# 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- 22 29

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

Mi dwe st Div is io n - LSH, LLC, do in g b us in es s as Lee's Su m m it Med ic al Cen te r

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Nur se s Un it ed Fo r Im

pr ov ed Pat ie nt Care , CNA/NNOC

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 - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 14 , 20 13
Fil ed : J ul y

2, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

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

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Lee’s Su m

m it Me d i c al Cen te r (“ th e Hos pi ta l” ) te rm in at ed reg is te red nu rs e Gwy nn Pi rn ie aft er rece iv in g a co m pl ai nt th at sh e di d no t gi ve pr om pt at te nt io n to a

pe rs on se ek in g em erg en cy ro om care

. Nur se s Uni te d fo r Im pr ov ed Pat ie nt Care (“ th e
Uni on ”) fil ed a gr ie va nc e on Pi rn ie ’s be half un de r it s co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t

wit h th e Hos pi ta l (th e “ CBA”)

, al le gi ng th e Hos pi ta l la ck ed “ jus t cau se ” to te rm in at e.

Una bl e t o r e s o l v e th e gr ie va nc e, th e Hos pi ta l an d Uni on su bm it te d th e fo ll owi ngis su es fo r bi nd in g arb it rat io n un de r Arti cl e 10 of th e CBA: “ whe th er [th e Hos pi ta l]

ha d just cau se to te rm in at e [Pi rn ie ]? If no t, what sh al l th e rem ed y be ? ” Nearl y on e

y ear aft er Pi rn ie ’s di sc ha rg e, an d two week s be fo re th e arb it rat io n he ari ng , th e
Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns Bo ard (“ NLRB”) de cert ifi ed th e Uni on aft er it di sc la im ed

in te res t in co nt in ui ng to rep res en t Pi rn ie ’s ba rg ai ni ng un it

. The pa rti es no ne th el es s

pr oc eed ed wit h th e he ari ng , st ip u la ti ng th at th e m at te r was pr op erl y be fo re th e
arb it rat or for de ci si on

.

Fo ll owi ng th e he ari ng , th e arb it rat or is su ed hi s fin al de ci si on , co nc lu di ng th e

Hos pi ta l la ck ed jus t cau se t o te rm in at e an d or de rin g th at Pi rn ie be rei ns ta te d wit h

ba ck -p ay fro m th e da te of te rm in at io n to th e da te of rei ns ta te m en t. The Hos pi ta l fil ed

th is de cl arat or y jud gm en t act io n u nd er Sect io n 30 1( c) of th e Lab or Man ag em en t

Rel at io ns Act, 29 U.S.C. § 18 5( c), se ek in g to va cat e th e arb it rat io n award to th e

ex te nt it or de red rei ns ta te m en t an d ba ck -p ay be y on d th e Uni on ’s de cert ifi cat io n. The

Hos pi ta l ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t co nf

i r mi n g th e 1

arb it rat io n award

. App lying th e li m it ed st an da rd of rev ie w go ve rn in g su it s to va cat e
la bo r arb it rat io n award s, we affi rm

. See Uni te d Pap erwo rk ers In t’l Uni on v. Mi sc o,

In c., 48 4 U.S. 29

, 38 (1 98 7) (“ as lo ng as th e arb it rat or is ev en arg ua bl y co ns tru in g or

ap pl y in g th e [CBA] an d act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of hi s au th or it y , th a t a co ur t is

co nv in ced he co m

m it te d s eri ou s er ro r do es no t s uf fic e to ov ert ur n h is de ci si on ”).

1. Bec au se th e m eri ts of an arb it rat or ’s de ci si on are vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le in

an act io n to va cat e hi s award

, th e Hos pi ta l arg ue s on ly th at th e arb it rat or exce ed ed hi s

a u th or it y by or de rin g a rem ed y th at ex te nd ed be y on d th e da te of th e U n i o n ’s

de cert ifi cat io n. A n a r b it rat or ’s au th or it y de riv es fro m an d is li m it ed by th e CBA.

“ His ta sk is li m it ed to co ns tru in g th e m ean in g of th e co ll ect iv e-b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t

so as to effe ct ua te th e co ll e c t i v e in te nt of th e pa rti es .” Barr en ti ne v. Ark .-Bes t

Frei gh t Sy s., In c., 45 0 U.S. 72 8, 74 4 (1 98 1)

, ci ti ng Alex an de r v. Gard ne r-Den ve r Co

.,

The Hon or ab le Sco tt O. W rig ht

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-41 5 U.S. 36

, 53 (1 97 4)

. Beyond qu es ti on , an arb it rat or m ay award rei ns ta te m en t an d

ba ck -p ay th at in cl ud es a pe rio d aft er th e go ve rn in g CBA ex p i r e d

, s o l o ng as th e
arb it rat or in fas hi on in g th is rem ed y was in te rp ret in g an d ap pl y in g th e CBA, an d no t

si m pl y “ di sp en s[ in g ] h i s own br an d of in du st ria l jus ti ce.” Uni te d St eel wor ke rs v.

Ent erp ris e W he el & Car Co rp ., 36 3 U.S. 59 3, 59 7 (1 96 0) ; se e Van W at ers & Ro ge rs , In c. v. In t’l Bh d. o f Team st ers , 56 F.3d 11 32 , 11 36 -3 7 (9 th Cir . 19 95 ).

In th is cas e, th e CBA ex pr es sl y au th or iz ed arb it rat io n of “ m at te rs whi ch aro se

pr io r to th e ti m e of ex pi rat io n of th e A g r e e men t,” su ch as Pi rn ie ’s te rm in at io n.
Arti cl e 1 0, Se ct io n 6 .D. Co ns is te nt wit h th is pr ov is io n, th e arb it rat or co nd uc te d a n

ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d au th or ed a fif ty-pag e op in io n, co nc lu di ng , “J u s t c a us e fo r
di sc ip li ne is a co nt ract rig ht th at

. . . su rv iv ed th e NLRB or de r.” The CBA ex pr es sl y

gr an te d au th or it y to m ak e th at de ci si on

. Mo reo ve r, th e pa rti es su bm it te d th e di sp ut e
fo r fi na l de te rm in at io n by t he arb it rat or af te r th e Uni on was d ecer ti fie d, s ti pu la ti ng
th at th e is su es to be res ol ve d were whe th er th e Hos pi ta l ha d jus t cau se to te rm in at e,

an d i f no t, wh at

th e ap pr op ri at e re med

y wo ul d b e . “ [W] e wil l n ot gi ve cred en ce t o [th e Hos pi ta l’s ] arg um en t th at th e arb it rat or ha d no au th or it y to de ci de an is su e it

ag reed to su bm it .” Hom es ta ke Mi ni ng Co

. v. Uni te d St eel wor ke rs , 15 3 F.3 d 67 8, 68 0
(8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. And whe n th e pa rti es st ip ul at ed th at th e is su es

su bm it te d to an arb it ra t or in cl ud ed

, “ wha t sh al l th e rem ed y be ,” th e Hos pi ta l can
ha rd ly arg ue th at th e arb it rat or “ act ed ou ts id e hi s au th or it y ” in fas hi on in g a rem ed y ,

un le ss th at rem ed y was ex pr es sl y pr oh i b it ed by th e CBA. Am al ga m at ed Tran si t

Uni on Loc al No. 14 98 v. Je ffer so n Part ne rs , 22 9 F.3 d 11 98

, 12 00 -0 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ).

Of co ur se , an arb it rat or may no t ig no re pe rs ua si ve ev id en ce th at a pa rti cu la r

rem ed y was co ns id ered an d “ ex pl ic it ly reject ed ” in ne go ti at in g th e CBA. See Bu reau
of Eng rav in g, In c. v. Grap hi c Co m m c’n In t’l Uni on Loc al 1B

, 16 4 F.3 d 42 7, 43 0 (8 th

C i r

. )

, cert

. de ni ed

, 52 8 U.S. 82 1 (1 99 9)

. Bu t rei ns ta te m en t an d ba ck -p ay a r e

un iv ers al ly acce pt ed la bo r ar bit ra tio n re m ed ie s; the re fo re, li m it at io ns on th is rem ed ia l

po wer wil l no t be li gh tl y im pl ie d. “ W he n an arb it rat or is co m m is si on ed to in te rp ret

-3

-an d ap pl y th e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t, he is to br in g hi s in fo rm ed jud gm en t

to be ar in ord er to reac h a fai r so lu ti on of a pr ob le m

. Thi s is es pe ci al ly tru e whe n it

co m es to fo rm

ul at in g rem ed ie s.” Ent erp ris e W he el , 3 63 U.S. a t 59 7. As t he Nin th

Ci rcu it ex pl ai ne d in ILW U Loc al 14 2 v. Lan d & Co ns tru ct io n Co

., 49 8 F.2 d 20 1, 20 4
(9 th Ci r. 19 74 ), whe n th ere is no pr ov is io n in th e CBA li m it in g ba ck -p ay to a pe rio d

en di ng wit h it s exp ira ti on , “ [i]t fol lo ws tha t th e arb it rat or was fai th fu l to th e [CBA]

in ho ld in g t h a t i t s te rm in at io n ne it he r ou st ed hi m of juri sd ic ti on to arb it rat e no r

li m it ed ba ck pa y

to th at accr

ua bl e to th e d at e o f te rm in at io n.”

2. The Hos pi ta l arg ue s th at th es e ge ne ral pr in ci pl es do no t ap pl y be cau se th e
CBA d id no t s im

pl y ex pi re, it was “ vo id ed ” whe n th e NLRB decer ti fie d th e Uni on

. W e reject th is co nt en ti on . The Hos pi ta l ci te s no NLRB de ci si on s or ru li ng s gi vi ng
th is eff e ct to de cert ifi cat io n, an d we are co nf id en t th e Bo ard di d no t in te nd th at it s
de cert ifi cat io n wou ld nu ll ify gr ie va nc e an d arb itr at ion pr oc ee din gs pe nd in g un de r th e
Uni on ’s CBA. Cf. Uni on Swit ch & Si gn al

, 31 6 N.L.R.B. 10 25

, 10 36 (1 99 5)

. In ou r
vi ew, so lo ng as th e go ve rn in g CBA au th or iz es -- in ot he r wor ds

, do es no t pr oh ib it

--

po st -ex pi rat io n rem ed ie s fo r pr e-ex pi rat io n gr ie va nc es , th e m an ne r in whi ch th e CBA

ex pi res ha s n o e ffec t o n t he arb it rat or ’s au th or it y

.

3. In arg ui ng th at th e arb it rat or ex ceed ed hi s au th or it y , th e Hos pi ta l rel ie s on

Seco nd an d F ift h Ci rcu it cas es in whi ch co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en ts ex pi red

aft e r a r b i t rat or s ha d or de red rei ns ta te m en t an d ba ck -p ay

. Em ph as iz in g th at th e
arb it rat or s ha d no op po rtu ni ty to co ns id er th is rel ev an t ch an ge in ci rcu m st an ces , th e

co ur ts li m it ed th e arb it rat or s’ ba ck -p ay rem ed y to th e da te of ex pi rat io n. See In t’l

Ch em

. W or ke rs Uni on , Loc al No. 22 7 v. BASF W y an do tt e Co rp ., 77 4 F.2 d 43

, 45 -4 6
(2 d Ci r. 19 85 ); Pi on eer Natu ral Res

. USA, In c. v

. P a p e r , A ll ie d In du s. Ch em

. &

Ene rg y W or ke rs In t’l Uni on Loc al 4- 48 7, 33 8 F.3 d 44 0, 44 1- 42 (5 th Ci r.), am en di ng

32 8 F.3 d 8 1 8 ( 5t h Ci r. 20 03 ). Tho se de ci si on s di d no t qu es ti on th e arb it rat or s’

au th or it y to m ak e th e award s b ei ng rev ie wed

. The y si m pl y li m it ed jud ic ia l

en fo rcem en t of th e arb it rat or s’ rem ed ie s ba se d up on po st -arb it rat io n ci rcu m st an ces ,

-4

-de ci si on s refl ect in g th e eq ui ta bl e pr in ci pl e “ th at a so un d jud ic ia l di sc ret io n m ay cal l

fo r th e m od ifi cat io n of th e te rm s of an in jun ct iv e de cree if th e ci rcu m st an ces , whe th er
of law o r fac t, ob ta in in g a t t he ti m e o f it s i ss ua nc e h av e ch an ge d, o r ne w on es ha ve
si nc e ari se n.” Sy s. Fed ’n No. 91 v. W rig ht

, 36 4 U.S. 64 2, 64 7 (1 96 1)

. Here, th e
ci rcu m st an ces of th e Uni on ’s de cert ifi cat io n an d th e CBA’s ex pi rat io n were kn own

to , and ex pr es sl y

co ns id ered by the arb it rat or in m ak in g h is award

.

4. The Hos pi ta l fu rth er arg ue s th at Pi rn ie lo st al l CBA jo b p r o t ect io ns
fo ll owi ng th e Uni on ’s de cert ifi cat io n. The refo re, as an at -wil l em pl oyee, Pi rn ie m ay

no t be rei ns ta te d an d award ed ba ck -p ay aft er de cert ifi cat io n be cau se th at wou ld pu t

he r in a po si ti on su pe rio r to ot he rs in th e ba rg ai ni ng un it

. Of co ur se , th is is an at ta ck

on th e fai rn es s of th e arb it rat or ’s rem ed y , no t on hi s au th or it y

. Mo reo ve r, it as su m es

ev id en ce no t in th e reco rd

. The Hos pi ta l p r es en te d no ev id en ce to th e arb it rat or

reg ard in g th e pr act ic al effe ct of un io n de cert ifi cat io n on m em be rs of th e ba rg ai ni ng

un it

. Fo r ex am

pl e, th ere was no ev id en ce tha t, fol lo win g th e CBA’s ex pi rat io n, th e

Hos pi ta l u ni la te ral ly chan ge d t he ter m s an d c on di ti on s o f em pl oym en t t o a n a t-wi ll

rel at io ns hi p. Nor was th ere ev id en ce th at Pi rn ie wou ld ha ve be en di sc ha rg ed on th e
da y aft er ex pi rat io n if th e arb it rat io n ha d pr oc eed ed m or e ex pe di ti ou sl y an d sh e ha d

be en rei ns ta te d be fo r e t h e C B A ex pi red

. It m ay be th at an arb it rat or wou ld be

“ di sp en s[ in g] hi s own br an d of in du st ria l jus ti ce ” i f h e ig no red su ch ev id en ce, or

ev id en ce th at th e CBA ex pi red be cau se po or bu si ne ss co nd it io ns el im in at ed th e job

of a g r i e v a n t se ek in g fu ll rei ns ta te m en t an d ba ck -p ay , th e fact si tu at io n in Uni te d

St eel wor ke rs v. Ove rly Mfg

. Co

., 43 8 F. Su pp

. 9 2 2

, 9 2 7 (W. D. Pa. 19 77 ). W e

ex pr es s no vi ew on th os e is su es

. Rat he r, we co nc lu de th at

, on th e reco rd be fo re th e
arb it rat or in th is c a s e , t h e r e is si m pl y no ba si s to co nc lu de th at th e arb it rat or ’s

ex erci se of hi s rem ed ia l au th or it y fai le d t o “ dr aw it s es se nc e” fro m th e CBA.

Ent erp ris e Wheel , 36 3 U.S. at 59 7.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-5

-