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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 3- 19 43

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

PSC C us to m , LP, do in g b us in es s as Po la r Tan k Tra il ers

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S te el , Pap er an d F or es try, Rub be r, Man uf act ur in g, En erg y , All ie d

In du st ria l an d S erv ic e Work ers Int ern at io na l Un io n, Lo cal No. 1 1- 77 0

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

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 13 , 20 14
Fil ed : J un e 2 6, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and BYE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

PSC Cu st om , LP, do in g bu si ne ss as Po la r Ta n k Trai le rs (“ Po la r Tan k” ),

m an uf act ur es ta nk tra il ers a t i t s Sp rin gf ie ld

, Mi ss ou ri faci li ty. At th e ti m e in

qu es ti on , em

pl oyees were go ve rn ed by a Co ll ect iv e Barg ai ni ng Agr eem en t (“ CBA”)

be twee n Po la r Tan k an d Uni te d St eel wor ke r s Loc al No. 11 -7 70 (th e “ Uni on ”). In

Ju ne 20 11

, Po la r Tan k di sc ha rg ed m ai nt en an ce te ch ni ci an Bo ni ta Sy m on s fo r fai li ngto sa fel y co m pl et e rep ai r of an ov erh ead cran e. The Uni on gr ie ve d th e di sc ha rg e, an d

th e un res ol ve d gr ie va nc e was su bm it te d to arb it rat io n. The arb it rat or pa rti al ly up he ld

th e gr ie va nc e, red uc in g Sy m on s’s di sc ip li ne to a th irt y -d ay un pa id su sp en si on

. Po la r

Tan k su ed to va cat e th e arb it rat io n award

. The Uni on co un te rcl ai m ed to en fo rce it

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t en fo rci ng th e award

. Po l a r Tan k 1

ap pe al s, arg ui ng the ar

bit rat or ’s ru li ng was co nt rary to un am bi gu ou s pr ov is io ns of th e

CBA th at m an da te d di sc ha rg e a n d is th eref or e un en fo rcea bl e. The arb it rat or ’s

fin di ng s of fact are no t at is su e. Rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on de no vo an d

th e arb it rat or ’s award un de r th e de fere nt ia l st an da rd of rev ie w m an da te d b y t he

Su pr em e Co ur t, we af

fir m

.

I.

Po la r Tan k’s faci li ty us es a cei li ng -b as ed cran e syste m th at ru ns th e le ng th of

th e pr od uc ti on area

. The cran es are m ou nt ed on twi n rai ls

, m or e th an twen ty feet

ab ov e th e flo or

. A se t of ge ars are us ed in m ov in g cran es al on g each rai l. Bo th se ts

of ge ars m

us t be in go od wor ki ng or de r or th e c r a n e w i l l n ot m ov e sm oo th ly al on g

th e rai ls

. On Ju ne 10

, 20 11

, th e m an uf act ur in g en gi ne eri ng m an ag er le arn ed th at on e

cran e was no t ru nn in g sm oo th ly an d in st ru ct ed Sy m on s to in ve st ig at e an d rep ai r th e

pr ob le m , us in g a “ sc is so rs li ft” to acce ss th e ge ars

. Near th e en d of he r sh ift

, Sy m on s

rep or te d th at sh e ha d rep ai red th e no rth -rai l si de of th e cran e by in st al li ng a ne w ge ar,
be cau se th e ol d ge ar ha d di sl od ge d ent ire ly, an d th at sh e ha d che ck ed th e so ut h- rai l

si de of th e cran e an d fo un d it ti gh t an d in go od wor ki ng co nd it io n. Sy m on s al so to ld

Keit h Fo wler

, a m ai nt en an ce te ch ni ci an on th e ne xt sh ift

, th at sh e ha d no t fo un d th e
lo st no rth -rai l ge ar, a se rio us sa fet y is su e be cau se a lo st ge ar cou ld fal l from th e rai l

an d in jure so m eo ne or , wor se y et

, cau se th e cran e to de rai l. Fo wler sh ut do wn th e

The Hon or ab le M at t J. W hi two rth

, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, pr es id in g wit h co ns e n t o f t h e pa rti es pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c)( 1)

.

-2

-cran e to lo ok fo r th e ge ar. Tech ni ci an Jo hn Bran no n wen t up in th e sc is so rs li ft an d

qu ic kl y fo un d th e lo st ge ar in pl ai n si gh t on th e rai l fram e le ss th an twen ty feet fro m
whe re Sy m on s ha d pe rfo rm ed th e no rth -s id e rep ai r. Bran no n al so ch eck ed th e so ut hrai l si de an d fo un d th e ge ar “ fin ge r lo os e.” The All en ke y so ck et s were pa ck ed wit h

gr eas e, su gg es ti ng th at Sy m on s h ad no t ac ces se d t he ge ar t o c he ck if i t was lo os e.

Afte r in te rv ie win g Sy m on s an d th os e in vo lv ed in th e in ci de nt (al on g wit h th e
Uni on ’s pr es id en t), Po la r Tan k’s Hum an Rel at io ns Man ag er, La r ry LaFo rg e,
di sc ha rg ed Sy m on s on Ju ne 21 ba se d on th e cran e rep ai r in ci de nt

. LaFo rg e’s

Dis ci pl in e Rep or t l is te d a s t he reas on s fo r di sc ha rg e:

1. Cl ear fail ur e [to ] pr op erl y do an in sp ect io n th at co ul d hav e res ul te d
in s eri ou s, p os si bl y

fat al , acci de nt

.

2. Cl ear di sr eg ard fo r do in g th e job

. By no t l oc at in g t he lo os e g ear lying on th e tra ck a se rio us acci de nt co ul d ha ve ha pp en ed if it wou ld
hav e b een th ro wn o ff, o r th e cra ne de rai le d.

3. Pas si ve at ti tu de ab ou t av oi di ng as si gn m en ts by an y m ean s av ai la bl e. W as ti ng ti m e, no t as ki ng for di rect io n.

Arti cl e 21 of th e CBA pr ov id ed : “ No em pl oyee sh al l be di sc ha rg ed

, de m ot ed

,

or ot he rwis e di sc ip li ne d wit ho ut go od an d su f f i ci en t cau se .” “ Sh ou ld th ere be an y
di sp ut e b et ween th e Co m pa ny an d th e Uni on co nc ern in g th e ex is te nc e o f go od an d

su ffi ci en t ca us e fo r di sc ha rg e . . . suc h d is pu te sh al l b e ad jus te d i n a cco rd an ce wi th

th e Grie va nc e an d Arb it rat io n pr ov is io ns .” The Uni on gr ie ve d Sy m on s’s di sc ha rg e

un de r th e gr ie va nc e an d arb it rat io n pr ov is io ns in Arti cl e 6 o f th e CBA. W he n th e

gr ie va nc e co ul d no t be res ol ve d, th e pa rti es su bm it te d th e di sp ut e to arb it rat io n. As

is typic al

, Arti cl e 6 pr ov id ed t h a t a r b i t rat io n award s are “ fin al an d bi nd in g on th e

Co m pa ny, th e Uni on an d th e em pl oyee(s ),” an d it li m it ed th e arb it rat or ’s au th or it y by

pr oh ib it in g hi m fro m ad di ng to

, di sr eg ard in g, or al te rin g th e te rm s of th e CBA. The

-3

-pa rti es su bm it te d t he fol lo win g i ss ue s t o t he arb it rat or : “ 1. Did th e Co m pa ny ha ve

go od an d su ffi ci en t cau se or jus t cau se to di sc ha rg e [Sym on s] on Ju ne 21

, 20 11 ? 2.

If n ot , what sh al l t he rem ed y be ? ”

At the le ng th y arb it rat io n hea rin g, LaFo rg e ex pl ai ne d hi s di sc ha rg e de ci si on ,
te st ifyin g th at Sy m on s’s m is co nd uc t in fai li ng to pr op erl y rep ai r t h e c r an e vi ol at ed

fiv e st an da rd s of em

pl oyee be ha vi or en um erat ed in Part B of th e St an da rd s of

Co nd uc t Po la r Tan k ha d ad op te d an d pu bl ic iz ed pr io r to th e effe ct iv e da te of th e CBA

-- in su bo rd in a ti on , care le ss or po or wor km an sh ip

, co nt in ue d un sa ti sf act or y

pe rfo rm an ce of wor k du ti es , vi ol at io n of sa fet y ru le s, an d pr ov id in g fal se in fo rm at io n

to th e co m

pa ny. P a r t B pr ov id es th at vi ol at io n of it s st an da rd s “ is co ns id ered

gr ie vo us an d wil l res ul t in im m ed ia te te rm in at io n.” On cro ss ex am in at io n, LaFo rg e
ad m it te d t ha t h e d id no t re fer t o t he se vi ol at io ns in th e te rm in at io n “ pa pe rwo rk .”

The arb it rat or is su ed a writ te n de ci si on up ho ld in g th e gr ie va nc e in pa rt. Ci ti ng
du e pr oc es s co nc ern s, th e arb it rat or li m it ed hi s co ns id er a t i o n o f jus t cau se to th e

gr ou nd s fo r di sc i p l i ne st at ed at th e ti m e Sy m on s was di sc ip li ne d, whi ch di d no t

in cl ud e a refe ren ce to th e St an da rd s of Co nd uc t. The arb it rat or acce pt ed Po la r Tan k’s

ve rs io n of th e fact s un de rlyin g th e cran e rep ai r in ci de nt an d ru le d th at S ym on s ha d

“ en ga ge [d ] in ne gl ig en ce in vo lv in g sa fet y is su es [th at p u t ] h e r Co m pa ny job an d

po te nt ia ll y he r fel lo w em pl oyees in se rio us jeop ard y .” Howev er, th e a rb it rat or

co nc lu de d, Sym on s’s co nd uc t d id no t ris e to th e le ve l of ins ub or di na ti on be cau se it

am ou nt ed to si m

pl e ne gl ig en ce rat he r th an “ wil lfu l or de l i b e rat e de fia nc e of

su pe rv is or y au th or it y .” In th e arb it rat or ’s vi ew, “ a di sc ip li na ry su sp en si on fo r th irt y

wor k da y s

. . . co ns ti tu te s a le gi ti m at e ba la nc e be twee n th e im po rta n c e o f p r o p er

pe rfo rm an ce of th os e du ti es an d th e

. . . no n- sh owi ng of in su bo rd in at io n in vo l v e d

he re. ” A c c o r di ng ly, Po la r Tan k di d no t ha ve jus t cau se to di sc ha rg e Sy m on s. The

award or de red he r rei ns ta te d wit h ba ck pa y “ m in us pa y fo r th e th irt y wor k d a y
di sc ip li na ry

su sp en si on ord ered he re.” Th is laws ui t fo ll owe d.

-4

-II

.

Lab or arb it rat io n a ward s are en ti tl ed to su bs ta nt ia l bu t no t un li m it ed jud ic ia l

de fere nc e. Alt ho ug h an arb it rat or “ m ay no t ig no re th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e co nt ract ”

or im po se hi s own “ no ti on s of in du st ria l jus ti ce,” we are bo un d to en fo rce an award

if th e arb it rat or “ is ev en arg ua bl y c o 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 aut ho rit y .” Uni te d P ap erwo rk ers Int ’l Uni on v. Mis co , In c.,

48 4 U.S. 29

, 38 (1 98 7) ; se e Majo r Leag ue Bas eb al l Pl ay ers Ass ’n v. Garv ey , 53 2 U.S.

50 4, 50 9 (2 00 1)

. As ha s of te n be en sa id

, a la bo r arb it rat io n award is le gi ti m at e “ ‘so

lo ng as it dr aws it s es se nc e fro m th e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t.’” Bo eh rin ge r

In ge lh ei m Vetm ed ic a, In c. v. Uni te d Fo od & Co m m erci al W or ke rs, D ist

. U nio n Loc al

Two, 73 9 F.3 d 11 36

, 11 40 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 4 )

, qu ot in g Uni te d St eel wor ke rs of Am

. v.

Ent er. W he el & Car Co rp ., 36 3 U.S. 59 3, 59 7 (1 96 0)

. App lying th is st an da rd

, th e
di st ric t c o u r t c o n c l ud ed th at th e award at is su e dr ew it s es se nc e fro m th e CBA an d

m us t b e en fo rced . W e ag ree.

Po la r Tan k a rg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d, an d t he arb it rat io n a ward m ay

no t be e n f

o r c ed

, be cau se th e arb it rat or di sr eg ard ed un am bi gu ou s pr ov is io ns of th e

CBA an d th eref

or e th e award refl ect s “ th e arb it rat or ’s own no ti on s of i n d u s tri al
jus ti ce.” The pr in ci pl e i s so un d, bu t it is rare ly br each ed by ex pe rie nc ed la bo r
arb it rat or s. (Here

, Arti cl e 6 of th e CBA req ui red th e pa rti es to ob ta in a li st of se ve n

qu al i f i e d arb it rat or s fro m th e Fed eral Med ia ti on an d Co nc il ia ti on Serv ic e. The

arb it rat or se le ct ed by th e pa rti es , Ro na ld Hoh

, ha s be en an arb it rat or si nc e 19 80 an d

ha s m ul ti pl e p ro fes si on al affi li at io ns .)

Po la r Tan k arg ue s th e arb it rat or di s r e g a rd ed two pr ov is io ns of th e CBA th at

un am bi gu ou sl y m anda te d tha t Sy m ons be dis ch ar ge d fo r th e m is co nd uc t th e arb it rat or

fo un d sh e ha d co m

m it te d. Fi rs t, Arti cl e 29 of t h e CBA de cl ared th at “ [a]ll ru le s of

th e Co m pa ny no w in fo rce sh al l be ob se rv ed by al l em pl oyees.” The arb it rat or fai le d

to ob ey Arti cl e 29

, Po la r Tan k as se rts

, be cau se it pr es cri be d th e di sc ip li na ry pe na lt ie s

-5

-fo r fiv e en um erat ed vi ol at io ns , in cl ud in g, as rel ev an t he re, “ In su bo rd in at io n su ch as

refu sa l to wor k on th e job as si gn ed

. . . (p en al ty-di sc ha rg e).” Thi s c on te nt io n is

c o nt rary to co nt ro ll in g Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on s. The arb it rat or di d no t ig n o r e t h e

“ in su b o r d i n a t i on ” m an da te in Arti cl e 29

. He care fu ll y co ns id ered Sy m on s’s po or

pe rfo rm an ce an d co nc lu de d th at it co ns ti tu te d ne gl ig en ce bu t no t th e type of

“ in su bo rd in at io n” fo r whi ch Arti cl e 29 m an da te d di sc ha rg e. W e are bo un d to en fo rce

th at de ci si on “ arg ua bl y co ns tru in g or ap pl y in g” Arti cl e 29 un de r Mi sc o, Garv ey , an d

ot he r Su pr em e Co ur t cas es

. An arb it rat or “ m ay no t ig no re th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e

co nt ract ; bu t .

. . a co ur t s ho ul d n ot reject an award on th e gr ou nd th at th e arb it rat or

m is read th e co nt ract .” Mi sc o, 48 4 U.S. at 38

. W e ad d, th ou gh it is no t ne ces sa ry to

ou r de ci si on , th at th e ne ed fo r th is type of an al y si s in a jus t cau se pr oc eed in g is ha rd ly

su rp ris in g g iv en th e am

bi gu it y in he ren t i n t he ter m

“ in su bo rd in at io n.” 2

Seco nd

, Po la r Tan k arg ue s th at th e arb it rat or im pr op erl y i gn or ed LaFo rg e’s

te st im on y th at Sy m on s vi ol at ed fiv e be ha vi or st an da rd s fo r whi ch di sc ha rg e was

m an da te d by Part B of Po la r Tan k’s St an da rd s of Co nd uc t. Po la r Tan k co nt en ds th e
arb it rat or was wr on g to di sr eg ard th es e St an da rd s on th e gr ou nd th at th ey “ were

Po la r Tan k rel ie s on two p r i o r Ei gh th Ci rcu it de ci si on s we co nc lu de are 2

di st in gu is ha bl e. In St

. Lou is The at ric al Co

. v. St

. Lou is The at ric al Bh d. Loc al 6, th e
gr ie va nt vi ol at ed a “ No St rik es - No Loc k Out s” CBA pr ov is io n th at de cl ared : “ Any

em pl oyee vi ol at in g th is pr ov is io n m ay be di sc ip li ne d or di sc ha rg ed an d sh al l ha ve no

reco ur se to an y o t h e r p r o v i si on s of th is Agr eem en t ex cep t as to th e fact of

pa r ti ci pa ti on .” Bec au se of th is li m it at io n, we co nc lu de d th at “ th e arb it rat or ha s no

au th or it y to ev al ua te th e pr op rie ty of th e Co m pa ny’ s di sc ip li ne .” 71 5 F.2 d 40 5, 40 8 (8 th Cir . 19 83 ). Arti cl e 2 9 o f th is CBA had no co m pa rab le li m it at io n. In Nort he rn St at es Po wer Co

. v. I.B.E.W

., Loc al 16 0, w e v a c a t e d an award be cau se th e arb it rat or ’s fin di ng tha t the co m pa ny ha d “ ‘dem on st rat ed jus ti fic at io n’ fo r it s de ci si on
to te rm in at e” was a fin di ng of “ jus t cau se ” th at pr ecl ud ed th e arb it rat or fro m or de rin g

a di ffer en t rem ed y

. 71 1 F.3 d 90 0, 90 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Here, th e arb it rat or fo un d th at Sy mo n s ’s c on du ct was no t in su bo rd in at io n th at was go ve rn ed by Arti cl e 29

, pr oc eed ed to de te rm in e whe th er th ere was no n e t h e l e ss jus t cau se to di sc ha rg e Sy m on s, an d e xp li ci tl y

fou nd no jus t ca us e.

-6

-im

pl em en te d un il at eral ly by th e Co m pa ny wit ho ut ag reem en t of th e Uni on .” The

Man ag em en t Ri gh ts cl au se of th e CBA, to w h i ch th e Uni on ag reed aft er th e

St an da rd s were ad op te d, ex pr es sl y ga ve Po la r Tan k th e rig ht to “ m ak e rea s o n ab le

ru le s an d reg ul at io ns ” an d to su sp en d or di sc ha rg e em pl oyees “ fo r vi ol at io n of su ch

ru le s or ot he r pr op er an d jus t cau se .” Thi s co nt en ti on ha s two fat al fla ws. Fi rs t, th e

reas on th e arb it rat or ga ve fo r di sr eg ard in g th e St an da rd s of Co nd uc t was th at “ no ne

o f th em was in cl ud ed or ci te d in gr ie va nt ’s te rm in at io n le tt er or in an y o t h e r

no ti fic at io n to th e g rie va nt .” Po la r Tan k a ss ert s t hi s s ta te m en t was “ co nt rary to th e

Rec or d,” bu t it was ba se d on th e un co nt ro ve rte d te st i mo n y of de ci si on -m ak er

LaFo rg e. Po la r Tan k do es no t ar gu e th e arb it rat or ’s “ du e p ro ces s” rul in g was erro r

th at pr ecl ud es en fo rci ng th e award

, an d rig ht ly so

. Eve n if we di sa g reed wit h th e
arb it rat or ’s no ti on of du e pr oc es s, “ar b i t r at or s ha ve lo ng be en ap pl y in g no ti on s of

‘ind us tri al du e pr oc es s’ to ‘j us t cau se ’ di sc ha rg e cas es .” Ch au ffeu rs Loc al Uni on No.

87 8 v . Coc a-Co la Bo tt li ng Co ., 6 13 F.2 d 71 6, 71 9 (8 th Cir .), cert . den ie d, 4 46 U.S.

98 8 (1 98 0) ; s ee M is co , 48 4 U.S. at 39 -4 0 & n.8

.

Seco nd

, an d m or e im

po rta nt ly, Po la r Tan k’s rel ia nc e on th e Man ag em en t

Ri gh ts cl au se is co nt rary to co nt ro ll in g Eigh th Ci rcu it pr eced en t th at “ di ffer en ti at es
be twee n ex pl ic it co nt ract ua l la ng ua ge an d ru le s or po li ci es pr om ul ga te d un de r a

ge ne ral m an ag em en t rig ht s cl au se .” Bo eh rin ge r, 73 9 F.3 d at 11 41

, ci ti ng Trai lm ob il e

Trai le r LLC v. In t’l Uni on of Elec

. W or ke rs , 22 3 F.3 d 74 4, 74 8 (8 th C i r

. 20 00 ).

“ Onl y whe n th e un io n ha s un am bi gu ou sl y ag reed to an ex cep ti on to th e jus t cau se

li m it at io n, ei th er in th e CBA or in an ag reem en t res ol vi ng a pa rti cu la r di sc ip li na ry
si tu at io n, wil l th e arb it rat or be pr ecl ud ed fro m co nd uc ti ng th e co ll ect iv el y ba rg ai ne d
jus t cau se an al y si s.” Id

. Thu s, ev en th o u g h th e CBA ack no wled ge d Po la r Tan k’s
rig ht to ad op t wor k ru le s, an d th e em pl oyees’ du ty to ob se rv e th os e ru le s, “ th at do es

n o t in cl ud e th e rig ht to ren eg e on th e co ll ect iv el y ba rg ai ne d ag reem en t th at t h e

em pl oyer wil l on ly di sc ha rg e an em pl oyee ‘for [g oo d an d su ffi ci en t] cau se .’ ” Id

. Here, whe n Po la r Tan k su bm it te d th e is su e of jus t cau se to th e arb it rat or , “ [i]t was fo r

th e arb it rat or to ha rm on iz e an y di sc or da nt pr ov is io ns wit hi n th e co nt ract rel at in g to

-7

-th e di sc ret io na ry au th or it y gr an te d m an ag em en t an d th e jus t-c a u s e r eq ui rem en ts

li m it in g th at au th or it y .” Trai lm ob il e, 22 3 F.3 d at 74 7. The arb it rat or ’s res ol ut io n of

th at of te n- di ffi cu lt is su e is wha t th e pa rti es ag reed to in th e CBA an d th eref or e dr ew

it s es se nc e fro m

th e CBA.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t en f o r c i n g t he

arb it rat io n a ward is affi rm ed

.

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

-8

-