e e m p lo y e r id e n tifie d law s a n d re g u latio n s re f lec tin g p u b lic pol i cyagai ns tdrug us e by t r ans por t at i on w or ker s i n s afe t y - s ens i t i ve j obs , r equi r i ng r andom d ru g tes tin g to d e tec t su c h u se , an d m a n d a tin g su sp e n sio n f o r d riv in g a c o m m e rc ial v e h icle
w hil e un der t he infl uen ce of drugs. O t herprov i s i ons , how ever , encour aged r ehabi l i t at i on and s peci fi ed t he condi t i ons under w hi ch a dr i ver w ho t es t ed pos i t i ve fordrugs coul d r etur n t o a s afe t y - s ens i t i ve pos i t i on. T he fac t t hat t he r egul at i ons di d notr equi r e empl oy er s t o pr ovi de r ehabi l i t at i on orhol d a j ob open for a dr i ver w ho t es t ed pos i t i ve r efl ect ed “bas i c backgr ound l aborl aw pr i nci pl es ” t hat “caut i on agai ns ti nt er fer ence w i th l abor
- m anage m entagreem en ts ab o u t app rop ri ate em pl oy ee di s ci pl i ne. ” 531 U
. S. at 65. I n concl udi ng t hat the arbi t r at i on aw ar d w as not “contr ar yt o” t hes e pol i ci es , t aken t oget her , t he C our texpl ai n ed that the aw ar d di d notcondone the empl oy ee’ s conduct o r i gnor e t he r i s ks t o t he publ i c, butpuni s hed hi m w i t h a s us pens i on
w it h o u t p ay , r equi r ed t hathe paycos t s , and i m pos ed fur t hercondi t i ons of cont i nuedNo. 08-3616 9

This court has identi f

i e d Delta AirLin es and Iowa Ele ctric as tw o rare instan ces in wh ich an 3 a rbitration awardhas been vac ated for public po licy reaso ns. Lo cal 1 98 5, Int ’l Bh d. of E lect. Workers v. Hoo v e r C o. , No s. 95-3475/351 7, 1996 WL 5 0 6 5 1 1 a t * 1 ( 6th Cir
. Se pt . 5, 1996). Al so , we no te d in I nte r s tateBrands that the Ninth Cir cuit crit ic iz ed bo th ca se s as incon si st en t w ithMisco and dec li ned t o empl oy m ent . T he C our tfound noton lyt hatt he aw ar d di d notvi ol at e a s peci fi c pr ovi s i on of anyl aw orr egul at i on, butal so that it w as cons i s t entw i t h t he expl i ci tpubl i c pol i ci es at i s s ue. H e re , C o lu m b ia a rg u e s th a t th e a w a rd v io late s p u b lic p o licyb yre q u irin g C o lu m b ia t o r ei ns t at e an e m pl oy ee w ho, w hi l e t r ai ned and qua l i fi ed, del i ber at el yvi ol at ed fe der al and stat e re g u lat ion s o n tw elve o cc asio n s b yb ac k fil li n g the tren ch es a n d restoring serv ice b ef o re ind ep en d en t i n sp ec ti o n an d test ing co u ld b e p erf o rm ed
. C o lu m b ia pro test s tha t t o req u ir e
re in sta tem e n t o f

su c h a p e rso n w o u ld f

o rc e it t o risk c o m p ro m isin g p u b lic s a f e tya n d w o u ld
ex p o se itto p o ssible li ab il ityfo r fu ture m isco n d u ct. W h il e the re is no d is p u te th a t R o se’s conduct vi ol at ed publ i c pol i cy , t he r el evanti nqui r y i s w het herenfor cementof t he contr actual
a g r e e m e n tt o r e i n s t a t e R o s e w i t h a 1 4
- m o n t h s u s p e n s i o n w o u l d v i o l a t e p u b l i c p o l i c y. C ol um bi a G as r el i es heavi l yon t w o deci s i ons i n w hi ch an a rbi t r at or ’ s r ei ns t at ement
v iolated pu b li c p o li cy . In o n e, a p il o t fl ew a p asse n g er a ir cra ft w h il e d run k , an d , in the o ther,
a n u c lea r p o w e r p lan t m a c h in ist d e lib e ra telyd isa b led th e se c o n d a ryc o n tain m e n t se c u rity lo c k s s o a s to b e a t th e lu n c h ru s h
. D elt a A irLin es, Inc
. v. A ir L ine P il o ts A ss’n Int’l , 861 F. 2d 6 6 5 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); I

ow a E l ec. Light & Pow erC o. v. I B E W Local204 , 8 3 4 F .2 d 1 4 2 4 (8 th C i r . 1987)
. A s i de fr om t he s uper fi ci al s i m i l ar i t yt hatt hes e ca s es i nvol ved “s afe t y - s ens i t i ve” pos i t i ons , m at er i al d iffer ence s i n t he publ i c pol i cyand t he r i s k of dange rpr es ent ed byt he
m isco n d u ct disti n g u ish the m fro m the c ase at ba r. 3No. 08-3616 10

follow th em. 90 9 F .2dat 894 n.11 (discu ssing Ste ad Mo tor s of W alnut C re e k v . Au to. M

ac hi nis t s Lo dge No. 11 73 , 886 F.2d 1200 (9th Ci r. 1989) (e n b anc ))
. T he courti n D el t a A i r

Li nes vi ew ed t he aw ar d as r epr es ent i ng a contr actual agr eement t hatoper at i ng a pas s enge r a ir cra ftw hi l e vi s i bl ydrunk di d notcons t i tut e j us tcaus e for dis charge. R el y i ng on near un i versal l aw s agai nstsuch co nd uct, i ncludi ng cri m i nal s t at utes , t he cour tfound t hatt he aw ar d, i f enfor ced, “w oul d vi ol at e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed publ i c pol i cy
w hi ch conde m ns t he oper at i on of pas s enger ai r l i ner s by pi l ot s w ho ar e undert he i nfl uence of al cohol
. ” 861 F. 2d at671. T he l aw s cr eat ed a mor e domi nantpol i cy t han i n t hi s cas e, and t he mi s conductati s s ue meantt hat r ei ns t at ement pr es ent ed a gr eat erpot ent i al fordangert han i n t hi s cas e. I n Io w a E lec tric , t he di s char ged empl oy ee w or ked w i t hi n t he s econda r ycont ai nm ent
ar ea of a nucl earpow erpl antt hatw as k ep t p ressur i zed bya s er i es of i nt er l ock door s t hat
cou l d o nlyop en one at a t i m e. W anti ng t o leave t he sho p to get t o lunch e arl y , t he m achini st f o u n d th e d o o r w a s lo c k e d , as c e rta in e d th a t an o u tsid e d o o r w a s o p e n , an d w a s s p e c if ica lly den i e d p e r mi s s i on t o d i s a bl e t he l oc ks bya n e ng i ne e ri n the c on t r ol r oo m. The m achini st nonet hel es s di r ect ed s om eone t o r emove a fus e thatdi s abl ed al l of t he l ocks s o he coul d get t hr ough. I n vaca t i ng t he arbi t r at i on aw ar d, t he cour tr el i ed notonl yon “a w el l defi ned and dom i nantnat i onal pol i cyr equi r i ng s t r i ct adher ence t o nucl ear s afe t y rul es , ” but al s o on t he fac t t hat t he di s char ge w as r evi ew ed and appr oved byt he N ucl earR egul at or yC om m i s s i on. 834 F. 2d at1427. T he ci r cumst ance s i n t hi s cas e, w h il e also i nvol vi ng a s afe t y - s ens i t i ve p o sitio n , are m o r e li k e th e c irc u m sta n c e s in th re e o th e r c a se s in w h ich c o u rts re f u se d to
v a c a te a n a rb itratio n a w a rd th a t re in st a ted a n e m p lo y e e w h o v io late d a p p lica b le s a f e tyNo. 08-3616 11

re g u la tio n s . See Mi dA m er i can E ner gy C o. v. I

nt ’ lB hd. of

E l ec. W or ker s Local499 , 345 F. 3d 6 1 6 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Mi dMi chi gan R eg’ lMed. C t r . v. P r of ’ l E m pl oyee s D i v. of

Local79 , 183 F .3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 5 -0 6 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); Kane G as Light & Heat i ng C o. v. I nt ’ l B hd. of

F i r em en & O i l ers , Local112 , 6 8 7 F
. 2 d 6 7 3 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 2 ). I n Mi dA m er i can Energy , t he Ei ght h C i r cui tdi s t i ngui s hed i t s ear l i erdeci s i on i n I o wa E lec tric a n d h e ld th a t an a rb itrato r’s re in sta tem e n t o f a n e m p lo y e e w h o d isa b led f o rty
m o n ito rin g a n d sa f

e tyd e v ice s a t a liq u id n a tu ra l g a s s to r a g e f a c ili tya n d lef

t th e f a c ili ty unat t ended f

ors ever al hour s di d not v iolate p u bl i c pol i cyfort w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , al t hough the em p loy ee’ s act i ons vi ol at ed companyrul es and s t at e and f eder al r egul at i ons , t he cour t hel d t hatt he publ i c pol i cy w as not aki n t o t he publ i c pol i cyati s s ue i n I ow a E l ectr i c orot her
cas es t hathave l ed cour t s to de cl i ne t o enfor ce a n arbi t r at or ’ s aw ar d t hatr equi r es out r i ght
re in sta tem e n t. 3 4 5 F .3 d a t 6 2 0
. S e c o n d , th e a w a rd d id n o t re q u ire M id A m e ric a n to re in sta te h im to a p o sitio n in w h ich h e w o u ld b e w ith o u t d ire c t su p e rv isio n o r th e sa f e tya n d se c u rity of the faci l i t yw ou l d b e l eft i n h i s hand s. W hi l e t he aw ar d i n t hi s cas e or der ed R os e’ s r ei ns t at ement as a s er vi ce t echni ci an, l i ke Mi dA m er i can , t he s afe t yconce r ns pr es ent ed byhi s mi s c o n d u c ti n c i r c u mve n t i n g i n d epende nt in sp e c tio n a n d tes tin g o f h is rep a ir w o rk d o n o t es tab lish th e k in d o f p u b lic p o licyth a t w o u ld be vi ol at ed byan agr eementt o r ei ns t at e hi m aft era 14- m ont h s us pens i on w i t houtpay . T hat is no t t o say , h o w ev er, th at t h e a rbit rator co u ld n o t hav e f o u n d ju s t c a u s e , o r t h at fu ture
m i s conductw oul d notbe s ubj ectt o di s cipline or di s char ge, onl yt hatt he aw ar d i s not
u n e n f o r c e a b l e a s a v i o l a t i o n o f p u b l i c p o l i c y.No. 08-3616 12

N e x t, i n w h a t th e d istric t co u rt sa w a s p ro v id in g th e c lo se st f a c tu a l an a lo g yto th is
cas e, t he cour ti n Kane G as d ecl i ned t o vaca t e an a rbi tr at i on aw ar d t hatr ei ns t at ed a ga s
c o m p a n ye m p lo y e e w h o , thr o u g h “ re c k les s in a d v e rte n c e ,” im p ro p e rlytu rn e d o f f a m a in
v alve an d cu t of

f n atura l gas ser v ic e to an en ti re b o rou g h o n a d aythat h ad su b ze ro t emper atur es . D eci ded w i t houtt he bene fi tof W
. R
. G r ace and Mis co , t he cour tr ecogni zed th a t it c o u ld d e c lin e to e n f o rc e a n a w a rd o n th e g ro u n d s th a t itw a s in c o n sis ten t w ith p u b lic pol i cyand hel d t hatan aw ar d i s i ncons i s t entw i t h publ i c pol i cy w h en it w o u l d condone vi ol at i on of fe der al ors t at e l aw . 687 F. 2d at681- 82. K ane G as ar gued t hat t he mi s conduct
v iolated f

ed era l l aw an d stat e p u b li c p o li cy , w h ich im p o sed th e h ig h e s t d eg ree o f c are p rac ti ca b le on o p e ra to rs p rov iding n atura l gas serv ice. Fin d ing o therw ise, the c o u rt concl uded t hat re instat ement of t hi s empl oy ee di d notamount t o j udi ci al condonat i on of i l l egal act s beca us e, by i m pos i ng a t hi r t y - day di s ci pl i nar y s us pens i on, t he aw ar d di d notl et h is acti o n s g o u n p u n ishe d
. S im il arly , the a w ard in this ca se d id n o t c o n d o n e R o se’s vi ol at i ons oral l ow hi s m i s conductt o go unpuni s hed. F in a lly , C o lu m b ia G a s rig h tlya rg u e s th a t b e c a u se th e m isc o n d u c t at iss u e in Mi dMi chi

gan R egi onalMedi cal

C ent erinv o lved n eg li g en ce , it is n o t com p ara b le t o R o se’s deli berat e dis regar d o f fed eral and st at e regul at i on s. M o re p erti n en t t o this c a s e, ho w ev er, i s tha t th e h o sp it al also a rgu ed that the a w ard
v io late d p u b lic p o licyb yf o rc in g it t o re e m p lo ya n u rse w h o m a ye x p o se th e h o sp ital to l i abi l i t y i n t he fut ur e. R ej ect i ng t hi s as a bas i s t o vaca t e t he aw ar d, t hi s cour texpl ai ned t hat i n negot i at i ng an agr eement , “an empl oy er m us t w ei gh pot ent i al l i abi l i t ycos t s , vi car i ous orNo. 08-3616 13

di r ect , agai ns t t he ot her cos t s and bene fi t s of t he bar gai n. ” Mi dMi chi gan , 183 F. 3d at505- 0 6
. C o lu m b ia G a s m a y n o t re ly o n a risk o f p o ss ib le a d m in istra tiv e p e n a lti e s o r c iv il l iab ili ty t o es t abl i s h t hat publ i c pol i cy i s vi ol at ed by t he cont r actual agr eement t o s us pend r athert han dis charge R ose fo r vi olat i on s of st at e and fede ral regul at i on s. AFF I RM ED
.