T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor a bl e J a m e s S
. G w i n, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** N or the r n D i s tr i c tof

O hi o, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
M EDI C AM BULANCE S ER VI CE , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t,
v. NA T I ON AL E ME R GE NC Y ME DI C AL S E R VI C E S AS S OC I AT I ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 15020 D. C
. No . 2 : 0 8
- c v - 0 1 2 5 6
- GG H
ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te r n D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia G r e gor y H ol l ow s , M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 12, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia B e f o r e : HU G a n d B YB E E , C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d GWI N, D i stri ctJudg e. ** A p p ellan t M ed ic A m b u lan ce S er v ices (“M ed ic”) ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s d e n ia l o f its m o tio n to v a c a te a n a rb itr a tio n a w a r d . W e a f f ir m . 

# FI LED

MA R 30 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

M e di c a nd A ppe l l e e N a t i ona l E m e r ge nc y M e di c a l S e rv i ces A s s oc i a t i on (“ N E M S A ”) arbi tra t ed a gri evance un der thei r c ol l ec t i ve bargai ni ng agre em entbefore
a rb itr a to r K a r e n A n d r e s . A rb itr a to rA n d r e s d e te r m in e d th a t M e d ic h a d im p r o p e r ly te r m in a te d e m p l o y e e a n d N E M S A m e m b e rE r ic S p o n s le ra n d o r d e r e d h is rei n st at em en tw i th fu l l b ack p ay. A r t i c l e I X of the pa r t i e s ’ c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a gr e e m e ntc ove r s di s c ha r ge a nd di s c i pl i ne i s s ue s a nd pr ovi de s tha t M e di c “ s ha l l ha ve the r i ghtt o di s c ha r ge ors us pe nd
ort o t a ke othe rdi s c i pl i ne a c t i on ‘ f orj us tc a us e . ’ ” M e a nw hi l e , A r t i c l e X s e t s outthe gri evance proce du re and l i m i t s l i abi l i ty as fol l ow s: “ L i abi l i ty f or back w ages , t i m e off
a c c rua l s ora ny other eco n o m i c b e ne f i t , s ha l l be l i m i t e d t o thr e e ( 3) m onths ’ pa y f or th e g r ie v a n c e w ith n o r e in s ta te m e n t.” A ppe l l a ntM e di c arg ue s tha ta rbi tr a t orA ndr e s ’ s a w a r d of r e i ns t a t e m e nta nd b a c k p a y v io la te s th is lim ita tio n o n r e m e d ie s . I n Southe r n C al i

f or ni a G a s C om

pany v . Ut i l i t

y W orke rs U ni on of A m e r i c a, L ocal13 2, A F

L -C IO , 2 6 5 F .3 d 7 8 7 , 7 9 2 ( 9 th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ) , w e d e s c r ib e d o u re x tr e m e ly
narr ow re v iew w h en deci di ng i f a n arbi tra t i on aw ar d sho ul d b e vac at ed: “ If an
a rbi tr a t ori s e ve n a r gua bl y c ons trui ng orappl y i ng the c ontr act an d ac t i ng w i thi n the
s c ope of hi s a uthor i ty , the f

a c ttha ta c our ti s c onvi nc e d he c om m i tt e d s e r i ous e r r or do es no tsuff

i ce t o o verturn h i s dec i si on . ” Se e al s o E
. A s s oc i at e d C oal

C or p. v . Mi ne3

W o rkers , 5 3 1 U
. S
. 59, 67 ( 2000) ( hol di ng tha tf e de r a l l a w a ga i ns tus e of drugs by tr a n s p o r ta tio n e m p lo y e e s d id n o t p r e v e n t e n f o r c e m e n t o f

a rb itr a tio n a w a r d to r e in s ta te truck dri ver w ho had t w i ce t es t ed po si t i ve for m ar i j uana). T hi s l i m i t ed re vi ew exi st s b ec ause “ the part i es have cont ra ct ed t o h ave di sput es
se tt l ed by an arbi tra t or chosen by them ra ther than b y aj ud ge. ” U n i t ed P a p erw o rkers Int ’l U ni on , A F L -C IO v. Misc o, Inc. , 484 U
. S
. 29, 37- 38 ( 1987)
. T he r e f or e , “ i ti s the
arbi tra t or’ s vi ew of the fa ct s and of the m ea ni ng of the cont ra ctthatthey have agre ed t o acc ept . ” I

d. I n th i s ca s e , w e m a y onl y ove r tur n a rbi tr a t orA ndr e s ’ s a w a r d i f the
a w a r d f a ils to d r a w its e s s e n c e f r o m th e c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n t. S. C al
. G as C o. , 2 6 5 F .3 d a t 7 9 2
- 9 3
. W he r e , a s i n thi s c a s e , a n a rbi tr a t or i s r e qui r e d t o gi ve m e a ni ng t o m ul t i pl e , a nd
a r gua bl y c onf

l i c t i ng, pr ovi s i ons i n a n a gr e e m e nta nd thus e nga ge i n so m e f or m of cont ra cti nt erpret at i on , court s do n otse cond gu es s herconcl usi on s s o l on g as they a re p la u s ib le
. See H

aw ai iT eam ster s & A l l i ed W

orke rs U ni on , L ocal99 6 v. U

ni t ed P arce l Serv i ce , 241 F
. 3d 1177, 1178 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( r e vi e w i ng c our t ’ s t a s k i s t o “ de t e r m i ne
w h eth er th e a rb itr a to r in te rp r e te d th e c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n t, n o t w he the rhe d id s o c o r r e c tly ” ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) ; see a l so U n i t ed S t eelw o rkers o

f A m . v. E n t er. W he e l & C arC or

p. , 3 6 3 U .S
. 5 9 3 , 5 9 8
- 9 9 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ( h o ld in g th a t r e v ie w in g c o u r t c o u ld
no tov er turn arbi tra t or’ s i nt erpret at i on of cont ra cteven w here arb it rat or appl i ed4

in c o r r e c t p r in c ip le s o f

la w ) ; E m

pl oy e rs I ns. o f W a us au v . N

at ’ l U ni on F i r e I

ns . C o. , 93 3 F
. 2d 14 81 , 14 8 7 (9th C i r. 19 91 ) ( ho l di ng arbi tra t ors’ i nt erpret at i on of offs et
c l a us e pl a us i bl e w he r e a l t e r na t i ve r e a di ng w oul d “ i ne xpl i c a bl y a nd dr a s t i c a l l y na r r ow th e ri gh tof offs ett o rar e a nd un usual ci rc um st ance s” ); H ug he s Ai r c r af

t Co. v . El ec . & Spac e T

e c hni c i ans , L oc al

1553 , 822 F
. 2d 823, 826 ( 9th C i r . 1987) ( a f f i r m i ng
arbi tra t or’ s decisio n t hatexi st i ng agre em ent ’ s s eni ori ty provi si on superc eded po t ent i al l y c on fl i ct i ng supp l em ent al agre em enton prom ot i on s)
. F ore xa m pl e , i n V

i rgi ni a Mason H

ospi talv. W

as h in gt on Stat e N

urse s A s s o c ia tio n , 51 1 F
. 3d 90 8 (9t h C i r. 20 07 ), w e a ff i rm ed the arbi tra t or’ s rul i ng w here he i de nt i f

i e d tw o i nc ons i s t e nt pol i c i e s i n a c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a gr e e m e nta nd ga ve pr i or i ty t o one of

the m . I n tha t c a s e , a hos pi t a l uni l a t e r a l l y r e qui r e d nur s e s t o r e c e i ve f lu s h o t s . T h e h o s p ita l a r g u e d th a t a p a tie n t c a r e p r io r ity c la u s e , m a n a g e m e n t r ig h ts cl ause , pastprac t i ce cl ause and a zi pp ercl ause j ust i fi ed thi s r equi re m ent . 51 1 F
. 3d at 9 1 3
- 1 4 . R e s p o n d in g , th e u n io n a c k n o w le d g e d th e s e p r o v is io n s b u t c la im e d th a t a
r e c ogni t i on c l a us e a nd the c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a gr e e m e nt ’ s pr e a m bl e r e qui r e d the h o s p ita l to n e g o tia te w ith th e u n io n b e f o r e u n ila te r a lly r e q u ir in g th e v a c c in a tio n s . I d.
a t915. T he a rbi tr a t orc om pa r e d the a r gua bl y i nco n si s t e ntpol i c i e s a nd f ound the
r e c o g n itio n c la u s e tru m p e d th e m a n a g e m e n t r ig h ts c la u s e a n d o t h e rc la u s e s . W e5

a f f i r m e d, f i ndi ng tha tthe a rbi tr a t or ’ s c hoi c e be tw e e n i nc ons i s t e ntc ontr a c tpr ovi s i ons d r e w its e s s e n c e f

r o m th e c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n t: A s th e a rb itr a to r d e s c r ib e d it, “th e is s u e is
. . . w h e th e rth e p a r tie s ’ r ig h ts u n d e rth e P r e a m b le a n d A r tic le 1 .1 s u p e r s e d e s [ s ic ] A r tic le 1 8 .1 m a na ge m e ntr i ght s . ” T hus he pl a i nl y e s t a b l i sh ed the c ont our s of the di s put e t o be w i thi n the t e r m s of the C B A
. A l though hi s r e a di ng of the m a n a g e m e n t r ig h ts c la u s e w a s n a r r o w , it w a s n o t “o n its f a c e . . . [ i m ] p l au s i bl e ” be c a us e the i nt e rpr e t a t i on “ dr a w s i t s e s s e nc e f r om the col l ec t i ve bargai ni ng agre em ent . ” V a. M as on H os p. , 511 F
. 3d a t914. I n th i s c a s e , th e p a r t i e s ’ d i s p u t e r e q u i r e d a rb i tr a t o rAn d r e s t o i n t e rp r e ttwo
ap p a r e n tly c o n f

lic tin g p r o v is io n s o f

th e p a r tie s ’ c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n t. A f t e rr e c e i vi ng ev i d en ce, A ndr e s f ound tha te m pl oy e e S pons l e rha d c om m i tt e d no
v io la tio n o f

w o r k ru le s a n d th a t n o ju s t c a u s e e x is te d to d is c ip lin e h im . E x p lic itly
r e c ogni z i ng the a gr e e m e nt ’ s r e qui r e m e ntof “ j us t c a us e ” f

or a ny di s c i pl i ne , A rbi tr a t or A n d r e s d e te r m in e d th a t a s tr a ig h tf o r w a r d ap p lic a tio n o f th e r e m e d ie s p r o v is io n w o u ld b e “ co n trary t o reaso n ” w h en an e m p lo y ee w as co m p l et el y i n n o cen to f th e o ffen se ch arg ed
. A cco rd i n g l y, A n d res crafted a r e m e d y th atd rew i t s essen ce fro m th e j u st
c a us e r e qui r e m e nt s of the c ontr a c t . A l though the a gr e e m e nt pr ovi de s a co n f l i c t i ng
re m ed y, th e p ar ti es b ar g ain ed fo r A n d re s’s r es o lu ti o n o f th e c o n flict, n o t th is co u rt’s
r e s ol ut i on.6

M or e ove r , A ndr e s ’ s i nt e rp ret at i o n i s a pl a us i bl e one . A s s he r e a s one d, strai g h t fo rw ard ap p l i cat i o n o f th e l i ab i l i ty cl au se i n th i s case w o u ld m ak e th e j u st
cause provi si on of the part i es ’ agre em enti l lu sory . B as ed on thi s probl em , A nd re s i m pl i c i t l y i nt e rpr e t e d the r e m e di e s pr ovi s i on a s c r e a t i ng a pos s i bl e l i m i t at i on on
r e m e di e s w he n the e m pl oy e e ha d a t l e a s tc om m i tt e d s om e vi ol a t i on, butnotw he n the
e m pl oy e e w a s i nnoc e nt . T he r e f or e , he r de c i s i on dr e w i t s e s s e nc e f r om the c ol l e c t i ve b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e me n t , a n d th i s c o u r tmu s ta f f i r m. A p p ellan t M ed ic h as also fa il ed to d em o n stra te an y e rr o r in arb itra to r A n d re s’s
e vi de nt i a r y rul i ngs ori n he rde c i s i on t o di s t i ngui s h a pr i ora rbi tr a t or ’ s opi ni on. AF F I R ME D.