T he H onor abl e R ober tH ol m es B el l , C hi ef U ni t ed St at es D ist ri ctJ udge fort he * W es t ern D i s t r i ctof M i chi gan, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.

NO T RE CO M M E ND E D F OR F UL L - T E X T P UB L I CA T I ON

F i l e N am e: 08a0090n. 06 F i l ed: F ebruary 1, 2008 N o. 06- 4042 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
RI CH ARD EARLE,

P l a i n t i f f - Ap p e l l a n t , ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT v . COURT F OR THE S OUTHE RN D IST R IC T O F O H IO N E T J E T S A V I A T I O N I N C .,

D ef endant- A ppel l ee. ____________________________________/ B E F O R E : B O G G S, C hi ef Judge; G I B B O N S, C i rcui t Judge; and B E L L , C hi ef D i s t ri ct Judge. * P E R C U R I A M. P lai n ti ff -A p p ell an t R icha rd E arle ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s deci s i on aff

i rmi ng an arbi t r at i on aw ar d i n favorof D efe ndant
- A ppel l ee N et J et s A vi at i on I nc. ( “N et J et s ”)
. E ar l e had gr i eved N et J et s ’ t er m i nat i on o f h i s empl oy m ent , as w el l as t he
s us pens i on t hat pr ece ded hi s t er m i nat i on. B ot h gr i evanc es w er e s ubm i t t ed t o arbi t r at i on, and th e a rb itrato r d e n ied b o th g rie v a n c e s. E a rle c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt im p ro p e rly af firm ed the a rbit rator’s d en ial o f b o th g ri ev an ce s. F o r t h e re aso n s set fo rt h b elow , w e a ff irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt.N o. 06- 4042 2

E ar l e v. N

et Jet s A vi at i on I. N e tJe ts o p e ra tes a n d m a in tain s a f lee t o f f ra c tio n a l-o w n e rsh ip b u sin e ss jet a irc ra f t. N et J et s i s bas ed i n C ol um bus , O hi o, butoper at es t hr ough a gat ew ays y s t em. T he gat ew ay
s y s t em enabl es p il o ts to startand end a s even- dayt ourof dut yata l ocat i on ot hert han C o lum b u s. N etJets’ p il o ts are rep rese n ted b yT ea m sters L o ca l 28 4 (“L o ca l 28 4 ”). E arle’s empl oy m entw i t h N et J et s w as governed bya col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement( “C B A ”) betw een N et J et s and Local 284. N et J et s had empl oy ed E ar l e as a pi l ot s i nce A pr i l 1994. E ar l e’ s gat ew ayai rpor tw as i n J acks onvi l l e, Fl or i da. A n A ugus t3, 2000, agr eeme ntbetw een N et J et s and Local 284,
r efe r r ed t o as t he G at ew ayL et t erof U nder s t andi ng, s t at es t hat“[i ] n or dert o be i n pos i t i on t o c o mme n c e d u t y , c r e wm e mbe r s u t i l i z i n g Gat e way s mus tb e wi t h i n 1 0 0 mi l e s o f t he Ga t e wa y o r b e wi t h i n t h r e e ( 3 ) h o u r s d r i v e t i me o f t h e Ga t e wa y , wh i c h e v e r i s s h o r t e r . ” ( J
. A.
a t 2 9 1 .) O n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 , th e f irst d a yo f

a se v e n -d a yto u r o f

d u tyf o r E a rle , N e tJe ts A n ti-D ru g a n d A lco h o l T e c h n icia n R ita L o h r ca lled E a rle a t 8 :1 0 a .m . an d in stru c ted h im to
r epor tfora r andom drug a nd al cohol t es tata thi r d- par t yt es t i ng fac i l i t yone mi l e fr om t he Ja c k so n v ill e a irp o rt. E a rle a d v ise d L o h r th a t h e w a s i n T a llah a ss e e , F lo rid a , an d th a t it
w oul d t ake hi m fourhour s t o r eac h t he t es t i ng fac i l i t y . O n t he fi r s tdayof t he arbi t r at i on h e a rin g , D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , E a rle a c k n o w led g e d th a t h e w a s a c tu a ll y a t h is h o m e in P e n sa c o la, F lo rid a , w h e n h e re c e iv e d th e p h o n e c a ll f ro m L o h r. P e n sa c o la is a p p ro x im a tely 350 m i l es fr om t he J acks onvi l l e ai rpor t . E ar l e arr i ved att he t es t i ng fac i l i t yat 2: 00 p. m . , fi veN o. 06- 4042 3

E ar l e v. N

et Jet s A vi at i on h o u rs a n d f

if tym in u tes a f

ter th e p h o n e c a ll f

ro m L o h r. E a rle su b m itt e d to th e tes t, w h ich d id
n o t detec t eith e r d ru g s o r alco h o l. O n D ec em b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 , N etJets C h ief P il o t Ji m P eters p lac e d E a rle o n a n u n p a id su sp e n sio n b e c a u se E a rle ’s d e lay in re a c h in g th e tes tin g f a c ili ty
w as deemed a cons t ruct i ve r efus al t o s ubm i tt o a drug and al cohol t es t . N et J et s al s o not i fi ed t h e F e d e r a l Av i a t i o n Ad mi n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e e v e n t s r e l a t e d t o E a r l e ’ s De c e mb e r1 7 t e s t . On D ece m ber26, 2001, E ar l e gr i eved th e su sp ens i on. O n J anuary3, 2002, N et J et s hel d a
m eet i ng w i t h E ar l e and t er m i nat ed hi s empl oy m ent . L at er t hat day N et J et s s ent E ar l e a l et t er confi r m i ng t he t er m i nat i on of hi s empl oy m entbeca us e, among ot herr eas ons , N et J et s had det erm ined that on D ece m ber17 E ar l e “f ai l ed t o compl yw i t h t he r equi r ement s of t he C om pany ’ s FA A
- r equi r ed A l cohol M i s us e Pr event i on Pr ogr am (s ee Se cti o n 2
. 4 of t he [C B A ] and 49 C FR Subpar t N , Sect i on 40. 261( a) ( 1) [) ]
. ” ( J
. A
. at 39. ) O n J anuary4, 2002, E ar l e gri eved t h e t e r mi n a t i o n o f h i s e mpl o y me n t . I twas n o tu n t i l t h e f i r s td a yo f

t he
arbi t r at i on hear i ng t hat E ar l e adm i t t ed t hat he had been i n Pens acol a, havi ng pr evi ous l yl i ed att he D ece m ber21 m eet i ng bys ay i ng t hathe had be en at a T al l ahas s ee hot el r oom , m uch cl os er t o t he J acks onvi l l e ai rpor t . T he gr i evanc es w er e then s ubm i t t ed t o arbi t r at i on and an
arbi t r ati o n h ear i ng w as hel d overt he cour s e of thr ee da y s , D ece m ber19, 2002, M ar ch 18, 2 0 0 3 , and M ay20, 2003. A l t hough N et J et s ci t ed fourr eas ons fort erm i nat i ng E arle’s empl oy m enti n t he J anuary 3 l et t er , t he arbi t r at or onl ycons i der ed N et J et s ’ afor ement i oned
co n stru cti v e ref

u sal rati o n ale. (J. A
. at 4 2 -43 , 4 7 , 4 9 , 1 6 6 n . 1
. ) T h e a rbit rator d en ied E arle’s gr i evanc es on Sept ember 30, 2003.N o. 06- 4042 4

E ar l e v. N

et Jet s A vi at i on

A l t hough t he di s t r i ct cour t di d not have the bene fi tof t hi s C our t ’ s en banc deci s i on 1 i n Mi chi gan Fam i l

y Resour ces , w e a p p lyit n o w a s it is th e law o f th is C irc u it. II. A. “W hen a di s t r i ctcour t deci des t o confi r m or vaca t e an arbi t r at i on aw ar d, w e r evi ew i t s l egal concl us i ons de novo and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . ” Int ’l B hd
. of Team st ers, Lo c a l 5 1 9 v . Uni t e d Pa r c e l S e r v . , I nc. , 335 F. 3d 497, 503 ( 6t h C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng F i rst O p ti ons of C hi
. , I nc. v. Kapl an , 5 1 4 U. S. 9 3 8 , 9 4 7
- 4 8 ( 1 9 9 5 ) )
. Th e r e v i e w of t h i s l a b or
arbi t r at i on aw ar d i s governed byt he R ai l w ayL aborA ct , 45 U
. S. C
. §§ 151- 188. B. In d ec iding w h ethe r t o co n firm o r va ca te a lab o r arb itrati o n aw ard , a f ed era l cou rt
m us tas k: D i d t he arbi t r at oract“out s i de hi s author i t y ” by res ol vi ng a di s put e not comm i t t ed t o arbi t r at i on? D i d t he arbi t r at or comm i t fr aud, have a confl i ctof i nt er es t o rot herw i s e ac tdi s hones t l yi n i s s ui ng t he aw ar d? A nd i n r es ol vi ng a n y leg a l o r fa c tu a l d isp u tes in th e c a se , w a s the a rb itrat o r “ a rg u a b ly cons t rui ng orappl y i ng t he contr act ”? So l ong as t he arbi t r at or does notoffe nd anyof t hes e r equi r ement s , t he r eques tforj udi ci al in te r vent i on s houl d be r e s i s t e d e v e n t h o u g h t h e a rb i t r a t o rm a d e “ s e r i o u s , ” “ i m p r o v i d e n t ” o r“ s i l l y” err or s i n r es ol vi ng t he mer i t s of t he di s put e. Mi ch. Fam i l

y Res. , I nc. v. SE I U Local517M , 4 7 5 F
. 3 d 7 4 6 , 7 5 3 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (en b an c). 1 T here i s no d i spute that the arbi t rat or’ s decis i on com pli es w i t h the r equ i rem ents of the fi rs t t w o i nqui r i es ; how ever , E ar l e cont ends t hatt he arbi t r at orw as not“ar guabl ycons t rui ng or
a p p lyin g th e c o n tr a c t.”N o. 06- 4042 5

E ar l e v. N

et Jet s A vi at i on

T h e A M P P , the G a tew a yL e tter o f U n d e rsta n d in g , an d 4 9 C .F .R . § 4 0 .2 6 1 a re a ll 2 in c o rp o ra te d b yre f

e re n c e in th e C B A . (J .A . a t 3 4 -3 5 , 4 1 -4 2 .) S e c tio n 2 .4 o f

th e C B A lim ite d N e tJ e ts to d is c h a rg in g e m p lo y e e s f o r “ j u s t c a u s e .” ( J
. A
. at189. ) O n Jan u ary1, 1995, N et J et s i m pl ement ed an A l cohol M i s us e Pr event i on Pr ogr am (“ A M PP”) t hat , among ot her t hi ngs , r equi r ed N et J et s ’ pi l ot s t o s ubm i tt o r andom
a lc o h o l te s tin g . (I

d. at 329, 332. ) T he A M PP s t at es t hat a N et J et s empl oy ee “ w ho r efus es t o s ubm i tt o anyr equi r ed al cohol t es ti n t hi s pr ogr am, w i l l be s ubj ect t o t er m i nat i on. ” (I d. at332. ) T he arbi t r at ordet er m i ned thata vi ol at i on of t h e A M PP const i tut ed “j us tcaus e”
u n d e r s e c tio n 2 .4 . (I

d. at49. ) T he arbi tr ator then det er m i ned thatE ar l e’ s fi ve- hour
- andfi ft y - m i nut e del ayi n r eac hi ng t he t es t i ng fac i l i t yon D ece m ber17, 2001, cons t i tut ed a r efus al to ta k e a d ru g a n d a lc o h o l te s t in v io la tio n o f th e A M P P . (I

d. ) T hus , t he arbi t r at orconcl uded t hatN et J et s act ed w i t hi n i t s aut hor i t yundert he C B A t o di s char ge Ear l e fora vi ol at i on of t he A M P P . (I

d. ) I n s o r eas oni ng, t he arbi t r at or ’ s sevent een- page de ci s i on “r efe r s t o, quot es fr om and anal y zes t he per t i nentpr ovi s i ons of, ” Mi ch. Fam i l y R es. , 4 7 5 F
. 3 d a t7 5 4 , t h e CB A, the A M P P , the G atew ayL ett er o f U n d erstan d ing , an d 4 9 C
. F
. R
. § 4 0
. 2 6 1 (a)(1). 2 E a rle c o n ten d s th a t th e a rb itrato r w a s n o t “a rg u a b lyc o n stru in g ” th e C B A b e c a u se , in E ar l e’ s vi ew , he w as not obl i gat ed t o s ubm i t t o a drug and al cohol t es tundert he A M PP on D e c e m b e r 1 7 u n til h e a rriv e d a t h is w o rk site , the Ja c k so n v ill e a irp o rt. E a rle b a se s th is cont ent i on on t he not i on that t her e ar e thr ee pr edi cat es t hatm us tbe s at i s fi ed bef or e an
em ploy ee w as obli gated t o sub m i tt o a ra n d o m d rug and al coh ol t est : “t he em ploy ee m ust (1 ) b e a t th e w o rk s ite , (2 ) h a v e re p o rt e d f o r w o rk , and

(3) b e p erf

o rm ing , rea d yto p erf

o rmN o. 06- 4042 6

E ar l e v. N

et Jet s A vi at i on o r im m e d iate lya v a ilab le to p e rf o rm sa f e ty -se n sitiv e f

u n c tio n s.” (A p p e llan t’s B r. 1 7 .) E a rle cont ends t hatbeca us e the arbi tr ator fo und t hathe w as notata w or k s i t e at8: 10 a. m on D e c e m b e r 1 7 th e a rb itrato r c o u ld n o t h a v e “ a rg u a b ly c o n stru e d ” th e c o n tra c t to re q u ire h im t o s ubm i t t o a drug and al cohol t es t . A l t hough E ar l e i s corr ectt hatt he arbi t r at orfound t hat E a rle w a s a t h is ho m e in P e n sa c o la, F lo rid a , a t 8 :1 0 a .m . o n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , the a rb itrato r d id
n o t f in d th a t p ilo ts w e re o n lysu b je c t to d ru g a n d a lco h o l tes t af ter a rriv in g a t a w o rk site (e.g., their assign ed g atew ayairpo rt ). T h e a rbit rator sp ec ifi ca ll yco n side red E arle’s co n tention that h e w as no t at his w o rk
s i t e, t he J ackso n v il le a irpor t , w hen Lohr not i fi ed hi m of t he t es ton D ece m ber17. T he
arbi t r at orconcl uded that t he A M PP di d not addr es s t he ques t i on of how N et J et s w as t o not i fy a pi l otw ho par t i ci pat ed i n t he gat ew ay s y s t em t hathe ors he had be en s el ect ed fora r andom d rug an d alco h o l t est. (J. A
. at 48
. ) E arle co n tend s that the arb itrator’s co n clus ion is co n tr ary to th e foll ow i ng sent ence i n the A M P P : “E m ploy ees w i l l on l y be t est ed for al coh ol w h ile t heyar e att he w or k s i t e ( t hi s coul d i ncl ude ai rpor t s ot her t han ourhom e bas e)
. ” (I d. a t 3 3 0 .) E ar l e cont ends t hat , i n cons i der at i on of t hi s l anguage , t her e w as no gap orambi gui t yi n t he A M PP re l at ed t o not i fi cat i on, beca us e pi l ot s w er e nots ubj ectt o t es t i ng unt i l t heyr eac hed t he w or k s i t e. A l though t he for egoi ng s ent ence acknow l edges t hat t es t i ng m ayt ake pl ace at fac i l i t i es ot hert han N et J et s ’ C ol um bus , O hi o, headqua r t er s , t he A M PP does notaddr es s t he p ro c e ss f o r te stin g a p ilo t w h o is o n a se v e n -d a yto u r o f d u tya n d w h o u se s a g a tew a ya irp o rt. T h u s, th e A M P P d id n o t ad d re ss n o tific a tio n , so it w a s p e rm iss ib le f o r th e a rb itrato r toN o. 06- 4042 7

E ar l e v. N

et Jet s A vi at i on

L ohrand Sm i t h s up p o rt e d Net J et s ’ acc ountof t he not i fi cat i on pr oces s forpi l ot s us i ng 3 t he g at ew ay sy st em , w hil e M i chel supp ort ed E arl e’s i nterpret at i on of the no t i fi cat i on process p e rm itt e d b yth e A M P P . T h e a rb itrato r c re d ited th e tes tim o n yo f L o h r an d S m ith , b a se d in par ton t he fa ct t hat N et J et s had been us i ng t he not i fi cat i on pr ocedur e des cr i bed byL ohrand Sm i t h fors om e t i m e and Local 284 had neve rgr i eved the not i fi cat i on pr ocedur e. ( J
. A
. at48- 4 9 .) c o n s id e r t h e p a s t p ra c tic e s o f th e p a rt ie s . I

n t ’ l Bh d
. o

f Te a ms t e rs , Local519 , 3 3 5 F. 3d at 507- 08. T he arbi tr at orcons i der ed the t es t i m onyof t hr ee w i t nes s es , L ohr , M i t c h e l l M i chel , and R i char d Sm i t h, as t o N et J et s ’ cus t om and pr act i ce f ornot i fy i ng a pi l otw ho i s on a s even- day t ourof dut yand w ho us es a gat ew ayai rpor tt hathe ors he has been sel ec t ed fora r andom drug and al cohol t es t . ( J
. A
. at48- 49. ) L ohr and S m i t h des cr i bed a not i fi cat i on pr ocedur e by
w hi ch Lohr w oul d not i fy a pi l ot us i ng t he gat ew ay s y s t em at hom e on t he fi r s tdayof hi s or h e r t o u r of d u ty a n d d ire c t th e p ilo t to a tes tin g f a c ili ty c lo se to h is or h e r g a te w a y a ir p o r t. (I d. ) T he pr act i ce s etfor t h byL ohrand Sm i t h w as cons i s t ent w i th t he proc es s N et J et s had
u s e d to n o tif

y E a rl e o f h is te s t o n D e c e m b e r 1 7 . (I d. ) Th e arbi t rat or conc l ud ed thatN et Jet s’ pr act i ce a s s etfor t h byL ohrand Sm i t h di d not confl i ct w i t h t he “w or k s i t e” l anguage i n t he A M PP. (I

d. ) Th us, t he di stri ct cou rt corr ect l y con cl ud ed that t he arbitrat or di d n ot i m po se 3 anyaddi t i onal t er m s ; rathe r, the arbi t r at orpr oper l ycons i der ed the i m pl ement at i on of t he agr eement s t hr ough cus t om and pra ct i ce aft er havi ng det er m i ned thatt he agr eement s di d not addr es s t he quest i on of how t o admi ni s t er drug and al cohol t es t s t o pi l ot s w ho us ed a ga t ew ay
a irp o rt.N o. 06- 4042 8

E ar l e v. N

et Jet s A vi at i on

T i t l e 49, s ect i on 40. 261( a) ( 1) of t he C ode of Fede r al R egul at i ons pr ovi des i n r el evant 4 p a rt th a t: (a) A s an em ploy ee, y ou are co nsi dered t o hav e refused t o take an alcoho l t est i f y ou: ( 1) Fai l t o appea rforanyt es t ( exce pt a pr e- empl oy m ent t es t ) w i t hi n a re a so n a b le tim e , as d e ter m in e d b yth e e m p lo y e r, c o n s iste n t w ith appl i cabl e D O T agenc y r egul at i ons , aft erbei ng di r ect ed t o do s o byt he em p loy er. 4 9 C
. F
. R
. § 4 0
. 2 6 1 (a)(1) (2 0 0 1 ) (cu rren t version at 49 C
. F
. R
. § 4 0
. 2 6 1 (a)(1) (2 0 0 7 )). T he arbi t r at oral s o addr es s ed t h e q u es t i on of w hethera del ayi n r eac hi ng a t es t i ng fac i l i t ycoul d cons t i tut e a c on str u ct i ve r efus al of a r andom drug a nd al cohol t es t . T he
a rb i t r a t o rd e t e r mi n e d t h a twh e n t h e AM P P wa s r e a d i n c on j un c t i on wi t h 4 9 C. F
. R. § 4 0 .2 6 1 (a )(1 ), “ it i s u n d e rsto o d th a t to n o t ap p e a r a t a n a lco h o l a n d d ru g tes tin g site ‘w ith in 4
a r eas onabl e t i m e’ aft erbei ng di r ect ed t o d o so i s t he equi val entof a r efus al t o t ake a n alco h o l and d rug test . ” (J.A
. at 42 -43
. ) T h e a rbit rator the n co n side red w h ethe r t h e five h o u rs and fi ft ym i nu t es t hat i t took E arl e t o reach the t est i ng faci l i t yon D ecem ber 17 w as a

“ re a s o n a b le tim e ” a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t it w a s n o t r e a s o n a b le . (Id
. at43. ) I n fi ndi ng t he fi ve hour s and fi ft y m inu tes t o be unr eas onabl e, t he arbi t r at orcons i der ed the def i ni t i on of
r eas onabl e, t he i m por t ance of pr om pt nes s i n t he cond u ctof drug and al cohol t es t s , and E a rl e ’s ju s tif

ic a tio n s f

o r h is d e la yin re a c h in g th e te s tin g f a c ility. (I

d. at43- 44. ) T he
arbi t r at ornot ed t hat E ar l e had offe r ed j us t i fi cat i ons ( e. g. , t r aff i c conge s t i on) fort he del ayof fi ve hour s and fi ft ym i nut es , w hi ch t he arbi t r at or not ed w as an i m pl i ci tacknow l edgment t hat f iv e h o u rs a n d f

if ty m in u te s w a s u n re a s o n a b le in th e a b s e n c e o f a s u f f ic ie n t ju s tif

ic a tio n . (I

d.
a t 4 3 .)N o. 06- 4042 9

E ar l e v. N

et Jet s A vi at i on I n c on s i de r a t i on of

t he a rbi t r a t or ’ s r e fe r e nc e t o a nd a na l y s i s of t he CB A , t he A M PP, t he G at ew ayL et t erof U nder s t andi ng, and 49 C
. F. R
. § 40. 261( a) ( 1) t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t he arbi t r at or“w as doi ng anyt h ing o ther tha n t r y i ng t o r eac h a good- fai t h i nt erpr et at i on of t he contr act . ” Mi ch. Fam i l y R es. , 4 7 5 F .3 d a t 7 5 4
. T h e re f o re , the a rb itrato r w a s “ a rg u a b ly
cons t rui ng” the C B A t oget herw i t h t he i ncorp o r a t e d a g r e e me n t s a n d Fe d e r a l R egul at i ons , and t he arbi t r at i on aw ar d m us tbe enf or ced. III
. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt.