2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-6-2011

Tube City IMS v. United Steel, Paper and Forest

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1403

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Tube City IMS v. United Steel, Paper and Forest" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 2004.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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, MANUFACTURING, 

ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 5852-19

________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-09-cv-00845)

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 an 
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. We have 

jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Arbitration awards are entitled to extreme deference. 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. Animal 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 record justifying the arbitrator’s determinations.” United Transp. 

Union Local 1589 v. Suburban 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 corruption 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 misbehavior 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 reviewed 

the parties’ positions. His decision drew its essence from the collective bargaining 

agreement, and was well-supported by canons of contract interpretation. The Arbitrator 

directed Tube City to rescind the employee’s discharge, to reinstate him, and to make the 

employee whole for his economic losses. Based on our review of the record, summary 

judgment was proper, essentially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s 

comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion, which held, inter alia, that this case “is really 

nothing more than [Tube City’s] quibbling over the arbitrator’s interpretation of the 

CBA.” We will affirm.