# 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- 32 72

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

Alca n P ack ag in g C o.,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el le e ,

v.

Grap hi c Co m

m un ic at io n C on fere nc e, In te rn at io na l Br ot he rh oo d o f Team st ers &
Loc al Uni on No. 7 7- P; Grap hi c Co m m un ic at io ns Co nf

eren ce, In te rn at io na l
Bro th erh oo d o f Team st ers & Loc al Uni on No. 7 27 -S,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt s - Ap pe ll an ts

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 10 , 20 13
Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 5, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, GRUEND ER, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

T ea m ste rs L oc al U nio ns 72 7- S an d 77 -P (“ th e Uni on s” ) ap pe al fro m th e di st ric t

co ur t’s or de r va cat in g an arb it rat or ’s award of se ve ran ce pa y

. Bec au se th e arb it rat or

was at le as t arg ua bl y co ns tru in g or ap pl y in g th e co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t, a

fed eral co ur t m

us t d efer to th e arb it rat or ’s in te rp ret at io n, an d we t he refo re re ve rs e.I.

In 20 09

, Ri o Tin to PLC ag reed to se ll to Bem is Co m pa ny, In c., th ree pa ck ag in g pl an ts op erat ed by Ri o Tin to ’s su bs id ia ry , Alca n Pac k a g i n g Co m pa ny. The sa le

cl os ed on Mar ch 1, 2 01 0. Th e Uni on s re pr es en t t he work ers at t he pl an ts an d were

pa rti es to a co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag r e e men t w i th Alca n. Afte r th e sa le was

an no un ced

, Bem is in fo rm ed t h e U n i o ns th at it wou ld no t ad op t th e te rm s of th e

ag reem en t. Bem is an d th e Uni on s en te red in to ne go ti at io ns

. Bem is ev en tu al ly hi red

al l of th e Alca n wor ke rs who ap pl ie d to wor k fo r Bem is

, th ou gh un de r le ss fav or ab le

te rm s of em

pl oym en t th an th e wor ke rs ha d en joy ed un de r th ei r ag reem en t wit h Alca n.

Afte r th e sa le cl os ed

, th e Uni on s fil ed a gr ie va nc e ag ai ns t Alca n, cl ai m in g th at

A l c a n v i o l a te d th e ag reem en t. As rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

, th e Uni on s cl ai m ed th at

el ig ib le wor ke rs at th e th ree pl an ts were en ti tl ed to se ve ran ce pa y

. Alca n de ni ed th e

gr ie va nc e , an d th e ag reem en t req ui red th e pa rti es to su bm it th e di sp ut e to an
arb it rat or

.

The rel ev an t po rti on of th e ag reem en t, App en di x D, pr ov id es: “ If th e Co m pa ny
sh al l cl os e a pl an t co m

pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y , em pl oyees who se em

pl oym en t sh al l

be te rm in at ed as a res ul t th ereo f an d [wh o are el ig ib le ] sh al l be en ti tl ed to a Sev eran ce

. . . .” Bec au se th e Uni on s an d Bem is su cces sf ul ly co m pl et ed th ei r ne go ti at io ns
be fo re th e sa le cl os ed

, th ere was a se am le ss tra ns it io n on th e d a y t h at Bem is to ok

ov er, an d op erat io ns at th e pl an ts ne ve r ceas ed

. A l c a n a r g u e d to th e arb it rat or , th eref or e, th at i t n ev er cl os ed th e pl an ts

, so se ve ran ce pa y was no t du e un de r App en di x D. The Uni on s m ai nt ai ne d th at Alca n co m pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y cl os ed

th e pl an ts —as far as th e co m pa ny was co nc ern ed

—b y se ll in g th em to Bem is

, ev en
th ou gh bu si ne ss at t he pl an ts co nt in ue d u ni nt erru pt ed fol lo win g t he sal e.

The arb it rat or ru le d fo r th e Uni on s. Alca n th en fil ed th is act io n in th e di st ric t

co ur t, se ek in g to va cat e th e arb it rat or ’s award of se ve ran ce pa y. Th e d i s t ric t co ur t

-2

-gr an te d Alca n’s m ot io n, co nc lu di ng tha t the ar bi tra to r’s award of se ve ran ce pa y co ul d

no t be reco nc il ed wit h th e pl ai n m ean in g of App en di x D. The Uni on s ap pe al

, an d we

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to va cat e th e arb it rat or ’s award de no vo

. Ace Elec

. Co nt ra ct or

s, In c. v. In t’l Bhd

. of Elec

. W or ker s, Lo ca l Uni on No

. 29 2

, 41 4 F.3 d 89 6,

89 9 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ).

II.

Alca n’s act io n to va cat e th e arb it rat or ’s award ari se s un de r Sect io n 30 1 of th e
Lab or Man ag em en t Rel at io ns Act, 29 U.S.C. § 18 5. Sect io n 30 1 co nf ers juri sd ic ti on

on fed eral co ur ts ov er cas es in vo lv in g a br each of a co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t,

id

. , an d it au th or iz es fed eral co ur ts to fas hi on th e su bs ta nt iv e la w th at go ve rn s su ch

la bo r di sp ut es

. Text il e W or ker s Uni on of

Am. v. Li nc ol n Mil ls of

Ala

. , 35 3 U.S. 44 8,

45 6- 57 (1 95 7)

. Exc ep t in li m it ed ci rcu m st an ces , th at bo dy of la w req ui res a co ur t to

de fer to th e arb it rat or ’s in te rp ret at io n. Se e Uni te d Pap er w o r ker s In t’l Uni on v.

Mis co , Inc

. , 48 4 U.S. 2 9, 3 8 (1 98 7)

.

W he n Alca n an d th e Uni on s co nt ract ed to res ol ve th ei r di sp ut es vi a arb it rat io n,
th ey ag reed to be bo un d by th e arb it rat or ’s in te rp ret at io n of th e ag reem en t. W e m ay

no t va cat e an award m erel y be cau se ou r co ns tru ct io n o f th e ag reem en t di ffer s fro m
th e arb it rat or ’s. Uni te d St eel wo rk er s of Am. v. Ent er

. W

he el & Ca r Co rp

. , 36 3 U.S.

59 3, 59 9 (1 96 0)

. If th e arb it rat or was “ev e n arg ua bl y co ns tru in g or ap pl y in g th e

co nt ract a n d a c t i n g wit hi n th e sc op e of hi s au th or it y , th at a co ur t is co nv in ced he

co mmit te d se ri ou s er ro r do es no t su ff ic e to ov er tu rn hi s de ci si on .” Mis co , 48 4 U.S.

at 38 (em ph as is ad de d)

. Onl y whe n an arb it rat or is su es an award th at do es no t “ dr aw
it s es se nc e fro m th e co nt ract ,” be cau se it refl ect s in st ead th e arb it rat or ’s “ own no ti on s
of in du st ria l ju st ic e,” m ay

a co ur t v acat e an arb it rat or ’s dec is io n. Id

.

Alca n su gg es ts th at th e Fed eral Arb it ra t i o n A c t

, 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)( 4)

, m ay

pr ov id e fo r m or e v ig or ou s ju di ci al rev ie w th an do es § 3 01 . If th e Act ap pl ie s, th en

-3

-§ 10 (a)( 4) do es no t pr es cri be a di ffer en t st an da rd of rev ie w. The Su pr em e Co ur t ’s

m os t rece nt cas e ap pl y in g § 10 (a)( 4) reci te d th e § 30 1 st an da rd an d ci te d au th or it ie s
ari si ng un de r th e la tt er st at ut e. Se e Oxfo rd Hea lt h Pla n s L L C v

. S u tt er , 13 3 S. Ct

. 20 64

, 20 68 (2 01 3) (ci ti ng E. Ass oc ia te d Co al Co rp

. v. Uni te d Min e W or ker s of Am.

, 53 1 U.S. 5 7, 62 (2 00 0)

, Mis co , 4 84 U.S. at 3 8, an d Ent er . Whee l & Ca r Co rp

. , 3 63

U.S. at 59 9)

. If th ere were a co nf li ct be twee n th e st at ut es , m or eo ve r, we wou ld ap pl y § 30 1, be cau se it is a sp eci fic di rect iv e to crea te th e su bs ta nt iv e l a w th at go ve rn s

co ll ect iv e ba rg ai n i n g a gr eem en ts

, an d th e sp eci fic go ve rn s ov er th e ge ne ral

. In t’l

Bhd

. of Elec

. W

or ker s, Lo c a l U

n io n No

. 54 5 v. Hop e Elec

. Co rp

. , 38 0 F.3 d 10 84

, 10 97 -9 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ); Sma rt v. In t’l Bhd . o f Elec . Wor ker

s
, L o c a l 70 2 , 3 15 F.3 d

72 1, 7 24 (7t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

So we ev al ua te th e arb it rat or ’s de ci si on un de r th e de fere nt ia l st an da rd th at lo ng
ha s go ve rn ed § 30 1 cas es

. The arb it r a t o r h ere be ga n hi s an al y si s by qu ot in g App en di x D an d fo cu si ng on th e is su es as th e pa rti es h a d f r a med th em

. He

reco gn iz ed th at Alca n was li ab le fo r se ve ran ce pa y on ly if two co nd it io ns were

sa ti sf ie d: Alca n m

us t ha ve cl os ed th e pl a n t s c o m pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y , an d

el ig ib le em

pl oyees m

us t ha ve be en te rm in at ed as a res ul t of the cl os ur es

. The m ai n

qu es ti on faci ng th e arb it rat or was wh et he r th e se am le ss tra ns it io n m ean t th at Alca n
ha d n ot clo se d t he pl an ts

.

Afte r co ns ul ti ng th e te xt o f A pp en di x D an d arb it ral de ci si on s in te rp ret in g
si m il ar ag reem en ts

, th e arb it rat or co nc lu de d th at Alca n co m pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y
cl os ed th e pl an ts by se ll in g th em

. The n, a f t e r a n a l yzin g th e te xt an d an al og ou s
arb it ral pr eced en ts

, th e arb it rat or co nc lu de d th at th e em pl oyees ha d be en te rm in at ed

as a res ul t of th e cl os ur es

. In su m , th e a r b i t r a t or ’s award ha s th e ha ll m ark s of an
ho ne st jud gm en t t h a t d r e w i ts es se nc e fro m th e ag reem en t: he an al y zed th e te xt of

th e co nt ract

, co ns ul te d de ci si on s in te rp ret in g si m il ar co nt ract s, an d sq ua rel y
ad dr es se d t he pa rti es ’ arg um en ts

.

-4

-Alca n con te nd s th at th e di st ric t cou rt pro pe rly va cat ed th e award be cau se th e

arb it rat or ’s in te rp ret at io n of th e ag reem en t co nf li ct s wit h th e or di na ry m ean in g of th e

co nt ract

. The sa le of th e pl an ts was no t a cl os ur e, th e co m pa ny sa y s, be cau se Alca n
di d no th in g to st op wor k or ot he r op erat io ns at th e pl an ts

, an d th e faci li ti es co nt in ue d

to op erat e wit ho ut in te rru pt io n on th e da y of th e sa le

. W it ho ut a cl os ur e, Alca n

reas on s, se ve ran ce pa y was no t du e un de r App en di x D, so th e arb it rat or ex ceed ed hi s

au th or it y by effe ct iv el y am en di ng th e ag reem en t an d di sp en si ng hi s own br an d of

in du st ria l ju st ic e.

Thi s ch al le ng e to th e award is in su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy va cat ur

. Fo r on e th in g, it

is no t so cl ear th at th e arb it rat or ’s de ci si on is co nt rary to t h e p l a i n l a ng ua ge of th e

co nt ract

. Alca n co nc ed es th at be cau se th e co nt ract refe rs to whe th er “ th e Co m pa ny”

ha s c l o s e d th e pl an t co m pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y , th e pr os pe ct of cl os ur e m us t be

vi ewed fro m Alca n’s po in t of vi ew. If an ot he r co m pa ny reo pe ns th e pl an t aft er Alca n
cl os es it

, ev en if th e cl os ur e is fo r on ly a da y or ev en an ho ur , th en th e reo pe ni ng by

an ot he r pa rty do es no t vi ti at e a co m pl et e an d pe rm an en t cl os ur e by A l c a n

. So th e

co m pa ny is red uc ed to arg ui ng th at whi le a br ie f pa us e be twee n Alca n’s cl os ur e an d

Bem is ’s reo pe ni ng wou ld res ul t in a co m pl et e an d pe rm an en t cl os ur e by Alca n, th ere

was no cl os ur e he re be cau se th e tra ns it io n was se am le ss

. The arb it rat or th ou gh t th ere

was no m ean in gf

ul di st in ct io n bet ween th e two sc en ari os un de r th e co nt ract

. In hi s
vi ew, th at a pu rch as er m ig ht reo pe n a pl an t, or ev en se am le ss ly co nt in ue op erat io ns , do es no t m ean th at th e se ll er di d n ot clo se it

.

Ev e n i f t h e arb it rat or was in co rrec t ab ou t th at po in t, su ch a m is ta ke is no t

su ffi ci en t reas on to se t as id e th e award

. “[T] he pa rti es ha vi ng au th or iz ed th e
arb it rat or to gi ve m ean in g to th e la ng ua ge of th e ag reem en t, a co ur t sh ou ld no t 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 .” Mis co , 48 4 U.S. at

38

. Thi s is no t a si tu at io n in whi ch th e arb it rat or ig no red th e pl ai n la ng ua ge o f t h e

co nt ract

, su ch as by ap pl y in g th e wro ng ag reem en t, se e Co ca -Co la Bot tl in g Co

. of St

. Lo ui s v. Tea mst er

s Lo ca l Uni on No

. 68 8

, 95 9 F.2 d 14 38

, 14 40 -4 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ), or

-5

-by rel y in g he av il y on pa ro le ev id en ce of th e pa rti e s ’ ba rg ai ni ng hi st or y rat he r th an

th e un am bi gu ou s te rm s of th e ag reem en t it s e l f

. Se e Excel Co rp

. v. Uni te d Foo d &

Co mmerc ia l W

or ker s In t’l Uni on , L oc al 43 1 , 1 02 F.3 d 14 64 , 1 46 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ).

Nor is th is ap pe al co m

pa rab le to In te r- Ci ty Gas Co rp . v. Boi se Ca sc ad e Co rp

. , 84 5

F.2 d 1 84 (8t h C ir. 1 98 8)

, whe re t he re was no in di cat io n t ha t t he arb it rat or arg ua bl y

co ns tru ed or ap pl ie d th e co nt rac t w h en he “ di sr eg ard ed ” an d “ ig no red ” it s pl ai n
la ng ua ge

. Id

. at 18 8, 18 9; se e Ka nu th v. Pres co tt

, Bal l & Tu rb en
, In c. , 94 9 F.2 d

11 75

, 11 81 (D.C. Ci r. 19 91 ) (es ch ewin g a “ br oa d” read in g of In te r- Ci ty Gas ); Dis t.

N o

. 7 2 & Lo ca l Lo dg e 11 27 v. Tet er To ol & Die , 6 30 F. Su pp . 7 32 , 7 36 (N

. D

. I n d

. 19 86 ) (ci te d in In te r- Ci ty Gas

, 84 5 F.2 d at 18 7- 88 ) (v acat in g arb it rat or ’s award whe re
arb it rat or “ di sr eg ard ed ” co nt ract la ng ua ge an d ba se d de ci si on “ so le ly up on te st im ony

pe rta in in g t o th e pa rti es ’ in te nt at th e ti m e of th e co nt ract in g,” su ch th at th e award

dr ew it s es se nc e “ no t fr om th e ag reem en t, b ut rat he r fro m th e n eg ot ia ti on s” ).

Th is is a cas e, rat he r, in whi ch th e arb it rat or at le as t arg ua bl y co ns t r u e d t h e
rel ev an t pr ov is io n of th e co nt ract

, bu t th e co m pa ny co nt en ds th at he m is read th e

ag reem en t an d co m

m it te d se rio us erro r in hi s in te rp ret at io n. In th at si tu at io n, th e
arb it rat or ’s de ci si on m

us t st an d. Mis co , 48 4 U.S. at 38

. Erro ne ou s te xt ua l an al y si s,
li ke “ im pr ov id en t, ev en si ll y , fact fin di ng ,” id

. at 39

, do es no t jus ti fy di sr eg ard in g th e
d e c i s i on of th e arb it rat or ag reed up on by th e pa rti es to res ol ve th ei r di sp ut e o v e r

se ve ran ce pa y

. “ It is th e arb it rat or ’s co ns tru ct io n whi ch was ba rg ai ne d fo r; an d so far

as th e arb it rat or ’s de ci si on co nc ern s co ns tru ct io n of th e co nt ract

, th e co ur ts ha ve no
bu si ne ss ov erru li ng hi m be cau se th ei r in te rp ret at io n of th e co nt ract is di ffer en t fro m
hi s.” Ent er . W

he el & Ca r C or p. , 36 3 U.S. at 59 9.

Alca n se ek s su pp or t in Smu ll in v. Mit y Ent er pr is es
, In c. , 42 0 F.3 d 83 6 (8 th Ci r.
20 05 ), whi ch ap pl ie d th e de fin it io n of “ pl an t cl os in g” in th e W or ke r Adju st m en t an d

R et rai ni ng Not ifi cat io n Act (“ W ARN Act” ), 29 U.S.C. § 21 01 et se q. Und er t h e

st at ut e, “ pl an t cl os in g” m ean t “ th e pe rm an en t or te m po rary sh ut do wn of a si ng le si te

of em pl oym en t,” id

. § 21 01 (a)( 2)

, w h i c h th e reg ul at io ns de fin ed as “ th e effe ct iv e

-6

-ces sa ti on of pr od uc ti on or th e wor k pe rfo rm ed ” by th e faci li ty. 20 C.F.R. § 63 9.3 (b ).

Not su rp ris in gl y , th is co ur t de te rm in ed th at th is de fin it io n was “ faci li ty-sp eci fic

, no t

em pl oyer-s pe ci fic ,” an d th at th ere was no “ pl an t cl os in g” whe n th e pl an t in qu es ti on
di d n ot m is s ev en a da y

of o pe rat io n. 4 20 F.3d at 8 38

.

Thi s cas e, of co ur se , is no t go ve rn ed by th e W ARN Act, bu t by a co nt ract

un de r whi ch th e tri gg eri ng e v en t oc cu rs “ [i]f th e Co mpa ny sh al l cl os e a pl an t

co m pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y .” Eve n Alca n do es no t co nt en d th at th is de fin it io n is

faci li ty-sp eci fic : th e Co m pa ny cl os es a pl an t “ co m

pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y ” ev en if

a di ffer en t co mp a n y reo pe ns th e faci li ty at a la te r ti m e—o th erwi se , ho w wou ld th e

pa rti es ev er kn ow th at a cl os ur e was “ pe rm an en t” ? If th e arb it rat or ha d de ci de d th is

di sp ut e ba se d on th e de fin it io n o f “p la nt cl os in g” in th e W ARN Act rat he r th an by

refe ren ce to th e co nt ract be twee n th e pa rti es , th en he tru ly wou ld ha ve di sp en se d hi s

own bra nd of i nd us tri al jus ti ce.

* * *

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we rev ers e th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t an d

rem an d th e cas e wit h di rect io ns to co nf irm th e arb it rat io n award

. W e de ny th e

req ue st of th e Uni on s fo r an award of at to rn ey s’ fees

. Alca n act ed pr om pt ly to se ek

an ord er v acat in g t he arb it rat io n a ward , and th e co m pa ny did no t act di sh on es tl y or
in ba d fa it h.

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

.

I ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th is i s t h e r a r e cas e in whi ch we sh ou ld

va cat e an arb it rat or ’s award

. The arb it rat o r h e r e ig no red th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e

co ll ect iv e ba r g a i n i n g a g reem en t. W he n th ree pl an ts are so ld to an ot he r pa rty an d

co nt in ue op erat in g se am le ss ly wit h th e sa m e em pl oyees du rin g an d aft er th at sa le

, th e pl an ts can no t ha ve cl os ed co m pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y su ch th at th e se ll er m us t th en

-7

-pa y se ve ran ce b en efi ts

. Yet th e arb it rat or he re award ed se ve ran ce be ne fit s. The

di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t v acat in g t hi s awa rd sh ou ld be affi rm ed

.

Co ur ts m us t gi ve co ns id erab le de fere nc e to arb it rat io n award s. On th is po in t,

th e co ur t an d I ag ree. In a la bo r di sp ut e su ch as th is

, th e p a r t i e s h a v e “ ag reed to

su bm it al l qu es ti on s of con tra ct in te rp ret at io n t o th e arb it rat or .” Mis co , 48 4 U.S. at

36 -3 7 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St eel wo rk er s of Ameri ca v. Ameri ca n Mfg

. Co

. , 36 3 U.S. 56 4,

56 7- 68 (1 96 0) )

. “[I ]t is th e arb it rat or ’s v ie w o f th e fact s an d of th e m ean in g of th e

co nt ract th at [th e pa rti es ] ha ve ag reed to a c c e p t

. ” Id

. at 37 -3 8. As a res ul t, “ [a]

rev ie win g co ur t can no t ov ert ur n an arb it rat or ’s award ev en if th e co ur t is co nv in ced

th e arb it rat or co mm i t t e d s eri ou s erro r so lo ng as th e arb it rat or was arg ua bl y

co ns tru in g or ap pl y in g th e co nt rac t

. ” Ex c el Co rp

. , 10 2 F.3 d at 14 67

. Bu t an
arb it rat or ’s au th or it y to is su e an award is no t u n l i mi t e d. As th e co ur t reco gn iz es ,

an te a t 3

, i f a n arb it rat io n award 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” be cau se it refl ect s th e arb it r a t or ’s “ own br an d of in du st ria l jus ti ce,” th en th e co ur t sh ou ld va cat e th at award

. Ent er

. W he el

, 36 3 U.S. at 59 7. Tha t

is to sa y , “ [t]he 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 ,” Mis co , 48 4 U.S. at 38

, or “ in te rp ret [ ] un am bi gu ou s la ng ua ge in an y way di ffer en t fro m it s pl ai n m ean in g.” In te r- Ci ty
, 84 5 F.2 d at 18 7 (q uo ti ng Tet er To ol & Die

, 63 0 F. Su pp

. at 73 6)

. In so do in g, th e arb it rat or “ am en ds or al te rs th e ag reem en t an d act s wit ho ut

au th or it y .” Id

. Thu s, whe re th e arb it rat or de pa rts fro m t h e u na m bi gu ou s la ng ua ge
of th e co nt ract in gra nt in g a n a ward , th e co ur t s ho ul d v acat e th at award

.

Here, th e se ve ran ce pr ov is io n of th e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng a g r e e men t is

un am bi gu ou s. It st at es :

If th e Co m

pa ny sh al l cl os e a pl an t co m pl et e l y an d pe rm an en tl y ,

em pl oyees who se em

pl oym en t sh al l be te rm in at ed as a res ul t th ereo f and

who at th e ti m e sh al l ha ve a le ng th of co nt in uo us se rv ic e wit h t h e

-8

-Co mp a n y o f f iv e (5 ) y ears or m or e, sh al l be en ti tl ed to a Sev eran ce
al lo wan ce as fol lo ws . . . .

By ope ra tio n of thi s pr ov is io n, qu al ifyin g em pl oyees are en ti tl ed to se ve ran ce be nefi ts

on ly if (1 ) “ th e Co m

pa ny sh al l cl os e a pl an t co m pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y ” an d (2 ) th at

cl os u r e r e s u lt s in th e te rm in at io n of th ei r em pl oym en t. Alt ho ug h th e co ll ect iv e
ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t d oe s n ot it se lf d efi ne th e te rm “ cl os e,” t he ter m is co m m on ly

un de rs to od

, an d is de fin ed

, as m ean in g “ [t]o co nc lu de ; to br in g to an en d.” Bl ack ’s

Law Dict io na ry 27 1 (8 t h e d. 20 04 ). As th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y reas on ed : “ The

wor d ‘clo se d’ is m ean t to di st in gu is h it fro m ‘ope n.’ The wor d ‘com pl et el y ’ is m ean t

to di st in gu is h it f

r om ‘part ia ll y .’ The refe ren ce to ‘perm an en tl y ’ is m ean t to

di st in gu is h it fro m ‘tem

po rari l y .’ ” Thi s un am

bi gu ou s la ng ua ge sh ou ld ha ve m ad e
th i s a n eas y cas e. Cf

. Smu ll in

, 42 0 F.3 d at 83 8 (co nc lu di ng , in th e co nt ex t of th e

W ARN Act, th at “ [i]t is ob vi ou s ” th at a pl an t do es n o t cl os e whe n em pl oyees at th e pl an t “ di d no t m is s ev en a da y of op erat io n” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Und er qu es ti on in g

at th e arb it rat io n h eari ng , Mark Co op er, a wi tn es s fo r th e Uni on s, co nc ed ed :

Q: [D]o y ou ha ve an y in fo rm at io n th at wou ld in di cat e th at th e [th ree pl an ts ] w e r e e v e r cl os ed ev en fo r a m in ut e? I’m no t as ki ng ab ou t

own ers hi p, I’m

jus t s ay in g d id th ey

sh ut th e p la ces do wn?

A: No.

Fu rth erm or e, as th e co ur t no te s, an te at 2, Bem is hi red al l of th e Alca n wor ke rs who

ap pl ie d to w o r k fo r Bem is

. Acco rd in gl y , si nc e th e pl an ts at is su e di d no t

“ cl os e”— m

uc h le ss “ cl os e

. . . co m pl et el y a n d pe rm an en tl y ”—a nd si nc e th e

em pl oyees were n o t te rm in at ed as a res ul t th ereo f, th e se ve ran ce pr ov is io n was no t

tri gg ered

.

-9

-T he ar bitrat or at te m

pt s to si de st ep th is se lf- ev id en t co nc lu si on by as se rti ng that

“ whe n a co m

pa ny go es ou t of a li ne of bu si ne ss by se ll in g a pl an t it ha s, as far as it s

e m pl oyees in th at pl an t are co nc ern ed

, co m pl et el y an d pe rm an en tl y cl os ed

. ” Th e

co ur t as se rts th at th is in te rp ret iv e effo rt by th e arb it rat or , w i t h i ts “ ha ll m ark s of an
ho ne st jud gm en t,” d is po se s o f th is cas e. Ant e at 4-6 . Accor di ng to th e co ur t, i f th e
arb it rat or m ak es an y at te m pt at i n t e r p r et at io n, as th e arb it rat or di d he re, th e
arb it rat or ’s de ci si on m

us t st an d. Not so

. W e ha ve ex pl ai ne d th at “ if th e arb it rat or
‘int erp ret s un am

bi gu ou s lan gu ag e in an y way di ffer en t fr om

it s p la in m ean in g, [th e
arb it rat or ] am en ds or al te rs th e ag reem en t a n d act s wit ho ut au th or it y .’ ” In te r- Ci ty
, 84 5 F.2 d at 18 7 (q uo ti ng Tet er To ol & Die

, 6 3 0 F. Su pp

. at 73 6) (al te rat io n in

or ig in al ). In ot he r wor ds , “ th e arb it rat or m ay no t di sr eg ard or mod if y un am bi gu ou s

co nt ract pr ov is io ns .” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d)

. Acco rd in gl y , an in te rp ret iv e effo rt by th e
arb it rat or do es no t m ean th at th e arb it rat or ’s d eci si on m us t st an d, if in so do in g th e
arb it rat or m od ifi es un am

bi gu ou s l an gu ag e.

The arb it rat or ’s at te m

pt to in tro du ce am

bi gu it y in to th e se ve ran ce pr ov is io n
fal ls fla t. Acco rd in g to th e arb it rat or , pl an t cl os ur e is em pl oyer-s pe ci fic as op po se d 1

to f a c i l i ty-sp eci fic

. Tha t is to sa y , whe n Alca n so ld it s pl an ts to Bem is

, th e pl an ts

were pe rm an en tl y an d co m pl et el y cl os ed as be twee n Alca n an d it s em pl oyees. Tha t

cl os ur e is un am

b ig uo us ly faci li ty-sp eci fic be co m es ob vi ou s whe n th e se ve ran ce

pr ov is io n is vi ewed in th e la rg er co nt ex t of th e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t, as

Th e c ou rt pe rcei ve s am

bi gu it y in th e se ve ran ce pr ov is io n by im ag in in g a 1

sc en ari o of a “ br ie f pa u s e ” b e t w e e n th e se ll er’s cl os ur e of a pl an t an d th e bu y er’s

reo pe ni ng of it

. The co ur t th en as se rts th at Alca n is red uc ed to arg ui ng th at th ere is

a m ean in gf

ul di st in ct io n be twee n (1 ) a se am le ss t r a ns it io n fro m bu y er to se ll er an d (2 ) th e co ur t’s im ag in ed “ br ie f pa us e” scen ari o. Ant e at 5. Si nc e bo th pa rti es ag ree th at th ere was a se am le ss tra ns it io n fro m Alca n to Bem is

, th e qu es ti on of whe th er th e

co ur t’s “ br ie f pa us e” sc en ari o am ou nt s to a co m pl et e an d pe rm an en t cl os ur e un de r th e

se ve ran ce pr ov is io n is no t be fo re th e co ur t. Thu s, we ne ed no t de ci de th is qu es ti on

. Eve n so , th e co ur t’s ab il it y to im ag in e a ha rd ca s e d o e s no t m ak e th e se ve ran ce
pr ov is io n a m

bi gu ou s i n t hi s ea sy case.

-1 0-a p p l i e d by th e arb it rat or

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e su cces so rs an d as si gn s cl au se of t h e

co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t st at es : “[N]o m erg er, pu rch as e, sa le

, tra ns fer,

as si gn m en t or co ns ol id at io n, sh al l te rm in at e or su sp en d th is co nt ract or re l ie ve an

em pl oyer

. . . a t r a n s fere e, pu rch as er, su cces so r, or as si gn ee, fro m th e ob li ga ti on to

co m pl y wit h th e te r ms a n d co nd it io ns of th is co nt ract .” Si nc e Bem is co nt ract ed

aro un d th is pr ov is io n, th e arb it rat or ap pl ie d th is pr ov is io n ag ai ns t Alca n. Thu s, ev en 2

th ou gh Alca n m ay no lo ng er be th e em pl oyer, th e Bem is em

pl oyees, by op erat io n of

th is cl au se , are st il l en ti tl ed to th e be ne fit s of th e co ll ect iv e ba rg a i n i n g ag reem en t.

As co un se l fo r th e Uni on s co nc ed ed at or al arg um en t, Alca n is th eref or e req ui red to

“m a k e u p th e di ffer en ces ” be twee n th e Alca n an d th e Bem is co nt ract s. Thi s is

si gn ifi can t be cau se , as t h e co ur t no te s, an te at 2, Bem is hi red Alca n’s em pl oyees

un de r le ss fav or ab le te rm s th an t h e wor ke rs ha d un de r th ei r co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng

ag reem en t wit h Alca n. W it h th is es ta bl is he d, th e in co ngruity of th e arb it rat or ’s award

co m es i n t o f

u ll vi ew. The arb it rat or req ui red th at (1 ) Alca n ho no r th e co ll ect iv e
ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t as if th e Bem is em pl oyees were st il l wor ki ng fo r Alca n an d th at (2 ) A l c a n p a y se ve ran ce be ne fit s du e to a co m pl et e an d pe rm an en t cl os ur e of th e pl an ts

. Bo th can no t be tru e. Eit he r th e pl an ts cl os ed

, le av in g Alca n on th e ho ok fo r

se ve ran ce be ne fit s, or th e pl an ts di d no t cl os e, le av in g Alca n on th e ho ok fo r fu ll pa y

an d be ne fit s as pr ov id ed in th e Alca n co lle ct iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t. The arb it rat or , ho wev er, ig no red th is “ ei th er-o r” by awar di ng a d o u b l e reco ve ry , a win df al l su rel y

no t co nt em

pl at ed by th e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t. In so do in g, th e arb it rat or

“ di sp en se [d ] hi s o wn b ran d o f in du st ria l ju st ic e.” Ent er . W he el , 36 3 U.S. at 59 7.

Th e a r bi tra to r he re ig no red th e un am bi gu ou s la ng ua ge of th e se ve ran c e

pr ov is io n. In award in g se ve ran ce be ne fit s, th e arb it rat or was “ no t co ns tru in g an

am bi gu ou s co nt ract te rm , bu t rat he r was im po si ng a ne w ob li ga ti on

. ” Kee bl er Co

.

v. Mil k Dri ver

s & Dai ry Empl oy ees
, Lo ca l No

. 47 1

, 80 F.3 d 28 4, 28 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ).

I th eref or e res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

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

The di st ric t cou rt affi rm ed th is fin di ng , an d Alca n di d no t ap pe al th is ru li ng

. 2

-1 1-