2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-6-2011 

# T ub e C it y IMS v

. U nit ed S t eel , P a p e r a nd F or es t
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 10-1403

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" T ube C it y I MS v

. U nit e d S t e e l , P a pe r a nd F or e s t " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 2004. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/2004

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________ No. 10

- 1403

________________ TUBE CITY IMS, LLC,

Appellant v. UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACT U RING, ENERG Y, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 5852

- 19

________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 09

- cv

- 0 0 845 ) District Judge: The Honorable William L. Standish

_______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 21 , 2010 BEFORE: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

. (Filed : January 6, 2011 )

_______________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_______________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge

. Tube City IMS, LLC appeals from an adverse ruling by an Arbitrator on the Union’s claim that Tube City had terminated a union member’s employment without just
cause, a violation of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Tube City filed a n

### 2

action in the District Court seeking to vacate the award pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185. The District Court confirmed the Arbitrator ’ s award and entered judgment in favor of Tube City. W e have jurisdiction ov

er this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Arbitration awards are entitled to extreme d eference

. Dluhos v. Strasberg , 321 F.3d 365, 370 (3d Cir. 2003) . A party seeking to vacate an arbitration award must clear a “high hurdle

. ” Stolt

- Nielson S.A. v. An imal Feeds Int ’ l Corp ., --- U.S.

---- , ---- , 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1767 (2010). We must enforce an arbitration award unless there is “absolutely no support at all in the r ecord justifying the arbitrator’ s determinations.” United Transp. Union Local 1589 v. Sub urban Transit Corp., 51 F.3d 376, 379 (3d Cir. 1995). The ability of a court to vacate an arbitration award is limited to the following:

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corru ption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other mi sbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1 )

- ( 4 ).

### 3

Here, the Arbitrator heard testimony from witnesses for both parties, and considered numerous exhibits, post

- hearing briefs and oral argument of counsel. The Arbitrator issued a seven

- page opinion in which he made findings of fact and reviewe d
t he parties’ positions. His decision drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, and was well

- supported by canons of contract interpretation. The A rbitrator directed Tube City to rescind the employee’s discharge, to reinstate him , and to ma ke the employee whole for his economic losses. Based o n our review of the record, summary judgment was proper, essentially for the reasons stated in the D istrict C ourt ’ s comprehensive and well

- reasoned o pinion, which held, inter alia , that this case “is r eally nothing more than [Tube City’s] quibbling over the arbitrator’s interpretation of the CBA.” We will affirm.