NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0288n.06 F iled: May 22, 2008 NO. 07-1681 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

MICHIG AN SUG AR CO.,

P laintif f-App ellee, v. ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UN ITED STA TES D ISTRIC T BAKERY, C ONF ECTIONERY, COURT F OR THE E ASTERN TOBACCO WORKERS, AND DISTRICT OF MICHIG AN GR AIN MILLERS INTE RNATIONAL UNION, LOCALS 259-G, 260- G, 261- G, 26 2-G, De fend ant s- App e lla nt s. __________________________________/ BEF OR E: G UY , SU HR HEI NRIC H, a nd C OLE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. SUHRHEINRICH, Circui t Judge. Plaintiff-Appellee , Michig an Sug ar Co. (“ Michig an Sug ar” ), fi le d a

c omp la int

c ha lle ng ingan a

rb it ratio n a

wa rd in f a vo r o f D e fe nd ants -A

pp e lla nts Ba kery , Confectioner

y , Tobac co Workers, a

nd Gra in Mill er s I n t ernational Union (“B CTGM”) L ocals 259-G , 260-G, 261-G , and 262-G (co l l ec t i v el y “the Michig an L ocals” ). The district c ourt g rante d summary

judgme nt for Michig an Sug ar, a n d v ac ated the a

rbitrator’ s awa

rd. We find that t h e ar b i t r a t o r w a s “ ar g u a

b l y c o n s t r u i n g ” t h e c o l l e c t i v e b ar g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t a t i s s u e . A c c o r d i n g l y,

we RE VE RSE th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s d e c is io nand RE MA ND the c a se to t he dis tr ic t c ourt

wi th instructions to reinstate the a rbitrator’ s awa

rd. I. Mic hig an Su g ar, a

c or po ratio n th a t pr od

uc e s and se lls su g ar, ma int a ins fou r wor ks ite s in-2-

Michig an, and two in Ohio. Employ ees in a ll six worksites ar e re prese nted b y individual local af filiates of the B CTGM. The Michig an L ocals (L ocals 259-G , 260-G, 261-G , and 262-G ), ar e toge ther a party to a sing le collec tive barg aining ag ree ment (“CB A”) with M i ch iga n Suga r. The

e mpl oy e e s at th e Oh io w or ks ite s are pa

rt of a sin g le loc a l unio n af

fi liate , L oc a l 29 4- G, and

are pa rt y to a sepa rate collective ba

rg aining ag ree ment with Michiga n Suga r. I n the May

of 2004, the c ollective bar g aining ag ree ment betwee n Mic h i gan S u gar a nd the Ohio L ocal 294- G expired, and those pa rties bega n neg otiation of a newcollective ba rg aining ag ree ment. I n Aug ust of 2004, the Ohio L ocal 294-G be g an an e conomic strike a fter the neg otiations falter ed. On Aug ust 5, 2004, Michiga n Suga r sent a l et t er to “all bar g aining unit employ ees” at the four Michig an wor

ksites, ostensibly

“to provide [the emp l o y ee s] wit h a brie f status of the neg otiations between the Michig an Sugar C o m p an y ’s Ohio fa cilities and y our union.” The letter stated: I t is the company ’s under standing that the [BCTGM] Union has a uthorized a strike at b o t h Oh i o [worksites] . We also believe that the union has authorized Michig an e mpl oy e e s to re fu se to cr os s any pic ke t line s tha t the Oh io e mpl oy e e s ma y e sta bli sh at our Michig an fa cilities. We sincere ly hope that neither of these actions occur , as the company

strong ly believes tha t Ohio employ ees do not have the r ight to picke t the M i ch i gan fac iliti es. F urthermor e, and mor e importantly to y ou, any

ref usal by M ic h ig an e mp lo y e e s to c o me to w o r k a s a r e s u lt o f s u c h p ic k e t li n e , would have serious consequence s if it is found t o be in violation of t he union’s and company ’s no-strike a g ree ment. Th e le tte r a lso state d th a t “ [a]n e mpl oy e e ’s re fu sa l to pe rf or m w or k und e r the se c ir c ums tanc e s c ou ld result in the immediate los s o f al l un -a c c ru e d b e ne

fit s, in c lu d i ng h e alt h c ar e .” (e mphasis in origina l). Be g inning on August 7, 2004, the Ohio L ocal 294-G established picke t lines at the Michig an worksites. Some of the e mploy ees at the Michig an wor ksites declined to cr oss the picket lines onMichig an Sug ar a lso filed a cha rg e with the NL RB ag ainst the Michig an L ocals, a lleg ing 1 that the Michig an L ocals e ng ag ed in a se condar y strike in violation of § 8(b)(4) of the Ac t. Michig an Sug ar c hara cter ized participating employ ees’ act of ref using to c ross picket lines as a n illega l seconda

ry strike. Michig an Sug ar w ithdrew the c harg e one w eek later.

-3- the day s when the Ohio L ocal 294-G picket li nes were present at the M ichig an worksites. Michiga n employ ees w ho observe d the picket lines we re de nied hea lth insurance cover ag e by Michig an Sug ar on those day s in which they declined to work. Michig an S ug ar sent letters to employ ees w ho ref used to cross the picke t lines, advising them of t h e d iscontinuation of their hea lth care benef its, and advised them of the ir rig ht to continued cover ag e under the Cons o l i dated Omnibus B udg et Reconc iliation Act of 1985 (“COB RA”). Th e Mic hig an L oc a ls t oo k th e po sit ion tha t Mic hig an Sug ar’ s de nia l of he a lthins ur anc e to employ ees who observe d the pi cket lines viol ated the CB A, spec ifically Article 3, § 9. A rticle 3, § 9 stated th a t M ic h ig an Su g ar w o u ld n o t r e qu ir e it s e mp lo y e e s , u n d e r p e n a lt y o f d is c h ar g e or discipline of any

kind, to walk throug h or cr oss pick et l ines established at the worksite by “other labor org anizations.” I n Aug ust of 2004, the Michi g an L ocals filed a g rieva nce pr otesting Michig an Sug ar’ s actions, and f

iled an unfa ir labor pr actice char g e with the NL RB. The Michig an L ocals a lleg ed that Michig an Sug ar violate d § 8(a) (1) of th e National L abor Relations Act by sending the Aug ust 5, 2004 letter to employ ees thre ateningthem with loss of health benef its if they declined to c ross the Ohio L ocal 294-G’s picke t line. The cha rg e also a lleg ed that Michig an Sug ar violate d § 8(a) (1) a nd 8( a )( 3) of the Ac t by a c tua lly dis c on tin uin g he a lth ins ur anc e c ov e ra g e and de nyinga c c ru e d b e ne fi ts to e mpl oy e e s w ho re fu se d to c ro ss the pic ke t line s. On Oc tob e r 6 , 2 00 4, the NL RB a dmi nis tr a tiv e ly de fe rr e d th e c ha

rg e to a rb itr a tio n. On Ap ri l 4, 20 05 , th e pa rt ie s a g re e d to arb itr a tio n, and mut ua lly 1M i ch i gan S u gar fi l eda l aw s u i taga i n s tt h e M i ch i gan L o ca l s i nfe d er al co u rt , s ee k i n g a temporar y restra ining or der that would compel Michig an employ ees to c ross the picke t lines and re po rt to w or k a s sc he du le d. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d M ic hig an Su g ar’ s r e qu e st, and the laws uit was dismissed on Marc h 1, 2005. -4- selec ted Arbitrator Mario Chiesa ( “the Ar bitrator”) to hear the grieva nce and unfair labor pra ctice char g e. On Octobe r 28, 2005, the Arbitrator issued his opinion and award. The Arbitrator found that Mic hig an Su g ar v iol a te d th e te rm s o f t he CB A a

nd the Natio na l L a

bo r R e la tio ns Ac t w he n it dis c on tin ue d c ov e ra g e fo r e mpl oy e e s w ho ob se rv e d th e pic ke t li ne s. On J anuar

y 11, 2006, Michig an Sug ar f iled suit in federa l court to vac ate the arbitration

awa rd. On Oc tober 20, 2 0 0 6 , the mag istrate judg e issued a r eport a nd rec ommendation

rec ommending summar

y judgme nt in favor of

the Michig an L ocals. Michig an Suga r then filed an objection to the re port and re commendation. On J anuar

y 26, 2007, the district court issued a n order reje cti ng the re port and

rec ommendation, and g ranting summary judgme nt for Michig an Sug ar. The district court found that the A r b it r a to r e r r e d in a p p ly in g A rti c le 1 4 , § 4 ( B ) , g o v e r n in g th e te r

mi n a ti o n o f in s u r an c e for terminated e mploy ees. The district court found that beca use the e mploy ees at issue “wer e not terminated,” the Arbitrator’s decision “wa s based on a provision

. . . that clea rly has no application in this si tuation,” and thus fa iled to “dra w its essence from the ba rg aining ag ree ment.” The Michigan L ocals filed a mot ion for reconsider ation, arguing that the ar bitration awa

rd should be upheld under Mich. Family R es., Inc . v. Serv . Employe es Int’l Union Local 517M , 475 F.3d 746 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (en ba nc), cert. de nied , 127 S.Ct

. 2996 (2007), which chang ed this Ci rcuit’s standard f or re viewing arbitration awar ds. The district cour t denied the motion, finding that the more-5-

rec ent “c ase la

w ar ticulates the same standard” that the district cour t used in g ranting summary judgme nt for Michig an S ug ar. The district court a cknowledg ed that it must uphold t he ar bitration

awa rd if the Ar

bitrator “w as ar g uably

construing or apply

ing the contra ct,” b u t found that the Arbitrator “ar g uably

construed something , jus t no t the c oll e c tiv e ba rg a ini nga g re e me nt. ” (e mph a sis in orig inal.) II. Whil e we revie w a district cour t’s g rant of summar

y jud gm en t d e n o vo, our re view of arbitration awar ds is “very limit ed.” Mich. Family R es .,475 F.3d at 7 5 2. I n Mi c hig an Fa mi ly Resource s , this Court, sitti ng en banc, overr uled our previous standard for revi ew i n g ar b itration

awa rds. Under

the new sta

ndard, w e conside r three questions to determi n e whether “proc edura l

a be rr a tio n” jus tif

ie s o ve rt ur nin g an a rb itr a tor ’s award. F ir st, “ [d]id the arb itr a tor

a c t ‘ ou tsi de his

a u t h o r i t y ’ b y r e s o l v i n g a

d i s p u t e n o tc o m m i t t e d

t o ar b i t r a t i o n ?” Id . at 753. Second, “ [d] id the arbitr a to r c o mm it f r a u d , h a v e a

c o n f li c t o f in te r e s t o r

o th e r w is e a c t d is h o n e s tl y

in is s u in g the

awa rd? ” Id . And third, “in re solving a ny leg al or fa ctual dis p u t es i n t h e ca se, wa s the arbitrator ‘ar g uably construing or applying the contra ct’? ” Id

. “So long as the arbitrator does not of fend a ny

o f th e s e r e qu ir e me n ts , th e r e qu e s t f o r ju d ic ia l in te r

v e n ti o n s h o u ld b e r e s is te d e v e nthough the arbitrator made ‘ser ious,’ ‘improvident’ or ‘silly ’ er rors in re solving the me rits of the dispute.” Id

. We h old “ se ri ou s ar

bit ra l er ro r[s ]” bin din g on a pa

rt y to ar bit ra tio n, “ be c a

us e se ri ou s e rr or s are a

ri sk inhere nt in arbitration.” Peterbilt Motors Co. v. UAW Intern. Union , 2 19 F e d. Ap p’ x 434 , 4 38 (6 th Cir. 2007). The pa rties ag ree that we ne ed only consider the third question: whether the Arbitrator was “ar g uably construing or applying the contra ct.” In Michigan Family Re sources , we e x plained that-6-

we will find that the ar b i trator wa s “ar g uably construing the contra ct” so long as “the arbitrator appea red to be eng ag ed in inter

pretation” of the contra ct. Mich. Family R es ., 475 F.3d at 753. The Court he ld t hat if the re is d ou

bt t hat an a rb itr a tor “ a pp e are d to be e ng a g e d in inte rp re ta tio n, ” “ we wi ll pr e su me that th e arb itr a tor wa s d oin g jus t th a t.” B ut w e a c kn ow le dg e d th a t:

we c annot ig nore the specte r that an arbitration decision could be so ‘ig norant’ of the contra ct’s ‘pla in lang uag e,’ a s to make implausible any contention that the ar

bitrator wa s c on str

uin g the c on tr a c t. A n in te rp re ta tio n o f a c on tr a c t thus c ou ld b e so untethere d to the terms of the ag ree ment

. . . that it would c ast doubt on whether the arbitrator indeed w as eng ag ed in interpre tation. Id . at 753 (interna l citations and altera tions omi tted). I n a pp lyingits ne wl y -f

a sh ion e d s tand ard

to u ph old the arb itr a tio n a

wa rd a t is su e inMichigan Family Resourc es, thi s Court fo un d t hat th e arb itr a tor in t hat c a se “ a

pp e a re d to be e ng a g e d in int e rp re ta tio n, ” ob se rv ingthat: [t ]he arbitrator’ s ten-pag e opinion has all the hallmarks of inter pretation. He re fer s to, quotes from and a

naly zes the pertinent provisions of the a g ree ment, and at no po int do e s h e say

any thi ng ind ic a tin g that he wa s d oin g any thi ngoth e r t

ha n tr y ingto re a c h a g oo d- fa ithint e rp re ta tio n o f t he c on tr a c t. Mich. Family R es ., 475 F.3d at 754. Under the defere ntial Michig an Family resour ces standard, we conclude that the ar bitration

awa rd must be upheld in this case beca use the Arbitrator “appe are d to be eng ag ed in interpre tation.” Th e Ar bit rator ’s op ini on

“ ha s a ll the ha ll mar ks of int e rp re ta tio n, ” be c a

us e , li ke the arb itr a tor

in Michigan Family Re

sources , the arbitrator quoted from a nd analy zed the pertinent provisions of the CBA. Th e Ar

bit rator c on sid e re d A rt ic le 13 of the CB A, wh ic h p ro hib its str ike s and loc ko uts , p ro v i d i n g:-7-

During the term of the Ag ree ment there shall be no ce ssation of work by employ ees who are cover ed by provisions of this Ag ree ment or action of any form taken or permitted by

impairing [Mi ch i gan S ug ar]’s oper ations or af fec ting the distribution of any of its products, except as stated in Ar ticle 3, S ection 10, nor sha ll there be any lo c k o u t b y

[M ic h ig anSu g ar ]. Th e Ar bit ra tor no te d th a t A rt ic le 13 a llo we d a n e xce pti on

to i ts p ro hib iti on

on strikes wi th i ts ref ere nce to A rticle 3, § 10, which provides that “employees have the rig ht to stri k e i f [ M i ch i g an Suga r] refuse s to abide by

the decision of an arbitrator.” The Arbitrator then found that Ar

ticle 13, based on its “c lear

lang uag e,” pr ohibits sy

mpathy s trikes, and de termined that “ individuals who eng ag e in work c essation in violation of [Article 13] have violated the [C BA ], and, as a re sult, are subject to the disciplinary considerations in t he [CBA].” The Ar bitrator then discussed Article 14, § 4, which gover ns the “termination of insuranc e,” p ro v i d i n g: Section 4. Termination of Insuranc e. (A) L ay off. I

n the eve nt a re g ular e mploy ee is laid off for l o n ger t h an a six (6) month period [Mi chig an Sug ar]’s re sponsibili ty to assume their c o s t of the a bove be ne fi t sh a ll c e a se ; ho we ve r, thi s d oe s n ot pr e ve nt the e mpl oy e e fr om c on tin uin g to pay for this insuranc e throug h the g roup plan. (B ) Termination of Empl oy ment. I n the eve nt of termination of e mploy ment other than nor m al l ay o ff

o r r et i re m en twi t h p en s i o n , an em p l o y ee ’s hospitaliz ation, surg ical and medica l cover ag e and life insurance under the g roup ar rang ement shall be canc elled in thirty

(30) d ay s, unless continued under Subsection c. of Sec tion 2, above. Th e Ar bit rator fo un d th a t A rt ic le 14 , § 4( B ), pe rt a ini ngto “ te rm inatio n o f e mpl oy me nt, ” a pp lie d to the dispute, and that the te rm “term i n at i o n o f em p loy ment” ca n “be inter

prete d . . . to mean that employ ees w ho are not w orking , but y et have some relationship wit h [Mi chig an Sug ar] will not have their cover ag e canc elled until 30 day s have passed.” The arbitrator also noted that no o ther-8-

pro vi si on s o f t he C BA deal t w it h t he t erm in ati on of i ns uran ce, an d co ncl ud ed t hat Art icl e 14 , § 4(B)

“ e xpre sse s th e mut

ua l in te nt of the p art ie s th a t e mpl oy e e s w ill have a min imum of

30 da y s p a id health insuranc e under

any circ ums ta n c e s th a t c o u ld arguably

fall within the definition of termination of employ ment.” The Arbitrator

also noted that “[t] he g rieva nts a re still employ ees e ven thoug h they have honor ed the picke t lines,” but a re “ entitled to health insuranc e cove rag e” be cause of Article 4, § 4(B ). The Ar

bitrator then discusse d Article 3, § 9, w hich enumer ates thre e instance s in which employ ees a

re a ccor ded ce rtain protec tions based on the ac tiviti es of “ other labor org anizations”: (A ) P ic ke t L ine s –

Ot he r P re mis e s. [Mic hig an Su g ar] a grees th at its employ ees w ill not be required under penalty of di schar g e or discipline of any kind to walk t h r o u g h o r c r o s s in an y ma n n e r an y p ic k e t li n e ma in ta in e d b y a labor org anization, and an y re fu s al to cross a pic ket line sing ly or in conc ert shall not c on sti tut e a

br e a c h o f t

his c on tr a c t. (B ) Picket L ines – [Mi chig an Sug ar] Premises. [Mi chig an S u gar ] further ag ree s that in the event of any picket line by any labor org anization placed a round the fr on t of any e ntr anc e to its pr e mis e s, it w ill no t r e qu ir e its e mpl oy e e s und e r p e na lty of discharg e or discipline of a ny kind to walk throug h or cr oss said picket line in any mann e r, and

any re fu sa l to c ro ss a

pic ke t li ne sin g ly

or in c on c e rt sh a ll no t c on sti tut e a br e a c h o f t

his c on tr a c t. (C) Remedies f

or B rea ch. I t is further ag ree d that in the event of any violation of these pr ovisions by

the Company , an i n dividual employ ee a ffe cted by such vio la tio n sh all h a ve the ri g ht t o ma int a in a n a c tio n at la

w o r e qu ity

in t he c ourt s to re dr e ss a ny inj ur ie s su ff

e re d th e re by , in ad dit ion to a ny oth e r p ro vis ion s in

thi s Ag ree ment for r edre ss of g rieva nce. The Ar bitrator found that Article 3, § 9 “prote cts employ ees f rom the application of the no-strike langua g e [of

Ar tic le 13 ] if

the fa ilure to c ro ss a pic ke t lin e is c on sid e re d a str ike .” B e c a

us e Ar tic le 3, § 9 acc ords protec tion based on the a ct i v i t i es of “othe r labor or g anizations,” the Arbitrator considere d whether

the Ohio L ocal 294 -G wa s a sepa rate labor org anization from the Michig an-9-

L ocal. The Arbitrator

found that the Ohio L ocal 294- G was a n “other labor orga

nization[ ]” for purposes of applying Article 3, § 9, despite the fa ct that the loca ls were “combined into one union for the pur

pose of ne g otiating a

nd enfor cing the [CBA].” The Arbitrator conc luded that Article 3, § 9 applied to the dispute. Given its determination that Ar ticle 3, § 9 applied, the Arbitrator then assessed w hether the

cessation of health benef

its constituted employ er- imposed “discipline,” pr ohibited under Ar ticle 3, § 9 for e mploy ees obse rving the picket lines

. The Ar bitrator dec ided that althoug h the term

“ dis c ipl ine of

any kin d” un de r Ar

tic le 3, § 9 su g g e sts a

br oa d me anin g , M ic hig an Su g ar’ s r e fu sa l to pay the employ ees w ho ref

used to cross the picke t lines was not discipline. The Ar bitrator noted that the ca ncellation of he alth car e bene fits, however , is “extremely coer cive” and a “ viola t i o n o f the [C BA ],” as previously

indicated in his discussion of insuranc e for em p l o y ees terminated fr om employ ment under A rticle 14, § 4(B ). Michig an Sug ar obje cts to the Arbitrator’s ana ly sis principally beca use the Ar

b i t ra tor’s decisio n r e s ts u

p o n it s in te r

p r e tati o n o f A rti c le 1 4 , § 4 ( B ) , p e rta in in g to “ te r mi n a tion of employ ment.” Michig an Sug ar c ontends that the Arbitrator ’s finding that the employ ees at issue are “ter minated” e mploy ees is a “ bizarre” and “unsupport ed” f inding, amounting to the Ar bitrator dispensing “ his brand of industrial justice.” The Ar bitrator’s inter

pretation of Article 14, § 4 in this case does not g ive a court g rounds t o v ac at e a nar

b i tra t i o naw ar d , ev en i f th e Ar b i t ra t o r m ad e a “bi z arre ” an d “u n s u p p o rt ed ” f

i n d i n g, beca use we are direc ted to tolerate even “ serious, improvident, or silly ” leg al or fa ctual er rors. Mich. Family R es ., 475 F.3d at 753. “I t is the arbitrator’ s construction which was bar g ained f or; and

so fa r a s th e arb itr a tor ’s de c isi on c on c e rn s c on str

uc tio n o f t

he c on tr a c t, the c ourt s h a ve no bu sin e ss-10-

overr uling him bec ause their interpr etation of the c ontrac t is differe nt from his.” United Ste e lwo rk e rs o f A m. v . E

nte r. W he e l &Car

Cor p ., 363 U.S. 593, 599 (1960). An d we n eed not consider the merits of the contra ctual dispute at ha nd, beca use under Michigan Family Re sources , “judicial conside ration of the m erits of a dis pute i s the rare ex ception, not the rule.” Mi c h. Fa mi ly Res ., 475 F.3d at 753. I t suffice s to say t h at t h e Arbit rator w as not wholly unjustified in basing his ana ly sis on Article 14, § 4’ s provisions pertaining to “termination of insurance,” including A rticle 14, § 4(B ), wh ic h p e rt a ins to “ te rm inatio n o f i ns ur anc e ” “ [i]n the e ve nt o f t e rm inatio n o f e mpl oy me nt. ” Ar

tic le 14, § 4’s provisions are the only ones that addre ss the cessation of health ca re c overa g e for

regular employ ees. In deter

mining whe ther the e mploy ees at issue w er e en t itled to health car e cove rag e, A rt i c l e 1 4 , § 4 c l e ar l y h a d r e l e v an c e t o t h e d i s p u t e , e v e n i f t h e A r b i t r a t o r c o n s t r

u e d i t i n c o r

r e c t l y. Th is i s n ot that ra

re ins tanc e in wh ic h an arb itr a tor ’s int e rp re ta tio n wa s so “ un te the re d to t he te rm s” of the CB A that it “ca st[ s] doubt ” on whe ther he was e ng ag ed in interpre tation. Id

. Most important for our purpose s, the Arbitrator “appe are d to be eng ag ed in interpre tation,” g iven his quotation a

nd interpre tation of

rele vant portions of the CB A. Se e id . at 75 3 ( “ [ I ]n mo st

case s, it will suffice to e nforc e the awa rd that the arbitrator appe are d to be eng ag ed in interpre tation, and if ther e is doubt we will presume that the ar bitrator wa s doing just that.”) The Ar bitrator quoted and ana ly zed Article 3, § 9, gove rning the “protection on the activiti es of other labor org anization”; Ar tic le 13 , § 1, g ov e rn ingthe pr oh ibi tio n of str ike s and loc ko ut; Ar

tic le 14 , § 2, g ov e rn ingHo sp ita lMedica l Surgic al-De ntal Be nefits; and Ar ticle 1 4, § 4, g overningthe termination of insura nce. Al tho ug h “ arb itr a tor s in

thi s are a may be , a nd fr e qu e ntl y

are , n on -l awy e rs (a

nd the re fo re ha

rd ly inculcate d in all of the nuanc es of c ontrac t interpretation),” and “ have no oblig ation to issue a written-11-

decision to justify

their aw ards,” id . at 755, the Ar bitrat o r i n t h i s case is a licensed attorney , who, throug hout his twenty -one pa ge o p i nion, discussed and c onstrued var ious provisions of the CBA. Be cause there is no indication that the Arbitrator “wa s doing a ny thing other

than trying to r eac h a g ood-fa ith interpretation of the contra ct,” id ., the district c ourt err ed in va cating t h e arbitration

awa rd. III . For the re asons stated a

bove, we RE VE RSE the di strict court’s de cision and REMAND the

case to the district court with instructions to reinstate the a rbitrator’ s awa

rd.