# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 11 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Nor th ern Sta te s Po wer Co m pa ny, Min ne so ta , do in g b us in es s as Xcel Ener gy

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

In te rn at io na l Br ot he rh oo d o f Elec tri cal W or ke rs , Loca l 1 60

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 16 , 20 12
Fil ed : Ap ril 1, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BEAM, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Nor th ern St at es Po wer Co m pa ny (“ NSP”) so ug ht in th e di st ric t co ur t to va cat e 1

an arb it rat io n award

, arg ui ng th at th e arb it rat or ex ceed ed hi s a u t h o r it y un de r a

Co ll ect iv e Barg ai ni ng Agr eem en t (“ CBA”) wit h th e In te rn at io na l Bro th e r ho od of

The Hon or ab le Don o v a n W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.Elec tri cal W or ke rs , Loc al 16 0 (“ Uni on ”) to gr an t an award aft er fir st de te rm in in g th at

NSP h a d jus t cau se fo r m ak in g it s te rm in at io n de ci si on

. The di st ric t co ur t ag reed

wit h NSP an d va cat ed th e award

. The Uni on ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r.

Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , we affi rm

.

I.

Cu rti s Sn ow wor ke d fo r NSP as a “ Jo ur ne y m an Lin em an .” In Ju ly 20 10

, NSP

co nd uc te d a ro ut in e ba ck gr ou nd ch eck on Sn ow an d le arn ed th at on May 4, 20 10

, he

ha d pl ed gu il ty to th ree fel on y co un ts of po ss es si on of a po rn og rap hi c wor k in vo lv in g

a m in or

. Sn ow was se nt en ced to a te rm of pr ob at io n. He di d no t in fo rm NSP of hi s

co nv ic ti on or th e te rm s of his pr ob at io n. One of th e te rm s of hi s pro ba ti on was th at

Sn ow co ul d ha ve “ no co nt act wit h a m in or un ti l ap pr ov ed .” As a Jo ur ne y m an

Lin em an , Sn ow res po nd ed to el ect ric al p o w er ou ta ge s an d m ad e ne ed ed rep ai rs

. Sn ow’s job res po ns ib il it ie s co ul d res ul t in hi m wor ki ng a l o n e , b ut te st im on y

pr es en te d at th e arb it rat io n he ari ng es ta bl is he d th at it was un us ua l fo r an y li ne m an to

wor k al on e an d th ere was no ev id en ce t ha t Sn ow h ad ev er wo rk ed alo ne du rin g hi s

two y ears of e m

pl oym en t wi th NSP.

Upo n le arn in g of th e pr ob at io n an d it s te rm s, NSP de te rm in ed th at it co ul d no t

gu aran te e th at Sn ow wou ld ha ve no co nt act wit h a m in or whi le pe rfo rm i n g h i s job

du ti es . Thu s, NSP t erm in at ed Sn ow o n Au gu st 6, 2 01 0.

Th e U n io n su bm it te d a fo rm al gr ie va nc e un de r th e CBA reg ard in g Sn ow’ s

te rm in at io n. Afte r th e pa rti es were un ab le to res ol ve th e m at te r us i n g th e CBA’s

in te rn al gr ie va nc e pr oc ed ur e, th e m at te r was su bm it te d to th e arb it rat or

. The pa rti es

st ip ul at ed th at th e arb it rat or was to de ci de th es e is su es : “Was t h e G r i ev an t, Cu rti s

Sn ow, t erm in at ed for

jus t ca us e? If no t, wh at sh al l t he ap pr op ria te rem ed y be ? ”

-2

-Afte r co nd uc ti ng a he ari ng , th e arb it rat or rul ed as f ol lo ws:

[T]he Loc al ’s gri ev an ce i s d en ie d i n p art an d s us ta in ed in pa rt. To th e

ex te nt th at Mr. Sn ow was co nv ic te d of a se rio us cri m e th at rai se s so m e

ve ry le gi ti m at e co nc ern s on th e pa rt of th e Man ag em en t go in g fo rward

, th ey ha ve de m on st rat ed jus ti fic at io n fo r th ei r de ci si on

. At th e sa m e ti m e ho wev er, th e Uni on ha s pr es en te d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce whi ch se ts fo rth

a nu m be r of fact or s th at ex is te d whi ch ul ti m at e l y f a vo r th e im

po si ti on of a pe na lt y les s t ha n t he Grie va nt ’s di sm is sa l.

The arb i t r a t o r th en or de red th at NSP ret ur n Sn ow to wor k, wit ho ut ba ck pa y , at

Sn ow’s fo rm er p os it io n o r a p os it io n wi th ne ar o r eq ua l p ay an d b en efi ts

.

NSP in it ia te d th is act io n in di st ric t co ur t se ek in g t o v a c a t e th e arb it rat or ’s

award on th e ba si s th at th e arb it rat or , aft er fin di ng jus t cau se fo r Sn ow’s te rm in at io n,

ex ceed ed hi s au th or it y un de r th e CBA whe n he or de red NSP to rei ns ta te Sn ow. The

di st ric t co ur t gr an te d NSP’s m ot io n to va cat e th e arb it rat or ’s award of rei ns ta te m en t.

II.

W e r e v ie w d e no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s le ga l de te rm in at io n th at th e arb it rat or

ex ceed ed hi s au th or it y in m ak in g an award un de r th e CBA. See In t’l Bh d. of Elec

. W or ke rs , Loc al 1 v. GKN Aero sp ace N. Am

., In c., 43 1 F.3 d 62 4, 62 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )
(“ W he re, as he re, an arb it rat io n pr ov is io n of a co nt ract is at is su e, we al so rev ie w de

no vo th e co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of th e co nt ract an d th e arb it rat io n cl au se .”). Ju di ci al

rev ie w of th e arb it rat or ’s ul ti m at e de ci si on is ve ry de fere nt ia l an d sh ou ld no t be

di st ur be d “ as lo ng as th e arb it r a t o r i s ev en arg ua bl y co ns tru in g or ap pl y in g th e

co nt ract an d act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of hi s au th or it y .” Uni te d P a p e r w o r k e rs In t’l

Uni on v. Mi sc o, In c., 48 4 U.S. 2 9, 3 8 (1 98 7)

.

-3

-The CBA at is su e in th is cas e pr ov i d e s t h a t “ [i]n th e m at te r of su sp en si on ,

de m ot io n, o r di sc ha rg e, if aft er h eari ng wit ne ss es , th e ch arg es are n ot su st ai ne d . . .

th e arb it rat io n bo ard m ay ru le th at th e em pl oyee sh al l or sh al l no t rece iv e fu ll or

pa rti al wag es fro m th e Co m pa ny.” Bas ed on th is pr ov is io n, th e pa rti es st ip ul at ed th at

th e qu es ti on be fo re th e arb it rat or to ok th e f o r m o f two pa rts

, th e se co nd on ly

ne ces sa ry if th e fir st was an swe red in th e ne ga ti ve

. Fi rs t, “ [w]as th e Grie va nt

, Cu rti s

Sn ow, te rm in at ed fo r jus t cau se ? ” Onl y if th e arb it rat or de te rm in ed th at NSP di d no t

t e r mi n a t e Sn ow fo r jus t cau se was he to de ci de “ wha t sh al l th e ap pr op ria te re med y
be ? ”

The qu es ti on pr es en te d in th is cas e is a na rro w on e: Did th e arb it r a to r
de te rm in e th at NSP h ad “ jus t ca us e” fo r te rm in at in g Sn ow? The Un io n a rg ue s t ha t

it is cl ear th e arb it rat or de te rm in ed th ere was no t jus t cau se fo r Sn ow’s te rm in at io n
be cau se the ar

bit ra tor

, inv oki ng “ w el l-e st ab li sh ed arb it ral juri sp ru de nc e,” de te rm in ed

th at NSP sh ou ld rei ns ta te Sn ow. In ot he r wor ds , t he U ni on m ai nt ai ns , t he fact th at

th e arb it rat or gr an te d an award m ean s th at he de te rm in ed th e NSP di d no t ha ve “ jus t

cau se ” fo r te rm in at in g Sn ow. NSP arg ue s th at in m ak in g th e award

, th e arb it r a to r

was ex ceed in g hi s au th or it y un de r th e CBA aft er he de te rm in ed NSP ha d “ jus t cau se ”

fo r te rm in at in g Sn ow, an d th at it is irr el ev an t th at t h e arb it rat or fai le d to us e th e

wor ds “ jus t ca us e” i n d is cu ss in g NSP ’s ter m in at io n o f Sn ow.

W e are gu id ed in ou r an al y si s by ot he r ci rcu it s th a t h a v e a dd res se d vi rtu al ly

th is sa m e qu es ti on

. The Seco nd Ci rcu it affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r va cat in g

an arb it rat or ’s award whe re th e arb it rat or fo un d th at th e em pl oyer “ ha d no op ti on bu t

to te rm in at e th e Grie va nt ,” bu t de sp it e th at fin di ng en te red an award ret ur ni ng th e

gr ie va nt to wor k with di rect io ns th at th e ti m e be twee n te rm in at io n an d th e ret ur n to

wor k be co ns id ered a di sc ip linar y su sp en si on

. See 18 7 Co nc ou rs e Ass oc

. v. Fi sh m an , 39 9 F.3 d 52 4, 5 2 6 ( 2 d C i r. 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m ). The arb it rat or ha d be en pr es en te d

wit h th e al m os t id en ti cal two -p art qu es ti on as th e arb it rat or he re: “ W as th e Grie va nt

di sc ha rg ed fo r jus t caus e? If not

, wha t s ha ll th e rem ed y be ? ” Id

. The un io n arg ue d

-4

-th e arb it rat or ’s fin di ng th at th e em pl oyer “ ha d no op ti on bu t to t e r mi n a t e ” di d no t

eq ua te to a fin di ng of “

jus t cau se ” fo r th e te rm in at io n be cau se th e arb it rat or refe rred

to th e gr ie va nt ’s pr io r un bl em is he d reco rd an d award ed rei ns ta te m en t to th e gr ie va nt

. I d

. a t 5 26 -2 7. In affi rm in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to va cat e th e award

, t h e

Seco nd Ci rcu it ex pl ai ne d, “ [W] e in te rp ret th e arb it rat or ’s st at em en t th at [th e

em pl oyer] ‘had no op ti on bu t to te rm in at e’ [th e gr ie va nt ] to be a fin di ng of jus t cau se

fo r [th e gr ie va nt ’s] di sc ha rg e. Upo n a fin di ng of jus t cau se , th ere was no th in g fu rth er

to be do ne .” Id . at 5 27

.

Fu rth erm or e, the Fi ft

h Ci rc uit has ex pl ai ne d th at “ whe re an arb it rat or im pl ic it ly

fin ds th at jus t caus e ex is ts

, it ne ed no t reci te th e op erat iv e ph ras e ‘j us t caus e.’” See

Am . Ea gl e Airl in es , Inc . v. Air Lin e Pi lo ts Ass ’n, Int ’l, 34 3 F.3 d 40 1, 40 9 (5 th Ci r.

20 03 ). Si m il ar to th e Seco nd Ci rcu it

, th e Fi fth Ci rcu it al so affi rm ed a di st ric t co ur t’s

or de r va cat in g th e arb it rat or ’s award

, co nc lu di ng th at “ if th e rel ev an t [CBA] req ui res jus t cau se fo r di sm is sa l, an arb it rat or act s be y o n d i t s juri sd ic ti on by fas hi on in g an

al te rn at e rem ed y on ce it ha s co nc lu de d— im pl ic it ly or ot he rwis e—t ha t an em pl oyee’s

co nd uc t co ns ti tu te s ju st cau se for di sm is sa l.” Id . at 4 10

.

Add it io n a l ly, ou r pr io r de ci si on in St

. Lou is The at ric al Co

. v. St

. Lou is

The at ric al Bro th erh oo d Local 6, s up po rts th e co nc lu si on of t he di st ric t co ur t in th is

cas e. 71 5 F.2 d 40 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ). The re we he l d t h at

, aft er th e arb it rat or
de te rm in ed th e em

pl oyee pa rti ci pa te d in a wor k st op pa ge as de fin ed by th e CBA, th e
arb it rat or ex cee de d hi s au th or it y by co nc lu di ng th at di sc ha rg e was an ex ces si ve

pe na lt y for th e m is co nd uc t. See id . at 4 08

.

Here, th e la ng ua ge of th e arb it rat or ’s de ci si on —s pe ci fic al ly th at NSP ha d

“ de m on st rat ed jus ti fic at io n” fo r it s de ci si on to te rm in at e Sn ow— is su ffi ci en t to sh ow

th at th e a r b it rat or fo un d th e te rm in at io n was su pp or te d by “ jus t cau se .” Hav in g

an swe red th e fir st su bm it te d qu es ti on in th e affi rm at iv e, th e arb it rat or ha d no

au th or it y to ad dr es s th e se co nd qu es t i o n or to fas hi on a rem ed y di ffer en t th an th e

-5

-te rm in at io n. The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y va cat ed th e arb it rat or ’s award fo r

reac hi ng be y on d h is au th or it y un de r th e CBA.

III.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng

.

A care fu l read in g of th e arb it rat or 's award rev eal s th at he c l earl y m ad e no
fin di ng of jus t cau se

. Si nc e th e arb it rat or 's or de r to rei ns ta te Cu rti s Sn ow's po si ti on

at NSP dr ew it s es se nc e fro m th e co ll ect iv e b a rg ai ni ng ag reem en t, I res pe ct fu ll y
di ss en t.

Afte r NSP an d th e un io n di sa gr eed ab ou t th e ap pr op ria te di sc ip li ne fo r Sn ow,
th ey pu t to th e arb it rat or th e qu es ti on of whe th er Sn ow was t erm in at ed fo r "jus t

cau se ," an d if no t, wha t th e rem ed y sh ou ld be

. The ph ras e "jus t cau se " is a "t erm of

art th at de fin es th e m an y un rel at ed

, in d e p en de nt act s th at se rv e as gr ou nd s fo r

em pl oyee di sc ip li ne un de r a co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t." Am

. Eag le Airl in es , In c. v. Air Lin e Pi l o t s A s s ' n , I nt 'l, 34 3 F.3 d 40 1, 40 9 (5 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

.

Afte r co nd uc ti ng a he ari ng , th e arb it rat or fo un d in th e fin al se ct io n of hi s
writ te n d eci si on , ent it le d " Award ," th at

[t]o th e ex te nt th at Mr. Sn ow was co nv ic te d of a se rio us cri m e th at rai se s

so m e v e r y l eg it im at e co nc ern s on th e pa rt of Man ag em en t go in g
fo rward

, th ey ha ve de m on st rat ed jus ti fic at io n fo r th ei r de ci si on

. At th e

sa m e ti m e ho wev er, th e Uni on ha s pr es en te d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce w hic h

se ts fo rth a nu m

be r of fact or s th at ex is te d w h i c h u lt im at el y fav or th e
im po si ti on of a pe na lt y

les s t ha n [S no w's] di sm is sa l.

-6

-The m ajor it y read s th es e two se nt en ces as if th ey were se pa rat e de ci si on s whe n in fact

b o t h a r e pa rt of th e arb it rat or 's de ci si on on th e pi vo ta l is su e of jus t cau se

. See Trai lm ob il e Trai l e r , LL C v. In t'l Uni on of Elec

., Sal ari ed

, Mac h. & Fu rn it ur e

W or ke rs , AFL-CIO, 22 3 F .3d 74 4, 7 47 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.

The m ajor it y co nc lu de s t h a t th e arb it rat or 's refe ren ce to "d em on st rat ed jus ti fic at io n" carr ie s m or e weig ht th an he cl earl y in te nd ed it to se rv e in hi s arb it rat io n
de ci si on

. It ha s fai le d to read th e two se nt en ces of th e award to ge th er as th e arb it rat or
in te nd ed as sh own by th e li m it in g wor di ng in hi s fir st se nt en ce. The award st at es th at

m an ag em en t ha s pu t fo rward a de m on st rat ed jus ti fic at io n fo r it s de ci si on "[t ]o t he

ex te nt th at Mr. Sn ow was co nv ic te d o f a se rio us cri m e." (e m ph as is su pp li ed ). Thi s
is no t th e s a me a s a fin di ng of "jus t cau se " whi ch is a ke y te rm of art in arb it rat io n

an d la bo r m an ag em en t rel at io ns

. See Grif fit h v. Fed

. Lab or Rel at io ns Aut h., 84 2 F.2 d

48 7, 4 98 (D.C. Cir . 19 88 ).

A na tu ral read in g of th e two se nt en ces in th e arb it rat or 's ul ti m at e de ci si on he re
is th at whi le NSP ha d reas on s fo r it s de ci si on t o f i re Sn ow, "[a ]t th e sa m e ti m e"

ho wev er th e uni on had pr es en te d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at le ss th an jus t cau se ex is te d

f o r d i s m is si ng hi m

. The pa rti es vo lu nt ari ly ba rg ai ne d fo r an arb it rat or to de ci d e
is su es on whi ch th ey be co m e de ad lo ck ed

, se e Fran kl in Elec

. Co

. v. I n t ' l U ni on , Uni te d Aut o. Aero sp ace & Agr ic

. Im pl em en t W or ke rs of Am

., 88 6 F.2 d 18 8, 19 2 (8 th

Ci r. 19 89 ), an d th e cl ari ty of a la wy er's br ie f is no t an ti ci pa te d or req u i r e d in th e
ba rg ai n, se e Brec ke nr id ge O'Fal lo n, In c. v. Team st ers Uni on Loc al No. 68 2, 66 4 F.3 d

12 30 , 12 34 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

W e refu se to en fo rce an ar bi tra ti on award on ly whe re it do es no t dr aw it s

es se nc e fro m th e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t, an d "i n d e t e r mini ng whe th er an
arb it rat or ha s ex ceed ed hi s au th or it y , th e ag reem en t m us t be br oa dl y co ns tru ed wit h

al l do ub ts res ol ve d in fav or of th e arb it rat or 's award ." W al sh v. Uni on Pac. R.R. Co

., 80 3 F.2 d 41 2, 41 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). A "m ere am bi gu it y in th e op in io n acco m pa nyin g

-7

-an award

, whi ch pe rm it s th e in fere nc e th at th e a r b i t r a to r m ay ha ve ex ceed ed hi s

au th or it y , is no t a reas on fo r refu si ng to en fo rce th e award ." Uni te d St eel wor ke rs of

Am . v. Ent er. Wheel & Car Co rp ., 36 3 U.S. 5 93 , 59 8 (1 96 0)

.

Any "m ere am

bi gu it y " crea te d by th is arb it rat or 's refe ren ce in on e se nt en ce of

hi s award to NSP's "d em on st rat ed jus ti fic at io n" is in su f f i c i en t to co nc lu de th at he

ex ceed ed hi s aut ho rit y in ord eri ng Sn ow rein st at ed

. Uni te d Stee lwo rk ers , 36 3 U.S.

at 59 8. Rea di ng th e two se nt en ces to ge th er as th e arb it rat or ob vi ou sl y in te nd ed an d

res ol vi ng al l do ub ts in fav or of th e award

, th e arb it rat or was "ar gu ab ly co ns tru in g or

ap pl y in g" th e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t an d we m us t en fo rce h is award

. E.

Ass oc ia te d Co al Co rp

. v. Uni te d Mi ne W or ke rs of Am

., Dis t. 17

, 5 3 1 U

. S

. 5 7

, 62 (2 00 0) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

NSP an d th e un io n ha d ba rg ai ne d fo r an arb it rat or to de ci de whe th er Sn ow's

te rm in at io n was for j us t caus e, an d we can no t su bs ti tu te ou r vi ews in pl ace of th os e
lo gi cal ly dr awn fro m a cl os e read in g of th e a r bi tra to r's award

. See Brec ke nr id ge
O'Fal lo n, 66 4 F.3 d at 12 34

. NSP su pp li ed it s jus ti fic at io n fo r Sn ow's te rm in at io n,
whi ch th e arb it rat or co ns id ered be fo re d et erm in in g th at no jus t ca us e ex is te d fo r it s
de ci si on ba se d on wha t he call ed "a nu m be r of fact or s" an d " co nv in ci ng ev id en ce."

See In t'l Bh d. of El e c

. W or ke rs , Loc al Uni on No. 53

, AFL-CIO v. Sh o- Me Po wer
Co rp ., 71 5 F .2d 13 22 , 13 26 (8t h C ir. 1 98 3)

.

The m ajor it y ci te s so m e in ap po si te cas es in reac hi ng it s de ci si on

. See 18 7

Co nc ou rs e Ass oc ia te s v. Fi sh m an , 39 9 F.3 d 52 4, 52 6 (2 d. Ci r. 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m ) an d

Am eri can Eag le Airl in es , 34 3 F.3 d at 40 9. The arb it rat or in Fi sh m an ha d co nc lu de d

th at an em

pl oyer "h ad no op ti on bu t to te rm in at e" th e em pl oyee. 39 9 F.3 d at 52 6. In

Am eri can Eag l e , t h e arb it rat or fo un d th at th e em pl oyer ha d "n ot on ly a rig ht

, bu t a
du ty to rid th e wor kp la ce" of th e em pl oyee's co nd uc t. 34 3 F.3 d at 40 9. The la ng ua ge
in th os e arb it ral award s is di ffer en t f r o m t he ex pl an at io n pr ov id ed by t he arb it rat or
in th e cas e b efo re t he co ur t.

-8

-Here, th e arb it rat or di sc us se d NSP's at te m pt at "jus ti fic at io n," bu t t he n

pr oc eed ed to po in t ou t th e "co nv in ci ng ev id en ce" of "a nu m be r of fact or s" th at le d to

hi s co nc lu si on th at no jus t cau se ex is te d. The arb it rat or ex pl ai ne d th at th e ev id en ce
in cl ud ed "a ru sh to jud gm en t [b y NSP] in t h e c o u rs e of it s in ve st ig at io n wit ho ut

ta ki ng th e ti m e to co ns id er al l re l e v a nt ev id en ce" an d "cl ear ev id en ce" of di sp arat e

tre at m en t. Not on ly di d th e arb it rat or ne ve r us e th e ba rg ai ne d fo r te rm "jus t caus e,"

bu t su ch a fin di ng fo r Sn ow's te rm in at io n can no t be in ferr ed fro m th e pl ai n la ng ua ge
of th e award

. The arb it rat or de m on st rat ed hi s reas on in g s u p p o r ti ng hi s ul ti m at e
de ci si on th at NSP di d no t ha ve jus t cau se fo r fir in g Sn ow an d th ere was "co nv in ci ng

ev id en ce" th at al l th e ev id en ce fav or ed th e im po si ti on of a "p en al ty le ss th an [Sn ow's ]

di sm is sa l."

Rea di ng th e two se nt en c e s o f t he award to ge th er as cl earl y in te nd ed by th e
arb it rat or 's wor ds "[a ]t th e sa m e ti m e ho wev er," th e de ci si on can no t fai rly be read to

fav or NSP. Si nc e th e arb it rat or f o u n d th at no jus t cau se ex is te d fo r Sn ow's

te rm in at io n, he ha d au th or it y to or de r hi m rei ns ta te d at NSP. The pa rti es ba rg ai ne d

fo r th e arb it rat or to de ci de th ei r di sp ut e, an d th e res ul ti ng award dr e w i t s e s se nc e
fro m th e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t. Uni te d St eel wor ke rs , 36 3 U.S. at 59 8. The

di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on sh ou ld th eref or e be rev ers ed

, an d th e arb it rat io n award sh ou ld

be en fo rced

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-