2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-28-2011

International Brotherhood of T v. CBF Trucking

Inc.

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-3044

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"International Brotherhood of T v. CBF Trucking Inc." (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 767.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/767
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________

No. 10-3044

_________

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 701 

v.

CBF TRUCKING, INC.,

 Appellant

________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 3-09-cv-05525)

District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson

_______

Argued July 11, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Filed: July 28, 2011)

______

Meredith R. Murphy

John A. Ridley (Argued)

Drinker, Biddle & Reath

Florham Park, NJ 07932

Attorneys for Appellant

David B. Beckett

Roosevelt Porter
2

Mets, Schiro & McGovern

Woodbridge, NJ 07095

Paul A. Montalbano

Matthew G. Connaughton (Argued)

Cohen, Leder, Montalbano & Grossman

Kenilworth, NJ 07033

Attorneys for Appellee

_____________

OPINION 

_____________

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

CBF Trucking appeals the District Court’s decision confirming the arbitration 

award entered against CBF and in favor of Michael Mickens, a CBF-employed member 

of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 701 union. We will affirm.1

CBF provides shipping services to the United States Postal Service. On 

November 25, 2008, Mickens failed to perform an assigned pick-up and delivery. 

Following CBF’s investigation, it called a meeting with Mickens and his union 

representatives at which Mickens insisted he had completed the assigned run. 

Notwithstanding his insistence, CBF concluded that Mickens failed to complete the 

assignment and, on that basis, terminated Mickens. Mickens and the union grieved the 

termination, leading to a second meeting. Once again, Mickens insisted that he 

 

 1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s legal 

conclusions in an order confirming an arbitration award. Century Indem. Co. v. 

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 584 F.3d 513, 521 (3d Cir. 2009). 
3

completed the assigned run. CBF was unaware at the time of the meetings that Mickens 

was tape recording the proceedings.

Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, the union filed a demand for 

arbitration. At the arbitration hearing, Mickens, for the first time, offered an explanation 

for his failure to perform the assigned trip, asserting that a security guard relayed a 

message from CBF that he did not need to complete the assignment. The security guard 

was called to testify and he did not contest Mickens’ explanation, testifying that it was 

“possible” he had provided such an instruction to Mickens. CBF introduced the minutes 

from the first meeting which reported Mickens’ initial, and ultimately false, claim that he 

had completed the assignment. Despite the evidence that Mickens had changed his story 

and initially lied to CBF, the arbitrator concluded that Mickens was wrongfully 

terminated and ordered that he be reinstated with full back-pay. 

Shortly after issuance of the arbitration award and during discovery in a separate 

state lawsuit, Mickens produced to CBF the covert recordings he had made of the two 

meetings between CBF, Mickens, and the union. The union does not contest that the 

recordings depict Mickens’ original adamancy that he completed the assigned run. The 

tapes were not produced before this late date despite the fact that CBF had repeatedly 

requested that Mickens and the union produce all relevant documents. 

When the union filed the action in the District Court to enforce the arbitration 

award, CBF moved to vacate the award on the ground that it was procured by fraud or 

undue means. The District Court denied the motion, holding that while Mickens had lied 
4

and surreptitiously withheld the tapes, thereby committing fraud, the fraud was not 

material to the outcome of the arbitration proceeding. 

Given the strong presumption in favor of arbitration, federal law provides that a 

district court may vacate an arbitration award “only under exceedingly narrow 

circumstances.” Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 370 (3d Cir. 2003). Those 

circumstances are delineated in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) itself. Pursuant to 

Section 10(a)(1) of the FAA, one such circumstance is when the award was “procured by 

corruption, fraud, or undue means.” Courts have applied a three-part test to determine 

whether an award was procured by fraud. Under the test, CBF must establish (1) the 

existence of fraud by clear and convincing evidence, (2) that the fraud was not 

discoverable with the exercise of due diligence, and (3) that the fraud materially relates to 

an issue in the arbitration. See, e.g., A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCollough, 967 F.2d 

1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1992); Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 835 F.2d 1378, 1383 

(11th Cir 1988). 

Applying this test, the District Court correctly concluded that “Mickens’ failure to 

provide CBF with the tape recordings until after the arbitration award had been finalized 

is fraudulent or undue conduct that could be grounds for vacating the arbitration award.” 

Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 701 v. CBF Trucking, Inc., No. 09-5525, 2010 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 57386, at *6 (D.N.J. June 10, 2010). However, as the District Court noted, the 

arbitrator was already aware of the essential facts contained on the tapes—that is, that 

Mickens originally lied and insisted that he completed the job assignment. Accordingly, 
5

the District Court did not err in reasoning that the recordings were not material to the 

arbitrator’s decision and their nondisclosure did not deprive CBF of a fair proceeding. 

See Envtl. Barrier Co., LLC v. Slurry Sys., Inc., 540 F.3d 598, 608 (7th Cir. 2008) (there 

must be “a nexus between the purported fraud and the arbitrator’s final decision”).2

For the foregoing reasons and substantially for the reasons explained in the 

District Court’s opinion, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

 

 2 We also reject CBF’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded

the law by not applying the “clock stops” doctrine. Assuming, without deciding, 

that manifest disregard for the law remains a valid ground for vacatur, it is not 

clear that the clock stops doctrine is the governing law in New Jersey. Nor do we 

think the arbitrator erred by not reducing the back-pay award by the amount of 

unemployment benefits Mickens received.