N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C OSTC O W HOLESALE C ORPOR ATION, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. INTER NATIONAL B R OTHER HOOD OF TEAM STER S, LOC AL NO. 542,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 19-55451 D.C . No. 3:18-c v-01953-AJB -B LM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony J. B a tta glia , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 1, 2020 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. Disse n t by

Judge N
. R . SM ITH 

# FIL ED MAR 12 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.C ostc o W hole sa le C orp. (C ostc o) a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt
c onfirm i ng a

n a rbitra t i on a ward in fa

vor of the Inte rna tiona l B rothe rhood of Te a m ste rs, Loc a l No. 542 (the Union), a nd de ny ing C ostc o’ s pe tition to va c a te the
award. A m e m

be r of the Union, Ja

m e s Dia z , c ha l le nge d his te rm ination for se lling drugs on C o stc o pre m ise s. The pa rtie s pa rtic i pa te d in a

rbitration proc e e dings a s provide d in the c olle c tive ba rga ining a gre e m e nt. Following the pre se ntation of
e vide nc e , m a tt e rs took a

biz arre turn. W e are fully aw are of the high sta nda rd tha t m ust be m e t to va c a te an
arbitration a

ward. Se e Ste ad Motors of W alnut C r e e k v . Auto Mac hinists Lodge , 886 F.2d 1200, 1208 n.8 (9th C ir. 1989) (e n ba nc ) (de sc ribing the e xtre m e ly lim ite d re vie w on a

ppe a l of a n arbitrator’ s de c ision). And we do not disa gre e with the g e ne ra l princ iple s e spouse d by our e ste e m e d c o lle a gue in disse nt. Ne ve rthe le ss, a

n a rbitration a

ward m ay be va c a t e d if the proc e e dings viola te the rule of funda

m e n ta l fa irne ss. Se e Mov e , Inc . v . C itigroup Glob. Mark

e t s, Inc
. , 840 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th C ir. 2016). The arbitrator e nga ge d in “ e xte nsive post-he aring e x pa rte c om m unic a tions with Diaz and the Union,” inc luding a n una uthoriz e d $6,000 se ttle m e nt offe r to Dia z of whic h C ostc o wa s una ware . The arbitrator re nde re d his de c ision via

a va gue and biz arre e m a il only se nt to the Union a

nd re a ding: “ The a

bove nam e d
2grie va

nt pre va ils in his grie

va nc e . The Union’ s a

rgum e n ts a s to double je o pa rdy
we re c orre c t. Union re m e dy is a dopte d. So tha

t I c an look a

t m y se l f in the m irror,
m y re signa t ion is e ffe c tive toda

y .” The arbitrator re signe d a fte r re nde ring his
e m a il judgm e nt, the re by

pre ve nting C o stc o from obta i ning c la rific a tion of his de c ision. C ostc o re que ste d tha t the arbitrator e m a i l a

c opy of the c om

ple te d B oa

rd of Adjustm e nt De c ision form , but ne ve r re c e ive d the form . A c opy of the form
wa s file d in the distric t c o urt a n d sta te d with no e la

b ora tion: “ Double Je opa

rdy
wa s prove d by

pre ponde ra nc e of e vide nc e pre se nte d . Em ploy e e to be m a de whole .” B e c a

use the arbitrator fa ile d to provide a re a sone d de c ision, C ostc o wa s le ft with unc e rta i n ty

a s to the pa

ra m e te rs of the re m e dy orde re d by the arbitrator.

“ B a se d on the fa c ts of the c a se be fore us, we sim ply c annot c onc lude tha

t [C ostc o]
re c e ive d a

funda m e nta lly fa ir he a ring,” and C ostc o “ is e ntitle d to va c a tur.” Mov e , Inc
. , 840 F.3d a

t 1159. Our c olle a gue in disse nt ta ke s issue with our re lia

nc e on the la

ngua ge in Mov e , Inc
. Howe ve r, the c a se s re lie d on by our disse nting c olle a gue a lso c onside r the fa irne ss of the proc e e dings. Se e Emp’rs Ins. of W ausau v . N

a t’l Union Fire Ins. C o. of Pittsburgh , 933 F.2d 1481, 1491 (9th C ir. 1991) (noting tha t the
arbitrator’ s judgm e n t m

ust be “ inc orrupt” ) (c ita

tion om itte d); se e also U.S. Life Ins. C o., v . Supe rior N

at’l Ins. C

o. , 591 F.3d 1167, 1177 (9th C ir. 2010). Nota bly , 3those c a se s did not involve an a rbitrator who fa ile d to re n de r a re a sone d de c ision
and othe rwise a

ba ndone d his re sponsibilitie s. Our c olle a gue in disse nt a lso insists tha t the arbitra

tor’ s de c ision dre w its
e sse nc e from

the c olle c tive ba

rga ining a gre e m e nt. B ut the re wa s no e sse nc e of the de c ision be c a

use the re wa s no de c ision re nde re d, a nd no re a s oning proffe re d . For
a ll we know, the arbitrator flippe d a c o in, c onsulte d a

ouija boa rd, or thre w da

rts at
a da rtboa rd to de te rm ine the outc om e . He c e rta i nly gave no e x p la

na tion to the pa rtie s of his de c ision de spite a re que st from

C ostc o tha

t he do so. The disse nt posits tha

t we m ust de fe r to the arbitrator’ s de c ision “ re ga rdle ss of whe the r we be lie ve tha t the de c ision finds the fa c ts a nd sta t e s the la w e rrone ously .” Disse nting Opinion , p. 8 (quoting Ste ad Motors , 886 F.2d a t 1204 (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). Howe ve r, the fa lla c y in tha t argum e nt is tha

t the a rbitrator ne i the r found the fa c ts nor sta te d the la w, so the re is nothing to whic h
we c an de fe r a s c onte m

plate d by the pla in la

ngua ge of Ste ad Motors . Inde e d, in Ste a d Motors , we spe c ific a lly note d tha t the arbitrator “ issue d a

writte n opinion
and a ward.” Id. a t 1203. Fina lly , our c olle a gue in disse nt re pre se n ts tha t the re c ord doe s not re fle c t that the arbitrator wa s bia s e d . B ut e x pa rte c o m m unic a tions a

nd a n una uthoriz e d
se ttle m e nt offe r re fle c t c onsum m a t e bia s a

nd la c k of c om

m itm e n t to a tran spa

re nt
4proc e e ding. S e e Airgas W

e st, Inc . v . Haw aii Te amste r s and Allie d W

ork e rs, Loc al 996 , No. 12-00454 LEK-KSC , 2013 W L 1856076 a t *7 (D. Ha

w. April 30, 2013) (“ The pa rtie s a gre e tha

t a n a rbitrator’ s e x pa

rte c om m unic a tion m a

y be grounds to
va c a te an a

ward . . .” ). No pa

rty a gre e ing to a

rbitra tion ba rga ine d for a

proc e e ding
suc h a s this, a nd nothing in our pre c e de nt c om pe ls us to ignore

the s e fa c ts. Se e Ame ric an Ex

p . C o. v . Italian C

olors Re staurant , 570 U.S. 228, 233 (2018) (noting
c ourts’ obliga

tion to “rigorously

e nforc e . . . the rule s unde r whic h tha t a rbitration will be c onduc te d,” a s a g re e d by the pa rtie s). T he de c ision of the distr ic t c our t c onfir m ing the ar bitr a tion aw ar d is RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D for vac atur of the ar bitr a tion aw ar d.

5C

ostc o W hole sale C orp. v . Inte rnational Brothe rhood of Te amste rs, Loc a l N o. 542 , No. 19-55451 N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: Arbitra tion “ i s a m a tte r of c o nse nt, not c oe rc ion.” Volt Info. Sc is., Inc . v . Bd. of Trs. of Le land Stanford J unior Univ
. , 489 U.S. 468, 479 (1989). “ B y a gre e ing to
arbitrate . . . , [a

pa rty ] tra de s the proc e dure s a nd opportunity

for re vie w of the
c ourtroom

for the sim

plic ity , inform a l ity , a

nd e xpe d ition of a

rbitration.” Mitsubishi Motors C orp. v . Sole r C

h r y sle r–Ply mouth, Inc
. , 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985). As a sophistic a te d c o m

pa ny , C o stc o W hole sa le C o rpora tion (“ C ostc o” ) wa s aware of the s e a dva

n ta ge s of a

rbitration whe n it c hose to re solve its la bor dispute s in the
arbitra l forum . C ostc o a lso kne w tha t it would ha

ve to “ l ive with tha

t c hoic e ,” se e Ox ford He alth Plans LLC v . Sutte r , 569 U.S. 564, 573 (2013), e ve n if “ it [we re ] disa ppointe d by

or disa gre e d with the re sult in a pa rtic ula r c a se ,” Ste ad Motors of W alnut C re e k v . Auto. Mac h inists Lodge N o. 1173, Int’l Ass’n of Mac hinists & Ae rospac e W

ork e rs , 886 F.2d 1200, 1217 (9th C i r. 1989) (e n ba nc ). For the role of the a rbitrator in a

la bor dispute is to “ sta

te the pa rtie s’ ba rga in,” id. a t 1205, suc h that “ it is thearbitrator’ s vie w of the fa c ts a nd of the m e a

ning of the c ontra c t tha

t [the pa rtie s] have a g re e d to a c c e pt,” Unite d Pape rw ork e rs Int’l Union, AFL–C

IO v
. Misc o, Inc
. , 484 U.S. 29, 37–38 (1987). 

# FIL ED MAR 12 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO U RT O F APPEALS

1Thus, ha ving “ c hose [n] arbitration, . . . [C ostc o] a g re e d with [Ja m e s Dia z ] that an a rbitrator should de te rm ine what the ir c ontra c t m e a nt” a s it re l a te d to the ir dispute
. Se e Ox

ford He alth Plans , 569 U.S. a t 573. “ The arbitrator did wha t the pa rtie s re que ste d: He provide d a n inte rpre ta t ion of the c ontra c t re solving tha t dispute [] . . . .” Id. “ His inte rpre ta tion we n t a ga inst [C ostc o] , [and] m ay b e
m ista ke nly so.” Id. B u t, be c a

use “ [i] t [wa s ] the arbitrator’ s c onstruc tion whic h [the pa rtie s ] ba rga ine d for,” Unite d Ste e lw ork e r s of Am. v . Ente r. W

he e l & C ar C orp. , 363 U.S. 593, 599 (1960), “ [t] he arbitrator’ s c onstruc tion holds, howe ve r good, ba d, or ugly ,” Ox

ford He alth Plans , 569 U.S. a t 573. Now, C ostc o se e ks re lie f from the ba rga i n it struc k with Dia

z , sim ply be c a use tha t ba rga in “ ha [s] turne d sour on [it] .” Ste ad Motors , 886 F.2d a t 1206. And de s pite the fa c t

tha t C ostc o “ a gre e d to purc ha s e [the arbitrator’ s de c i sion] , e y e s ope n, for be tte r or for worse ,” the m a jority ine xplic a bly grants C o stc o a re fund by va c a ting the arbitration a ward— le a ving Diaz without the be n e fit of his ba rga i n. Se e id. (quoting Edga r A. Jone s, Jr., “His Ow n Brand of Industrial J ustic e ”: The Stalk

ing Horse of J udic ial Re v ie w

of Labor Arbitration , 30 UC LA L. R e v. 881, 893 (1983)). The m a jority re a c he s this re sult sole ly

ba se d on one of C ostc o’ s a rgum e nts that the arbitrator’ s c onduc t de n ie d C ostc o a funda m e n ta lly fa ir he aring. Howe ve r, 2for the following re a sons, I m ust re spe c tfully

disse nt. None of C ostc o’ s a rgum e nts have m e rit. I will first a ddre ss the ba sis of the m a jority ’ s de c i sion. 1. The arbitrator’ s c onduc t did not de ny C ostc o a funda m e nta l ly fa ir he aring a s de fine d by

our pre c e de nt. A la

b or arbitration “ he aring is funda m e nta l ly fa ir if it
m e e ts ‘ the m inim a l re quire m e nts of fa irne ss’

— a de quate notic e , a he aring on the
e vide nc e , a

nd a n im pa rtia l de c i sion by

the arbitrator.” Sunshine

Mining C

o. v . Unite d Ste e lw ork

e rs of Am., AFL–C

IO, C LC , 823 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th C ir. 1987) (quoting Fic e k v . S. Pac . C o. , 338 F.2d 655, 657 (9th C ir. 1964)); ac c ord Emp’rs Ins. of W ausau v . N

at’l Union Fire

Ins. C o. of Pittsburgh , 933 F.2d 1481, 1491 (9th C ir. 1991) (“ [P] e rha

ps [the m ova

nt] did not e njoy

a pe rfe c t he aring; but it did
re c e ive a fa ir he aring. It ha d notic e , it ha d the opportunity to be he a rd a nd to pre s e nt re le va

nt a nd m a te ria l e vide nc e , a

nd the de c isionm a ke rs we re not infe c te d with bia s. [The m ova

n t] wa s e ntitle d to no m ore .” ); U .S. Life Ins. C

o. v . Supe rior N at’l Ins. C

o. , 591 F.3d 1167, 1177 (9th C ir. 2010) (finding tha t the m o va

nt ha d
re c e ive d a

fa ir he aring— and thus fa ile d to e sta blish pre judic e unde r 9 U.S.C
. § 10(a )(3)—

b e c a use “ [i] t ha d notic e , it ha d the opportunity to be he a rd . . . , a nd the d e c isionm a ke rs we re not infe c te d with bia s” (quoting Emp’rs Ins. of W ausau , 933 F.2d a

t 1491)). R e m arka bly , howe ve r, the m a

jority re fuse s to c onside r whe the r the 3arbitration sa tisfie d the se “ m inim a l re quire m e nts of fa irne ss” tha t are so c le a

rly outline d in our pre c e de nt. Se e Sunshine Mining C

o. , 823 F.2d a

t 1295 (quoting Fic e k , 338 F.2d a

t 657); ac c ord Emp’rs Ins. of W ausau , 933 F.2d a

t 1491; U.S. Life Ins. C o. , 591 F.3d a

t 1177. He re , the re is no e vide n c e in the re c ord (a nd the m a j ority c e rta inly points to
none ) indic a ting tha

t C ostc o wa s give n ina de quate notic e or de nie d the opportunity to be he a rd. Inste a d, the m a

jority de c ide s tha

t C ostc o did not re c e ive a funda m e nta lly fa ir he aring, be c a

use the arbitra

tor e nga ge d

in “ biz arre ”
c onduc t— e .g., pa

rta king in e x pa

rte c om m unic a tions with Dia

z and the Inte rna tiona l B rothe rhood of Te a m ste rs, Loc a l No. 542 (“ Union” ), re nde ring a

“ va gue ” de c ision issue d in a n unusua l m anne r, e xte nding a n una u thoriz e d
se ttle m e nt offe r, and re signing pre m at ure ly . Howe ve r, the FAA “ doe s not
e xpre s sly prohibit e x pa

rte c onta c t[,] [e ] x pa

rte c onduc t by

an a rbitra tion pa ne l
re quire s va c a tur of a

n a ward only if the e x pa

rte c onta c t c onstitute s m i sbe havior that pre judic e s the rights of a pa

rty .” U.S. Life Ins. C

o. , 591 F.3d a

t 1176. 1 Ne ithe r the m a jority nor C ostc o a ddre ss the ne c e s sa ry pre judic e . Howe ve r biz arre or

1 B e c a use the Union doe s not c ha lle nge the FAA’ s a pplic a bility in this c a se , the re is no re a s on to de c i de “ whe the r the FAA a pplie s to a

rbitration of c olle c tive ba rga i ning a gre e m e nts.” Se e Matthe w s v . N at’l Football Le agueMgmt. C ounc il , 688 F.3d 1107, 1115 n.7 (9th C ir. 2012). 4irre gula

r the arbitrator’ s c onduc t m ay have be e n, it is undispute d tha t the
arbitration proc e e d i ngs m e t “ ‘ the m inim a l re quire m e nts of fa i rne ss’

— a de quate notic e , a he aring on the e vide nc e , a nd a n im pa rtia l de c i sion by

the arbitrator.” Sunshine Mining C

o. , 823 F.2d a

t 1295 (quoting Fic e k , 338 F.2d a t 657). The re fore , notwithsta

nding the m a

jority ’ s “ gut fe e l ing” of unfa irne ss, our pre c e de nt de m a

n ds (in no unc le ar te rm s) the c onc lusion tha t the arbitration wa s funda m e nta lly fa ir. Se e id. ; a c c ord Emp’rs Ins. of W ausau , 933 F.2d a

t 1491; U.S. Life Ins. C

o. , 591 F.3d a

t 1177. It is im porta n t to note tha

t the m a j ority a lso fa ils to c ite an y

sta tutory grounds for va c a ting the arbitration a ward, re sting its e ntire de c ision on the single

“ fa ir he aring” se nte nc e from Mov e , Inc . v . C i tigroup Global Mark

e ts, Inc
. , 840 F.3d 1152 (9th C ir. 2016). B e c a use Mov e , Inc
. va c a te d a

n arbitrat ion a

ward unde r 9 U.S.C . § 10(a )(3)—

whic h pe rm its va c a tur “ whe re the arbitrat or[] [wa s] guilty of
. . . m i sbe havior by whic h the rights of a ny pa rty have be e n pre

judic e d”

—

that provision of the Fe de ra l Arbitra tion Ac t (“ FAA” ) m

ust be the ba sis of the
m a jority ’ s de c ision. Se e Mov e , Inc
. , 840 F.3d a

t 1158. Ye t, the re is no re se m bla nc e be twe e n the arbitrator’ s c onduc t in this c a se and “ the unique se t of fa c ts” a t issue in Mov e , Inc
. , whic h involve d the arbitrator de frauding the pa rtie s to the
arbitration. Se e 840 F.3d a t 1158–59. The re fore , the re is sim ply no support in this 5re c o rd for the grounds upon whic h the m a jority va c a te s the arbitra

tion a ward. 2. C ostc o c ite s othe r grounds for va c a tur of the arbitrat ion a ward unde r the FAA. The se argum e nts a lso fa il. First, C o stc o ha s not shown tha t the arbitrator

“ re fus[e d ] to he ar e vide nc e p e rtine nt and mate rial to the c ontrove rsy ” be fore the B oa rd of Adjustm e nt, se e 9 U.S.C . § 10(a )(3) (e m pha sis a dde d ), or tha

t a ny re fusa l to he ar e vide nc e pre

judic e d C ostc o, se e U.S. Life Ins. C o. , 591 F.3d a

t 1174. Se c ond, a lthough the

arbitrator re nde re d his de c ision in a n unusua l m anne r, C ostc o ha s not sa tisfie d the sta

nda rd for va c a tur unde r 9 U.S.C . § 10(a )(4), be c a use it fa ils to show tha

t the arbitration a

w ard is “ c om

p le te ly irra tiona l” or “ e xhibits a m anife st disre ga rd of la w . ” Se e Bille r

v . Toy ota Motor C

orp. , 668 F.3d 655, 665 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting K

y oc e ra C orp. v . Prude n tial-Bac he TradeSe r v s., Inc
. , 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc )). 3. C ostc o a

rgue s tha t the arbitrat ion a

ward m ust be va c a te d, be c a

use it doe s not

“ draw its e sse nc e ” from

the c olle c t ive ba

rga ining a gre e m e nt (“ C B A” ). Se e S. C al. Gas C o. v . Util. W

ork e rs Union of Am., Loc a l

132, AFL–C

IO , 265 F.3d 787, 792–93 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ Va c a tur of a n a rbitration a

ward unde r se c tion 301 of the [La bor M ana g e m e nt R e la tions Ac t (“ LM R A” )] is wa

rra nte d . . . whe n the award doe s not dra

w its e sse nc e from

the [C B A] an d the arbitrator is dispe n sing his own bran d of industria l justic e .” ). Howe ve r, our re vie w of this c la im m ust be 6“ e x tre m e ly

na rrow,” Aramark

Fac ility Se rv s. v . Se rv . Emps. Int’l Union, Loc al 1877, AFL C

IO , 530 F.3d 817, 822–23 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Fe de rate d De p’t Store s v . Unite d Foods & C

o mme rc ial W

ork e rs Union, Loc al 1442 , 901 F.2d 1494, 1496 (9th C ir. 1990)), a

n d we m ust a c c ord the arbitrator a “ ne arly unpa ra lle le d de gre e of de fe re nc e ,” Ste ad Motors , 886 F.2d a t 1205. “ [E] ve n if we we re c onvinc e d tha

t the arbitrator m isre a d

the [C B A] or e rre d in inte rpre ting it, suc h a
c onvic tion would not be

a pe rm issible ground for va c a ting the award.” ASARC O LLC v . Unite d Ste e l, Pape r & Fore stry , Rubbe r, Mfg., Ene rgy

, Allie d Indus. & Se rv . W ork e rs Int’l Union, AFL-C

IO, C LC , 910 F.3d 485, 490 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting Va. Mason Hosp. v . W ash. State N urse s Ass’n , 511 F.3d 908, 913–14 (9th C ir. 2007)). Thus, we

“ m ust lim it our re vie w to whe the r the arbitrator’ s solution
c an be ra tiona lly

de rive d from

som e pla usible the ory

of the ge ne ra l fra m e w ork or inte nt of the a gre e m e n t.” Id. at 491 (a lte ra t ion a dopte d a nd footnote om itte d) (quoting Unite d Food &C omme rc i al W

o rk e rs Int’l Union, Loc al 588 v . Foste r Poultry Farms , 74 F.3d 169, 173 (9th C ir. 1995)). He re , the arbitrator “ argua bly c onstrue d

[a nd] a pplie d ” the C B A’ s prope rc a use provision in finding tha t Dia z ’ s te rm ination viola te d industria l double je opa rdy
. Se e Haw . Te a m ste rs & Allie d W ork e rs Union, Loc al 996 v . Unite d Parc e l Se rv . , 241 F.3d 1177, 1178 (9th C ir. 2001) (a lte ra tions a dopte d a n d inte rna l 7quota

t ion m arks om itte d) (quoting E. Assoc iate d C o al C orp. v . Unite d Mine W ork e rs of Am., Dist. 17

, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000)). The arbitra tor did not “ ignore the p la in la

ngua ge of the c ontra c t,” id. a t 1181 (a lte ra tion a d opte d) (quoting Ste ad Motors , 886 F.2d a

t 1205 n.6), or “ follow his own whim s a n d bia se s,” id. (a lte ra tion a dopte d) (quoting Garv e y v . Robe rts , 203 F.3d 580, 588–89 (9th C ir. 2000)). The re fore , we m

ust c o n c lude tha

t the arbitration a

ward dra ws its e sse nc e from the C B A
. Id. a t 1178. “ [W ] e are bound . . . to de fe r to the de c i sion of [the
arbitrator] ,” re ga

rdle s s of whe the r “ we be lie ve tha t the de c ision finds the

fa c ts a nd sta te s the la w e rrone ously .” 2 Ste ad Motors , 886 F.2d a t 1204. 4. C ostc o a

rgue s tha t the arbitrat ion a

ward m ust be va c a te d e ve n if it “ d ra ws its
e sse nc e ” from the C B A, be c a use the award viola

te s public polic y . S

e e S. C al. Gas C o. , 265 F.3d a

t 792–93 (“ Va c atur of a

n a rbitra tion a w ard unde r se c tion 301 of the LM R A is wa rra n te d . . . whe n the award is c o ntra ry to public polic y

. . . .” ). To
va c a te the award on public -polic y grounds, C ostc o m

ust c le arly

show tha t a n e xplic it, we ll-de fine d, a

nd dom ina

nt public polic y

spe c ific a l ly

m i lita te s a ga inst Dia z ’ s re instate m e nt . Se e Aramark , 530 F.3d a

t 823; se e also Ste ad Motors , 886 F.2d at 1212 (“ If a

c ourt re lie s on public polic y to va c a te an a

rbitra l a ward

2 The m a jority argue s tha

t the arbitrator’ s de c ision did not ha ve “ e sse nc e ,” but c ite s no a

uthority for the proposition tha

t is should. 8re insta

ting a n e m ploy e e , it m

ust be a polic y tha t ba rs re instate me nt .” ). B e c a

use C ostc o ha s fa ile d to ide ntify suc h a polic y tha t is “ a sc e rta in[a

b le ] by re fe re nc e to . . . la w s a nd le ga l pre c e d e nts, not from ge n e ra l c onside ra tions of suppose d public inte re s ts,” se e E. Assoc iate d C oal C orp. , 531 U.S. a

t 62 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d) (quoting W

.R. Grac e & C

o. v . Rubbe r W

ork e rs , 461 U.S. 757, 766 (1983)), we m ay

not va c a te the arbitration a ward on public -polic y

grounds.

9