## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 3271 M ERRY MAN E X CA VA T I ON, I NC ., Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. I NTERNATI ONA L U NION OF O PE RAT I NG E NG INEERS, L OC AL 150, etal., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C5160

—V irgin ia M . Ken dall, Judg e.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 21, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 21, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R O OK, Chie f Judg e, a nd M A NI ON a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judg e. The Inter nati onalU ni on o f Op er atin g E ngi neer s, Local15 0, br ought a s er i es ofgr i evan ce s ag ains t M er rym an Exc av at i o n, Inc . f o rv i o l at i o ns ofthe parti es’ co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent. Thi rt een g r i e v a n c e s w e r e a r g u e d b e f o r e a j o i n tg r i e v a n c e c o mm i tte e, as p ro vi ded in that agr eem ent. Local15 0 pre vai l ed2 N o. 09

- 3271 on ni ne gr i evance s, and w as aw ar ded a tot alo f$9 6, 364. 72 by the j oint com m i tte e. M er ry m an fi l ed thi s a cti on see ki ng to vac ate the j oint com m i tte e’ s a w ar ds und er § 3 01 ofthe Labor M anage m ent Rel ati ons A ct, 29 U. S

. C. § 1 85; Lo ca l1 50 c o unt er cl ai m ed to e nf o r ce the ni ne awards. The di str i ct c ourtg ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm en t to Lo ca l1 50
. Be ca us e th e par ti es a g r eed thatthe j oi ntc o mm i t t e e ’ s a wa r ds wo ul d b e fi na la nd n o ts ubj ect to re vi ew , and ther e i s no ev i dence thatM er ry m an was n o te q u a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d o n th e c o mmi t t e e , w e a ffi r m.

I
. I n 200 0, M erry m an si gned a M em or andu m o fA gr eem en t, a do ptingthe t er m s o fthe H ea vya nd Hi g hway a nd U nd er gr ound A gr eem ent, a col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent b etween Local15 0 o fthe Inte rnat i onalU ni on o f O perat i ng Engi neer s a nd the M i d-A m er i ca Reg i onal Barga i ni ng Associ ati on ( M A R B A )

. Local15 0 r epres ents m embe r s i n th e co ns truct i o n i ndus try thr o ug ho ut I l l i n o i s , I o wa, a n d In d i a n a ; MA R B A r e p r e s e n t s e mp loy er s in th e C h ica g o a r e a for c olle c tiv e b ar ga in in g in th e con stru ction ind us try

— M er ry m an i s n ot a m em ber o fMAR B A. T h e a g r e e me n tc o n t a i n e d ty p i c a lp r o v i si o ns re quir i ng that work be a ssi gned to Local15 0 m em ber s, when av ai l ab l e, a nd s et tingthe wag es a nd wor k in g condi ti ons. I t a l so re quir ed gr i evance s

— defi ne d as “a ny c l a i m o rdi s pu t e i nv o l v i nga n i nt e r pr e t a t i o n o ra ppli cati on o fthe A gr eem ent”

— to exhaust a n i nfo rm al di spu te re so l ut i o n pr o ce dur e, c ul m i na tingi n a he ar i ng bef or e a j oi nt gr i evance com m i tte e. Such co m m i tte esN o. 09

- 3271 3

ar e co m pri sed o fan e qual num bero fr epres entat i ves fro m the em plo yer s’ as soc i ati on and Loca l15 0. A deci si on bya maj o r i ty vo te o fthi s j o i ntc o m m i tt ee i s “fi na la nd bi nd i ng o n al lpart i es and i nd i vi du al s b ou n d by [ the] ag r ee m en t, ” an d no a p p ea li s per m i tt ed. I fthe j o i nt com m i tte e deadl ock s, the ag reem ent then al l ows f or f or m alarbi tr ati on pro ceedi ngs. Begi nning in A pri l20 06, se ver alLocal15 0 business age nts ini tiated gr i evance s a gainst M er ry m an f orvi ol ati o ns o fv ar i o us pr o vi si o ns o fthe c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng agreem en t. T en o f t h ese grievan ces w ere brou gh t before the j oi nt gr i evance co m m i tte e fora hear i ng o n A u gust 2, 20 06. T he r e wer e th r ee e m pl o y err epr es en ta ti ve s atthe he ar i ng, a nd a num ber o funi o n mem be r s. S o m e o fthe unio n m em ber s w er e ther e to prese nt gr i evances they ha d fi l ed as b us i ne ss a g en ts , o th er s to r epr es en t th e unio n on the j oi n t c om m i tte e; a few pl aye d both r ol es b utdi d n o tv o t e o n g r i e v a nc e s the y e a c h pr e s e nt e d. M er r y m anwas r epr es en te d b y i tsa t t o r ne y, S co ttHanl o n, de sp ite t h e ag re em en t’s p ro hibi ti on o n att or neys speaking atj oin t c om m i tte e hea rings. In re sponse to an o bj ec ti o n b y S te ve n Ci sco, Loc al1 50 ’ s co r r es po ndi ng secr eta ry and a m em ber of the j oi nt com m i tte e, H an l on i nd i cate d that h e w as em plo yed byM er ry m an as i ts “busi ness re prese ntati ve” and no t functi oni ng as its at to rn ey at the he ar i ng. H anl on obj ecte d to the pr ese nce ofLocal15 0 m em berCha rl es A ugust, wh o w as a defen dan t i n a pr ev i o us l aws ui t fi l ed byM er rym an, a nd obj ecte d to hi s v oting o n any gr i evance . H an l on a l so o bj ec te d t o the c o m m i tt ee ’ s j ur i sdi ct i o n o ve rmany o fthe4 N o. 09

- 3271 p ar tic u lar grie va n c es , ar g u in g t h at th ey w er e u n tim ely fi led un d er th e term s of th e agreem en t an d th a t th ere w as no m eani n gful att em pt to se ttl e. A fterthe com m i tte e hear d the fi rs t tw o gr i evance s, o ne o fthe em plo yerr epresenta ti ves o n the com m i tte e, J ose ph Vigno cchi, had to l eave ; the com m i tte e unan i m ousl y a gr eed to pro ceed w i th o nl y tw o vot i ng m em b ers o n each si de. H anl on obj ecte d, ar gui ng tha t the pro ceduralr ule s r equi re d at l eas t three vo ti ng m em ber s forea ch sid e, but was i nfo rm ed that th e d eci si on was “be tw een the co m m i ttee
. ” The m ood of the he ar i ng o nl y wors ened fro m i ts i ni m i calbeg i nning, and Cis co and H an l on bi cker ed th r o ug ho ut : in re spo ns e to Hanl o n’ s que st i o ns o n the r ul es o fpr o ce dur e, Ci sc o t o l d hi m he ha d a c o py a nd ask ed, “H av e you gr aduated fro m fi rs t g ra de? Can you r ea d, my fr i en d?” an d a ddi ti o na lpr o ce dur alo bj ec ti o ns elic ite d “I ain ’t g oin g t o s it h er e a n d liste n to th is . . .” fr o m Ci sc o . Ci sc o v o ci fer o us l y a r g ue d i n f avor o fthe unio n’s posi ti ons thro ughout the hear i ng. Six o f the gr i evance s were re l ati vel y m i norcl ai m s that M er r y m a n h ad hired non -Loc al 150 m em bers w he n th ere wer e Lo ca l1 50 mem be r s o n the ou t- o f

- wor kl i st, a nd M errym an put u p v ery l i tt l e defen se a t th e he ar i ng ; the parti es set tl ed tw o of these, the com m i tte e deadl ock ed on o ne, and M er ry m an was or d er ed to pay a t ota lo f $172 5. 44 to Local15 0’ s a ssi sta nce fun d for the r emainingthr e e . T wo we r e c l a i ms tha tMer r y mani m prop er l y t er m i na ted Local15 0 m em ber s without a dequ ate noti ce o r cause

— al so r el at i vely m in o ri n t er m s o fthe damag es s o ug ht

— an d the co m m i tt ee de adl o ck ed o n o ne ofthe s e c l a i ms a nd a wa r de d $ 6 6 0
. 6 2 t o the i nj ur edN o. 09

- 3271 5 unio n m em beri n the ot h er. The fi naltwo uni on gr i evance s, wh i ch acc ounted f orthe vastm aj or i ty ofda mag e s s o ught, c l a i med tha tMer r y mano pe r a t ed m achi nerywitho ut the contr actual ly re quir ed l abor er s; th e u ni on won both ofthes e a nd was awarded $77, 426. 96 f orM er ry m an’ s ongoi ng f ai l ure to have a ni ght o perat or f ora gener ato r that pow er ed a pum p 2 4 h ou rs a day, and $8, 046.16 for i ts f ai l ure to em plo y ase cond unio n m em beras an “ oi l er ” o n a l ar ge dig gi ng m achi ne. T ha t O ctob er, the j oint com m ittee hea rd t hree m ore gr i evance s a gainst M er ry m an. H anl on a gain re prese nted M errym an as it s “bu siness repres en tative,” over Cisco’s o bj ectio n, a nd the t wo pi ck ed up the i rho st i l i tyr i g ht w her e th eyha d l eft o ff

. Hanl o n a g ain obj ec te d t o the j uri sdic tio n o fthe com m i tte e t o hearthe gr i evance s bec au se som e o f t he m em bers of the com m ittee w ere bi ase d du e t o the pendency o fthi s l aw sui t, al read y fi l ed i n chal l enge to the Au gu st aw ar ds. H e a l so obj ecte d to t he i nd i vi du algr i evance s o n proc eduralgr ounds, ar guing tha t the uni on had notsa ti sfied the pregr i evance st eps bym akinga goo d-f ai th at tem pt to re so lve th e d isp u te s. T h e join t c o m m itt ee res olv ed all th ree g ri evance s in the unio n’s f avo r by m aj or i ty vot e. F o ro ne i ns ta nc e o f h i r i ngno n- Lo ca l1 50 mem be r s, the co m m i tt ee a war ded $4 51
. 27; f o ra l ay o ffo ve rthe pho ne i n vi ol ati on o fthe agre em ent, $5 49. 80 ( part to be pai d to th e i nj ur ed Lo ca l1 50 mem be ra nd pa r t to the union’s fringe b enefi t fund ) ; and f orr unning apu m p a t n i ght for a week w i thout an o perat or, $7, 262. 52. M errym an fil ed i ts initi al com p lai nt i n th e d istri ct cou rt i n S ept embe r2 00 6, s ee k i ng, unde rs ec ti o n 30 1 o fthe6 N o. 09

- 3271 L ab or M an ag em en t R ela tio n s A c t, to v a c at e t h e s ix aw ar ds th e j oi nt co m m i tte e e nter ed at the Au gust 2 hear i ng. The c om pla i nt al l ege d vi ol ati ons ofthe col l ect i v e b a r g a i n i n ga g r e e me n t, i n c l u d i n gth a tth e j o i n tc o mmi t t e e w a s n o t co mp o s e d o fa n e q u a ln u mb e ro fe mplo yeran d union re prese ntati ves and that the i nd i vi du al gr iev an c es w er e m a r r e d by va riou s fa ilu re s t o c om p ly w i th m andator y di spute r eso l uti on s teps. In add i ti on to Lo ca l1 50 a nd M ARBA , a nd de spi te the f ac t th atthe co mpl a i n ts o u g h to n l y a d e c l a r a t i o n v a c a t i n gth e j o i nt com m i tt ee a war ds, i t na m ed as de fen dan ts e ve r y o ne prese nt atthe A ugust h ea rin g. By J une 200 7, afterse ver al plead ing a m endm ents, M er ry m an’ s thi rd and fi nal am ended com pla i nt also i ncl ud ed a r equest to vacat e the Octoberj oi nt co m m i tte e aw ards, and so ught r el i ef ag ains t th e i ndi vi dualde fen dan ts for al l eg edly c o nspi ring t o b re ach the i r fi du ci ar y duti es to M er ry m an and fo r conspi ring to defra ud i t in vi ol atio n o fthe Racke t e er Influen ced Corru p t O rgan izations A ct (RIC O ). Local15 0 co unterc l ai m ed to enf or ce the awards. The f o l l o wi ngF eb r ua r y, the di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed th e RI CO char ge w i th prej ud i ce a nd M er ry m an h as not appe al ed this di smi ss al

. The pa r ti es fi l ed cr o ss - m o ti o ns for su m m ar y jud gm en t o n th e re m ain in g c ou n ts . Six m onths l at er, the di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d Lo ca l1 50’s m oti on a n d denied M er ry m an’ s. I t hel d that m any o f M er ry m an’s al l ega ti ons had been wai ved due to i ts f ai l ure to ra i se them befor e the j oi nt co m m i tte e, and that th e no n- wai ve d pr o ce dur ala r g um en ts wer e wi th o ut m er i t. I t co nsi dere d M er ry m an’ s a l l ega ti ons ofbi as

— raised only i n M errym an ’s respon se t o L ocal 150’sN o. 09

- 3271 7

mo t i o n f o rs u mma r y j u d g men t

— an d, afteri ts own sca n of the r e c o r d f o r e v i de nc e o f b i a s o r pa r t i a l i t y, i t s aw no “ dir ect evi dence” o f“e vi dent part i al i ty. ” F i nal l y, i t found the st ate l aw ci vi lco nspir acy an d breach of fi du ci ar y du ty cl ai m s preem pted by sect i on 301 because they re q u ire d an i nter preta ti on o fthe col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent. M er ry m an appeal s.

II. W e r evi ew de nov o a d istri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on o n cr oss m ot ion s fo r su m m ar y jud gm en t. Prat eIns t al l at i ons, Inc . v. C hic ago R egio na l C o un cil o f C a rpen ters , 60 7 F
. 3d 467, 47 0 ( 7thCi r . 2 0 1 0 )

. Bu to urc o ns i de r a t i o n o fthe j o i ntc o mm i ttee ’ s underl yi ng deci si on i s a notherm att er : as l ong as th e par ti es a g r ee d tha t th i s m etho d o fdi sp ut e r es o l uti on would be bi nd i ng, i t i s “n ot open t o the c ourt s t o re w ei gh the m er i ts ofthe gr i evance . ” G enera l D rivers, Wa r e h o u s e me n a n d He l p e rs , L o c a l 8 9 v . Ris s & Co. , 37 2 U
. S. 517, 519 (1963 ). I n their b rie f s, the parti es to thi s a pp ealse em to have tr ea te d th e j o i ntc o m m i tt ee a t ti m es a s i fi t wer e a g enui ne arbitration p a n e l. T he ir con fusion on this poin t is un d ers ta n d ab le in vie w of so m e o f ou r p re vio u s o p in ion s. See Chic ago Cart ageCo. v. Int ’ l Bhd. of Te am s t e rs , Lo ca l 71 0, 65 9 F.2 d 82 5, 82 7 (1 98 1); Thom as v. U nite d P arce l Serv., Inc. , 89 0 F. 2d 909, 9 21 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89)

. In any eve nt, a federa l co urt “ r et ains the i nde pen den t po wert o i den ti fy a nd apply the pr operconstr ucti on ofgoverni ng l aw . ” Kam e n v . K e m p e r Fin a nc ia l Serv ices, Inc., 500 U
. S. 90, 99 (1991);8 N o. 09

- 3271 I SIInt ’l, In c. v. Bor de n L adne rGe r vai s LL P , 25 6 F
. 3d 548, 55 1 (7 th C i r . 2 00 1) (“ Fe d er al c ou rt s a re en tit led to ap p ly th e ri gh t bod y of law , w he th er th e p arties na m e it or not.”). T h is c as e c ry st alliz es th e p ro b lem m u c h m or e s h ar p ly than o ur pre vi ous c ase s hav e. W e w i sh to m ake cl ear that a j oi nt co m m i tte e i s no t a ge nuine arbi tr ati on su bj ec t t o th e F e d e r al A rb itr at ion A c t (F A A ) an d th e fu ll requ irem e n t s of im p artiali ty th at ap p ly to gen uin e arbi tr ati on. A f ai l ure to com plywith a j oi nt co m m itt ee aw ar d i s a br each o f a federa ll aborco ntra ct s ubj ect to sect i on 3 01 j uri sdic tio n

— not an FAA act i on. S ee R iss & Co. , 372 U .S. at 5 1 9. T h e b as ic is su e w e m u st d ec id e is w hetherany ci rcum sta nces j usti fy M er ry m an’ s r efusalto com plywith the j oi nt co m m i ttee aw ar ds i n thes e g ri evan ce s . I fn o t, th e n Me r r y ma n h a s b r e a c h e d th e r e l e va nt l aborco ntra ct b y r efusi ng to co m ply

. Me r r y m a n ’ s a r g u m e n t s o n a p p e a lth a tth e j o i n tc o mm i tte e a w ar d shoul d not be en for ced can b e g ro up ed i n t o th r e e b a s i c c o n t e n t i o n s : fi r s t, th a tth e j o i n tc o mm i tte e hea ring and the dispute re soluti on proc es s as a w hol e w er e m ar re d b y num er ous proce du ra lerr ors; seco nd , thatthe j oi nt co m m i tte e e xceed ed it s a uthor i ty und erthe c o nt r a c tb y o r de r i ngtha ta wa r ds b e p a i d t o the uni on a ssi sta nce fu n d, ra therthan i nd i vi du al unio n m em ber s; an d, thi rd, thato n to p ofi ts othe r f ai l i ngs, the j oin t c om m itt ee w as bi ase d against Me r r y ma n a n d p a r t i a lt o w a r d L o c a l1 5 0
. B u ta s we have note d , a l ldi sputes invol vi ng the appli cati on o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e a g r e e me n t a r e s u bj e c t t o t he bindi ngdi spu te r es o l ut i o n pr o ce dur es c ont aine d i n theN o. 09

- 3271 9

The d is tr ic t court hel d that M errym an w aived judici al revie w 1 ofm a n y o fi t s s p e c i fi c c o n t e n t i o n s wh e n i tf a i l e d t o p r e s en t its arg u m en ts be fore t h e j o i n t com m ittee, as w ou ld b e the case i fth i s we r e a r e v i e w o fa n a rb i t r a t i on awar d. B u ta s we have al r e a dy n o t e d, th e j o i n tc o mm i t t e e d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i on is fund am ental ly differentfrom arbit rat ion. An d j ust as “pe rmi t t i n g p a r t i e s t o k e e p s i l e n td u r i n g a rb i t r a t i o n a nd rai se argum ents i n enf orcem ent proceedings wo uld un derm ine th e p u rp ose o f arb itratio n, w hich is to p ro v id e a fast (co n tin u ed ...) agr eem ent. The o nl y ar gu m ent that M er ry m an m ay p ro perl y m ake i n thi s l i ti gat i on i s that i t di d not r e c e i v e th e p r o c e d u r es to wh i c h i ta g r e e d , a n d s o we consi der i ts ar gum ents i n thi s l i ght.

A . G r i eva nce Pro cedures M er rym anc o nt en ds th atthe j o i ntc o m m i tt ee he ar i ng w as f atal ly fl aw ed proce du ra l l y b ecause Local15 0 d id not fol l ow the m ult i sta ge gr i evance r eso l uti on pro cedure outl i ned i n the agr eem ent. Thi s pro cess i nvol ves i nfo rm alnon-bi nd i ng se ttl em ent ne got i atio ns as wellas an infor m alb i ndi ngj o i ntg r i ev an ce c o m m i tt ee he ar i ng f orunsett l ed dis pu tes. F inal l y, i fthe j oi nt co m m i tte e c an n ot re ach a bi nd i ng deci si on bym aj or i ty vot e, f or m alarbi tr ati on be gi ns. M er ry m an fi rs t co m pla i ns thatthe com m i tte e shoul d not have hear d m any of the gr i evance s because the union f ail ed to f o l l o w the r equi r ed st eps b efo r e br i ng i ngthe gr i evance s t o the j oi nt com m i tte e. A chall enge to the pre- 110 N o. 09

- 3271

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 and inex pensive res oluti on of labor dis pu tes, ” Nat i o na l Wr e ck i ng C o. v. Int’ l Bhd. of

Teamst ers, Loca l 710 , 9 9 0 F. 2 d 9 5 7, 960- 61 ( 7th Cir

. 1993) , s o too wo uld a p plying a s tr ic t waiver und erm ine the pu rpose ofj ointcom m it tee aw ards. Proced ural nice ties are th e v ery sort of form a l i t i e s t h at the p arties seek to a v o i d w h e n th e y c o n t r a c tt o s u b s t i t u t e i n f o r ma l me c h a n i s ms f or f or m al arbi t ra t i on or ju d i c i al r evi ew. Her e, no on e i nvol ved h as an y tr ai ni ng o r ex per t i s e i n l eg al pr oc ee di ngs

— l awyer s for the par t i es ar e note venal l owed t o s pea k. Me r r y mana r g u e s th a twe s houl d f o l l o w M
. J
. El ec t ri c, Inc. v. 2 Int’ l Un i on of

Op. Eng’ rs, Loca l 150 , 20 03 W L 216 40 47 4, at *5 ( N
. D. I l l

. , J ul y 1 0, 2 00 3) , wher ei n the c our tr ea s one d thatthe m ere p re se n ce ofa great er num ber ofunion repres entat ives at a j ointcom m it tee heari ng v iol ated the plai n langu age ofan (co n tin u ed ...) gr i evance pro cedures ap p ro ved by the j oi nt co m m i tte e, ho we v e r, i s a “ c l a i m o rdi s pu t e i nv o l v i nga n i nt e r pr eta
tion or app li cation of th e A g r eem en t” an d therefore subj ect to bi nd i ng re soluti on by the j oin t com m i tte e. Ris s & Co. , 37 2 U.S

. at51 9. Consi dered i n thi s l i ght, M er r y m an ’ s fi r sta r g um ent is r ea di l y di spo se d: a s l o ng as the j o i ntc o m m i tt ee was p rop er l y c o m po se d, i t ha d the a utho r i t y t o r e s o l v e the di s pu t e o v e rwh e the rLo c a l1 50 f ol l owed the properpre - gr i evance pro cedures. M er ry m an r ai ses two other proce du ra lcl ai m s that a t l ea sts upe r fi ci al l y a tt ac kthe c o m po si ti o n o fthe j o i nt com m ittee i tself. Fi rst, it argues th at th ere w ere m ore unio n re prese ntati ves than em plo yerr epres en tat i ves pr es en t atthe j o i ntc o m m i tt ee he ar i ng . Buti t ha s no 2N o. 09

- 3271 11

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 i d e n t i c a l a g r e e me n tr e q u i r i n g e q u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . We d isa g re e: M .J. E lec tr ic ove rreached by re vi ewi ng the m er i t s of the j ointcom m it tee ’ s int erpret ati on of the equal r epres entat i on pro vi s i on i n the agr ee m en t
. To re i t er at e: i t d oe s not m atter w he the r the joint co m m i ttee’s interp reta tion is cor re ct, o n l y th a tth e p a r t i e s a g r e e d th a tth e jo i n tc o m m i t t e e ’s int er p retati on w ould b e binding. M oreover, M errym an has ab an d on ed the a rg u m en t it m ad e b elow tha t L o cal 15 0, as a par t y t o M .J. E lec tr ic, wa s p rec l uded fro m r el i t i gat i ng the eq u a l re p re se n ta t i o n issu e. L on g v. Teachers’R et i rem ent Sy st em o f Illin o is , 585 F. 3d 344, 349 ( 7th Cir. 20 0 9 ) ( “[ U ] nsupp orte d a n d u n d er d ev el o p ed ar g u m en ts a re w a iv ed .”). At or al ar gum en t, M er ry m an’ s at t or ne y c oul d n ot poi ntus 3 to a ny evi denc e that i t had eve n at t em pt ed t o uncov er in di s c ove ry the br ea kdown ofthe j oi ntc om m i t t ee vot e on e a c h gr i e va nc e , whi c h wou l d s ur e l y be a pr e r e q ui s i t e t o un c ov eri ng b ias on the p a rt o f the m aj ority ofpanel m em bers w ho vo ted i n Lo cal 150’ s f avor. evi dence thatLocal15 0 had m or e v ot in g repr ese ntati ves, or eve n that ther e w er e an unequal num ber ofr epres entati ve s pr es ent d ur i ngthe e xe cut i ve s es si o n in whi chthe co m m i tt ee mem be r s ca stthe i rv o te s. S o i t ca nno t ar g ue 3 th a t i t wa s un de r r e pr e s e nt e d i n the ul t i mat e vo te, m er ely tha t i t di sa g r ee s wi ththe manne ri n whi chthe j oint com m i tte e handl ed i ts proce edi ngs. A co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng agre em ent c oul d l ay out detai l ed proce du ra l rul es f orj oi nt co m m i tte e hea rings, but this a g r ee m en t d oe s n ot . M er ry m an rec eiv ed th e p ro c es s t o w h ich it a g r e e d.12 N o. 09

- 3271 Secon d , M errym an argue s tha t the re w as an in s u ffi c i e n tn u mb e ro fr e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o e s t ab l i s h aqu o r u m. Butthe g r i ev an ce p r o vi si o ns do no t r equi r e a m i ni m um numbero fr epr es en ta ti ve s, o nl y e qua lr epr es en ta ti o n, and an equal l y c om p os ed j oi nt co m m i tte e deci ded that i t would p ro ceed with onl y tw o re prese ntati ves fro m ea chs i de. M er r y m ana r g ues t ha t th i s dec i si o n was i nc o nsi st en t with the c o m m i tt ee ’ s o wn pr o ce dur alr ul es , b ut thos e s epara te proce du ra lr ule s do not f or m a part of the a gr eem ent.

B . Awar ds t o F und s B en efittin g U n ion M em b ers M er r y m ana l so c ha l l en g es the d eci si o n b y the j o i nt co mm i t t e e t o de s i g na t e the a wa r ds t o fun ds ma i nt ai ned by th e un ion rathe r than to spe cific u nion m em bers th em s e l v e s . It ar gu es th at th is is a vio lat ion of A rt icle I, Se c tio n 11 o ft h e c olle c tiv e b ar ga in in g a gr ee m en t, in whi chthe em pl o y er“ [ a] g r ee s to c o m pen sa te the b ar g aini ng uni t m em berwh o w oul d have w or ked but f or the Em plo yer ’ s v i ol ati on of [ the Assi gnm ent o fW or k] Se cti on . . . f oral lhour s the bar gaini ng uni t m em ber w ou ld h av e w or ke d bu t fo r th e E m p loy er ’s v iola tio n .” O nc e again, becau se th is que stion involves an i nt erp retation or ap p l i ca ti o n of the collective bargaini ng ag re em ent, i t i s e n tr u sted to the j oi nt co m m i ttee ’ s bind i ng fi naldeci si on a nd notsubj ect to our re vi ew . The part i es agr eed thatthe j oi nt co m m i tte e woul d ha ve pl en ar y po wert o r es o l ve di spu te s ar i sing und erthe col l ecti ve b argai ni ng ag re em ent. The ag re em en t d oe s n o t l im it th e c om m itt ee ’s a u th or ity to se tt le the di spute i n any m anner that i t fi nd s a pp ro pri ate
.N o. 09

- 3271 13

Ci t i ng Thom as , 8 9 0 F
. 2 d a t9 2 1 , M er ry m ana r g u e s th a twe 4 ha v e en d or sed , an d sh ou ld n ow e nfor ce, a d u ty o f im p artia lity f or j oi ntc om m i t t ee m em ber s s i m i l ar t o tha tofanarbi t ra t or or j ud g e. Bu t Thom as he l d onl y thatwhi l e the uni on’ s dut y of f airrepres entat ion does notrequi re the union repres entat ives t o vo t e i n a u ni onm e m be r ’ s f a vo r , the un i onr e pr e s e nt a t i ve cou ld no t b e p a rtial againstthe uni on m em ber

. W hat eve r the Thom as cou rt m ean t in its o bi t e rdi ct um tha t the u nio n ’s role on a joint co m m ittee “is essentia lly t h a to f an arb itrato r,” it s urely d id no tm ea n t o s ugge s tthatwe a ppl y a j udi c i al or arb itral stan d ard of im p artia lity to join t com m ittee m em b ers. S u c h a s t a n d a r d w o u l d b e p a t e n t l y u n s u i t a b l e f o r j o i n tc o mm it tee m em bers, w ho are “r epres entat ives ” s pecific all y chosen because they are os tens ibly parti sans ofon e sid e to a coll ectiv e b arg ain ing ag reem en t. C. Bi as Fin ally , M er ry m an arg u es th at th e d ist ric t c o u r t s h ou ld ha ve v ac at ed th e j o i ntc o m m ittee a war ds be ca us e th e co m m i tt ee was b i as ed ag ainst i t. I t i s true tha t “e vi den t p artiali ty” is on e of the few bases on w hich a court m ay i nval i date the deci si on o fa supp ose dlyneutr al arbi tr ato r. 9 U
. S. C. § 1 0( a) ( 2)

. But w e re iter ate that j oi nt co m m i tte es ar e no t g enui ne arbi tr ati on a nd that provi si ons ofthe FA A do notapplyto t h ese awards. M er ry m an ag re ed th at d isp u te s w ou ld be r e s olv ed in the fi rs t instance notbya neutra larbi tr ato r bu t by a com m i tte e co m posed ofan e qual num b er o fem plo yer and union re prese n tat i ves. The ag re em ent doe s no t re q u ire the re prese ntati ves on the j oi nt co m m i tte e t o act l i k e det ac he d m ag i st r at es o rne ut r ala rbi tr at o r s. Rathe r, 4 we r ely o n the ba l an ce d v o tingmem be r sh i p o fthe j o i nt14 N o. 09

- 3271

W e e xp ress no v iew on the q u estion of w he the r b ias ag ain st 5 an em ployer by the em p lo y er ’s r epr es en t at i ves , due t o c ol l us i on ors ome o the r f a c t or, w ou l d i nv a l i da t e a j oi ntc omm i t t e e a war d. com m i tte e t o provi de f ai rnes s t o th e in ter est ed parti es. A bs e nte v i de nc e tha tMer r y manwa s n o te qu a l l y r epres e n t e d a m o n gth e v o t i n gm e m b e r s o fth e j o i n tc o mm i tt ee , i t i s bo und b y the c o m m i tt ee ’ s dec i si o n.

5 I n Chic ago Cart ageCo. , 659 F. 2d at 828, one of th e few ca s e s fr o m t hi s c i r c ui tr e v i e wi nga c l a i m o fb i a s a g a i ns t an em plo yerbya j oi nt co m m i tte e, w e co nsi dered si m i l ar, i fnotworse , co nd uct byuni on r epres enta tives o n a j oin t c om m itt ee an d u p h eld th e d ec isio n . Ch i cago Cart agef o l l o wed the pa r ti es ’ l ea d a nd a ss um ed, wi th o ut hol ding, thatthe j oi nt co m m i tte e a w ar d shou ld be re

vie w ed as an arb itr a t ion aw ar d an d w as su bj ec t t o c h all enge on g ro und s o fev i dent part i al i ty o r bi as. Today we ho l d that, contr ary t o o ura ss um pti o n in C hicago C artage, j oi nt com m i tte e aw ar ds shoul d no t be tr eat ed as a rbi tr at i o n s ubj ec t to the s ta nda r ds o fthe F AA

. But Ch i c ag o C ar t ager est ed i ts deci si on o n the f act that at l eas t o ne o fthe em plo yerr epres entat ives m ust hav e vot ed aga i nst the em plo yerand tha t th er ef or e a ny bi as aga i nst the em plo yerbyuni on r epres entat i ves d id not affe c t t h e join t c om m itt ee ’s d e c i s ion . Th is is e n tir ely consi ste nt w i th our hol ding today: abse nt evi dence that M er r y m an was no t equa l l y r epr es en te d o n th e j oi nt co m m i tt ee , the j o i ntc o m m i tt ee ’ s dec i si on is b i ndi nga nd n otsu bj ec t t o a p p ea l.N o. 09

- 3271 15 III. I n sum, b ec au se the c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini nga g r ee m en t est abl i shes that any r eso l uti on o fa gr i evance by m aj o r i tyv o te o f th e jo i ntc o m m i tt ee i s “fi na la nd bindi ngo n a l lpa r ti es a nd indi vi dual s bo und b y ” th e agr eem ent a nd notsubj ect to appeal, we are not perm i tte d to re vi ew the m er its ofthe proce du re o r subst an ce o fthe j o i ntc om m i tt ee ’ s dec i si o ns . Abs en t an y evi dence tha t M er ry m an di d not r ecei ve the di spute re so lu tio n p ro c ed u re to w h ich ita g r e e d , i .e . , an e qual num bero fvo ti ng r epres entat i ves on the j oi nt co m m i tte e, th e di st r ict c o ur t co r r ec tly g r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t to Local15 0. A ccor dingl y, the deci si on bel ow i s A FFI RMED .

3- 21- 11