# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 33 51

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

SBC Ad va nc ed So lu ti on s, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Co m m un ic at io ns W or ke rs of Am eri ca, Dis tri ct 6

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 5
Fil ed : J ul y

28 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and SCHILTZ, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

The Hon or ab le Pat ric k J. Sch il tz

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a, si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.SBC Adv an ced So lu ti on s, In c. ("C om pa ny") ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t 2

o f su m m ary jud gm en t affi rm in g an arb it rat io n award in fav or of th e la bo r un io n

Co m m un ic at io ns W or ke rs of Am eri ca, Dis tri ct 6 ("Un io n" ). The two pa r t i es
arb it rat ed a di sp ut e in whi ch th e Uni on req ue st ed a pa y di ffer en ti al to be award ed to

cert ai n of th e Co m

pa ny's em pl oyees who ha d pe rfo rm ed job fu nc ti on s of hi gh er-p ai d

em pl oyees wit ho ut be in g co m pe ns at ed acco rd in gl y

. The Co m pa ny co nt en ds th at th e
arb it rat or erre d ru li ng in fav or of th e Uni on pr im ari ly by fai li ng to fo ll ow pr eced en t

es ta bl is he d in pr ev io us arb it rat io ns be twee n th e pa rti es reg ard in g th e sa m e co ll ect iv e
ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t (C BA). W e aff irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d

I n th e la te 19 90 s, SBC Co m m un ic at io ns , In c. ("S BC" ) crea te d th e Co mp a n y

a s a s u b si di ary to faci li ta te en try in to th e hi gh -s pe ed in te rn et m ark et

. The Uni on

rep res en te d bo th th e Co m pa ny's an d SBC' s em

pl oyees. Add it io na ll y , th e Co m pa ny's

rel at io ns hi p wit h it s un io n em pl oyees was go ve rn ed by th e s a me CBA in effe ct

be twee n SBC an d th e Uni on

. Am on g ot he r th in gs , th e CBA req ui red th at th ere be

ti ered job cl as si f

i cat io ns wit h sp eci fic wor k fu nc ti on s. SBC an d th e Co m pa ny

oc cas io na ll y ren eg ot ia te d t he CBA wit h t he Uni on , whi ch in cl ud ed th e op po rtu ni ty

to ne go ti at e th e co m

pe ns at io n fo r each job cl as si fic at io n. Und er th e CBA, th e pa rti es

ag reed to arb it rat e di s p u t e s t h a t co ul d no t be ha nd le d th ro ug h a fo rm al gr ie va nc e

pr oc es s an d th at an arb it rat or 's d is po si ti on wou ld be "fi na l, an d t he pa rti es ag ree[ d]

to be bo un d a nd to ab id e b y su ch de ci si on ."

In 19 99

, th e Co m

pa ny op en ed a cal l cen te r in Eart h Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri, an d st affe d

it wit h em

pl oyees who fit un de r th e req ui red job cl as si fic at io ns

. Amo n g t he se job

cl as si fic at io ns were cu st om er se rv ic e rep r e se nt at iv es (CSR s) an d se rv ic e

rep res en ta ti ve s (SRs ). Acco rd in g to th ei r sp eci fic wor k fu nc ti on s, a CSR "[p ]rim ari ly

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es A. Sh aw, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 2

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-rece iv es , sc reen s, te st s, an al y zes , an d di sp at ch es tro ub le rep or ts ; ex pl ai ns an d

su gg es ts va rio us se rv ic es an d/ or pr od u c t s t o cu st om ers ; [an d] pe rfo rm s ot he r

ge ne ral ly rel a t e d f

u n ct io ns ." SRs

, on th e ot he r ha nd

, "[h ]and le [] th e bu si ne ss

t r a ns act io ns in co nn ect io n wit h cu st om ers ' acco un ts

, in cl ud in g te le ph on e an d

co rres po nd en ce co nt act s an d c ol le ct io n a nd ord er wo rk , etc ."

In Octo be r 20 08

, th e Co m pa ny ch os e twen ty CSRs fo r sp eci al tra in in g to wor k

wit h a ne w co m

pu te r syste m cal le d Po rta l. The CSRs were tra in ed to us e Po rta l by an SR, us ed SR tra in in g m at er i a ls

, an d th en were su bs eq ue nt ly m ov ed to a ne w wor k

lo cat io n whe re th ey wor ke d al on gs id e SRs a n d t o o k cal ls ou t of th e sa m e qu eu e.

Acco rd in g to th e te st im on y of th e CSRs

, th is ne w wor k was di ffer en t fro m th e wor k

th at th ey ha d pe rfo rm ed pr io r to Octo be r 20 08

. The ir pr io r wor ke d fo cu se d pr im ari ly

o n c al ls reg ard in g tro ub le ti ck et s, su ch as tro ub le sh oo ti ng cu st om er pr ob le m s wit h

ex is ti ng se rv ic es

. Afte r th ei r Po rta l tra in in g, ho wev er, th ey pr im ari ly wor ke d on

or de r-re la te d d ut ie s, s uc h a s as si st in g c us to m ers ord er n ew se rv ic es

.

On Nov em

be r 13

, 20 08

, th e Uni on fil ed a gr ie va nc e al le gi ng th at th e Co m pa ny
vi ol at ed Arti cl e XV, § 7 .a. of th e CBA, wh ic h s ta te s t he fol lo win g:

A qu al ifi ed em

pl oyee

. . . who is te m

po rari ly sc he du le d or as si gn ed an d
do es wor k in a po si ti on wit h a hi gh er es ta bl is he d m ax im um rat e of pa y th ro ug ho ut a pe rio d of two (2 ) or m or e fu ll to ur s in a wor k week

, ex cep t fo r th e pu rp os e s o f t r a in in g, sh al l rece iv e fo r each fu ll to ur wor ke d in

su ch po si ti on a Cl as si fic at io n Diff eren ti al eq ua l to on e-fi fth (1 /5 ) of th e

am ou nt of th e week ly wag e pr og res si on in crea se to whi ch th e em pl oyee

wou ld at t he ti m e b e en ti tl ed if th e em pl oyee were act ua ll y

ch an ge d t o th e h ig he r ap pl ic ab le cla ss ifi cat io n a t t he em pl oyee's r eg ul ar l oc at io n.

Thu s, as t h e U ni on co nt en ds

, th e Po rta l-t rai ne d CSRs were pe rfo rm in g th e job

fu nc ti on s of th e hi gh er-p ai d SRs wit ho ut rece iv in g a pa y di ffer en ti al fo r th is hi gh erpa id wor k. SBC an d th e Uni on ha d pr ev io us ly arb it rat ed di sp ut es reg ard in g th e sa m e

-3

-CBA la ng ua ge an d th e sa m e is su e of em pl oyees se ek in g p a y d i f f eren ti al s fo r

pe rfo rm in g th e job fu nc ti on s of hi gh er-p ai d job cl as si fic at i o n s

. A s ha d be en in

pr ev io us arb it r a t i o n s , th e Uni on bo re th e bu rd en of sh owi ng a § 7 vi ol at io n by

pr ov in g t h at th e gr ie vi ng em pl oyees (1 ) were qu al ifi ed em pl oyees, (2 ) pe rfo rm ed

wor k of a hi gh er cl as si fic at io n, (3 ) were te m po rari ly sc he du le d or as si gn ed to pe rfo rm

th is work , and (4) pe rfo rm ed th is wor k for a pe rio d of two to ur s or m or e eac h wee k

fo r whi ch th ey se ek a pa y di ffer en ti al

. Se e U-Ver se Fac il it ie s Sp eciali

sts —Te mpo ra ry

W or k in a Hi

gh er Pos it io n , AAA Case No . 58 30 0 0 00 25 11 (20 12 ).

Arb it rat or W il li am McKe e, Ph .D., arb i t rat ed th e di sp ut e. W it h res pe ct to th e

fir st el em en t of

a § 7 vi ol at io n, Arb it rat or McKe e reject ed th e Co m pa ny's as se rti on

th at th e te rm "q ua li fie d" sh ou ld be in te rp ret ed as "t es t qu al ifi ed ." Dur in g th e di sp ut e,

th e Co m pa ny arg ue d th at in or de r fo r an em pl oyee to be co ns id ered "q ua li fie d," th e

em pl oyee ha d to pa ss th e req ui si te te st s to be el ig ib le fo r pr om ot io n to th e hi gh er job

cl as si fic atio n. In st ead

, Arb it rat or McKe e fo un d th at an em pl oyee co ul d be co ns id ered
"q ua li fie d" "i f th ere is ev id en ce t ha t m an ag em en t h as m ad e a co gn it iv e se le ct io n of

cert ai n em

pl oyees who are cap ab le of pe rfo rm in g du ti es of a hi gh er job

cl as s i f ic at io n." In do in g so , Arb it rat or McKe e rel ie d up on a pr ev io us arb it rat io n
award th at he ha d de ci de d, In re Se ni or Rep or t Cl er ks

, AAA Cas e No. 70 30 0 00 50 5

06 (2 00 8)

, an d th e U-Ver

se arbi tra ti on

. Add it io na ll y , Arb it rat or McKe e di st in gu is he d

an ot he r arb it rat io n th at he ha d de ci de d, Th oma s W hi te

, AAA Cas e No. 70 30 0 00 78 8

07 (2 00 8)

, whi ch cam e to a so m ewh at di ffe ren t in te rp ret at io n ba se d on fact ua l an d

ev id en ti ary di st in ct io ns

. Arb it rat or McKe e al so c o n s i de red an d reject ed th e

Co m pa ny's ev id en ce o f th e p art ie s' i nt en t i n th e fo rm of a ro ug h tra ns cri pt fro m th e

19 83 ne go ti at io n of th e CBA. The tra ns cri pt rev eal s th at a Uni on rep res en ta ti ve as ke d
"[i ]n se c t i on 6a wha t do es 'qu al ifi ed ' m ean [? ]" A SBC rep res en ta ti ve rep li ed th at 3

"[t ]here are certa in job req ui rem en ts th at qu al ify an em pl oyee fo r th e job

. Exa m

pl e,

Si nc e 19 83

, th e la ng ua ge on ce fo un d in Arti cl e XV, § 6.a

. was rel oc at ed to 3 § 7 .a. The a ct ua l l an gu ag e o f th e se ct io n h as no t b een su bs ta nt iv el y ch an ge d.

-4

-if ha ve typin g fo r st en og rap he r an d can 't type

, no t qu al ifi ed ." Ano th er co m pa ny

r e pr es en ta ti ve ad de d th at it "[m ]eans te st qu al ifi ed

. Doe s no t ch an ge te st

qu al ifi cat io ns fo r job

. If hav e gr ou p of op erat or s and qu al ifi ed

, wou ld be pr es se d to

go to se ni or ." Afte r a few li n e s o f di sc us si ng th e co rres po nd in g CBA pr ov is io n

reg ard in g se ni or it y , ho wev er, th e tra ns cri pt st at es "Un io n Reject s! " Afte r co ns id eri ng

th is ev id en ce, Arb it rat or McKe e st at ed th at "cl earl y th e Uni on di d no t ag ree to ch an ge

th e la ng ua ge of t he CBA to refl ect [th e Co m pa ny's] in te rp ret at io n" an d th at "t he

pa rti es le ft th e te rm 'qu al ifi ed ' un ch an ge d w h e n th ey ne go ti at ed [s ub se qu en t]

co nt ract [s ]. "

Arb it rat or McKe e ne xt ad dr es se d whe th er th e CSRs were te m po raril y as si gn ed

to pe rfo rm th e wor k of a hi gh er cl as si fic at io n

. S i mi l a r to th e la st is su e, Arb it rat or

McKe e rel ie d up on th e U-Ver se arb it rat io n a n d hi s pr ev io us de ci si on in th e Se ni or Rep or t Cler ks arb it rat io n. Arb it rat or McKe e in te rp ret ed th e CBA lan gu ag e to m ean

th at "[a ]n as si gn m en t of hi gh er-l ev el w o r k i s t e m po rary un ti l su ch ti m e as th e

Co m pa ny ch oo se s to ch an ge th e job de sc rip ti on of th e lo wer ti tl e to i n c l u d e th os e
du ti es ." Arb it rat or McKe e reco gn iz ed th at su ch an in te rp ret at io n de pa rte d fro m
"Arb it rat or s Hein sz an d Fo wler [, who ] ha ve he ld ot he rwis e , r e as on in g th at

as si gn m en ts are no t 'te m

po rary' on ce th ey be co m e a pe rm an en t pa rt of an em pl oyee's

wor kl oa d." Se e Cu st ome r Se rv

. Rep re se nt at iv es , AAA Cas e No. 71 30 0 00 25 9 94
(1 99 8) ("He in sz Award "); Mar ket in g Ass is ta nt s W or ki ng in Hig he r Pos it io ns , AAA

Cas e No. 58 30 0 00 02 8 01 (2 00 3) ("F owl er Award "). Arb it rat or McKe e "re sp ect fu ll y
de pa rt[ ed ]" from th e Hei ns z an d F owl er Award s b ecau se th ei r in te rp ret at io n wo ul d

al lo w th e Co m

pa ny t o v i o l a te th e CBA as lo ng as it m ai nt ai ne d a vi ol at io n lo ng

en ou gh to de em ne w wor k fu nc ti on s as "p erm an en t." Bas ed on co nt ract in te rp ret at io n

pr in ci pl es , Arb it rat or McKe e reject ed th i s l og ic be cau se it wou ld em po wer th e

Co m pa ny wit h "t he un il at eral ab il it y to ren de r a pr ov is io n o f t h e co nt ract

m ean in gl es s."

-5

-Nex t, Arb it rat or McKe e ad dr es se d whe th er th e CSRs in de ed pe rfo rm ed wor k

of a hi gh er cl as si fic at io n. Arb it rat or McKe e fo un d th at "[t ]here is no di sp ut e th at fro m

Octo be r th ro ug h Decem

be r 20 08 th e Gri ev an ts were t rai ne d to pe rfo rm th e wor k in

qu es ti on : han dl in g ord ers fo r ne w ser vi ce an d e qu ip m en t." Afte r co m pa rin g th e job

ti tl es of CSR an d SR, Arb it rat or McKe e ag reed wit h th e Uni on th at "t he cru ci al

di st in ct io n be twee n th e two job s is th at CSRs pr im ari ly ha nd le m ai nt en an ce or rep ai r
is su es , whi le [SRs ] de al wit h or de rs fo r ne w se rv ic e an d eq ui pm en t as well as bi ll in g
is su es ." Arb it rat or McKe e rel ie d up on an arb it rat io n de ci si on by Arb it rat or Ri ch ard

Bl oc h, Co mmc'n Wo r k

e r s of Ameri ca , AAA Cas e No. 71 30 0 00 85 -8 8R (1 98 9)

, to

co nc lu de th at th e CSRs ne ed no t sh ow th at th ey pe r f o rm ed al l of th e wor k of SRs

. I n s t e ad

, CSRs ne ed on ly pr ov e th at th ey pe rfo rm ed wor k th at was "cl e a r l y

at tri bu ta bl e" t o S Rs

.

The Hein s z Award de al t wit h a si m il ar req ue st fo r pa y di ffer en ti al s by CS Rs

wor ki ng fo r SB C r e l a t e d to th ei r pe rfo rm an ce of hi gh er-c la ss ifi ed job fu nc ti on s of

SRs an d Co m

m un ic at io n Tech ni ci an s (CTs ). The Hein sz Award fo un d in fav or of th e

Co m pa ny by in te rp ret in g th e sa m e CBA la ng ua ge to req ui re "t he Uni on to sh ow th at

on ly hi gh er rat ed c l a s s i f

i cat io ns pe rfo rm ed th e fu nc ti on s ad de d to th e du ti es of th e [CSR s]." The Uni on co ul d no t carr y th is bu rd en be fo re Arb it rat or Hein sz be cau se th e

Co m pa ny su bm it te d ev id en ce th at in di cat ed ot he rwise

. T hus, A rb itr at or Hein sz fo un d

th e fo ll owi ng :

W hi le th e ch an ge s in th e wor k of th e [CSR s] en t a i l th ei r pe rfo rm in g fu nc ti on s th at m ay be pe rfo rm ed by [SRs ], a hi gh er rat ed cl as si fic at io n, th e sa m e fu nc ti on s m ay

als o b e p erfo rm ed by Servi ce Ord er Write rs , a lo wer rat ed cl as si fic at io n. Si m il arl y , th e ch an ge s in th e m an ne r in whi ch

a few of th e [CSR s] pr oc es s cert ai n of t he cu st om er rep or ts of se rv ic e
pr ob le m s th ro ug h in te ract io ns wit h th e swi tc h syste m a r e fu nc ti on s whi ch m ay be pe rfo rm ed by [CTs ], a hi gh er rat ed cl as si fic at io n, bu t are al so fu nc ti on s whi ch m ay be pe rfo rm ed by Lin e Tran sl at io n Sp eci al is ts

, a lo wer rat ed cla ss ifi cat io n.

-6

-Arb it rat or McKe e di d no t ad dr es s th i s e x cl us iv it y req ui rem en t in th e Hein sz

Award —t ha t gr ie va nt s sh ow th at th e job fu n c ti on s fo r whi ch th ey se ek pa y
di ffer en ti al s are ex cl us iv el y pe rfo rm ed by hi gh er job cl as si fic at io ns

. Neit he r di d

Arb it rat or McKe e ad dr es s th e rel ev an t te st im on y of th e Co m pa ny's Lab or Rel at io ns
Dire ct or , Lin ds ay Lars on , who te st ifi ed th at th e SR job fu nc ti on s fo r whi ch th e CSRs

sp eci fic al ly req ue st ed a pa y di ffer en ti al are no t ex cl us iv e to th e SR cl as si fic at io n, bu t

are a ls o p erfo rm ed by lower -cl as si fie d jo b t it le s.

Fi na ll y , Arb it rat or McKe e ad dr es se d th e la st § 7 el em en t reg ard in g whe th er th e

CSRs ha d pe rfo rm ed th e hi gh er-c la ss ifi ed wor k fo r two fu ll to ur s each wor k week

. Bas ed on th e te st im on y pr es en te d, Arb it rat or McKe e co nc lu de d th at "[a ]lth ou gh th e

te st im on y on th is po in t was un ev en , ev id e n ce sh ows th at th e Grie va nt s be ga n

pe rfo rm in g si gn ifi can t am ou nt s of or de r-re la te d wor k fo ll owi ng th ei r co m pl et io n of

tra in in g in la te fal l 20 08

. Thi s ge ne ral ly sa ti s f i e s t h e r e qu ire m en t th at th e wor k be

pe rfo rm ed 'th ro ug ho ut two or m or e fu ll to ur s p er wo rk week .'"

Bas ed on th e "u ne ve n" te st im on y , ho wev er, Arb it rat or McKe e fo un d th at "[i ]t

is po ss ib le th at each of th e CSRs di d no t pe rfo rm or de r-re la te d wor k th ro ug ho ut two

or m or e to ur s ea ch week aft er th ei r tra in i n g s t a r t e d. As su ch

, I gr an t th e Uni on 's

r eq ue st fo r a m ak e-wh ol e rem ed y an d ret ai n juri sd ic ti on to res ol ve di sp ut es ov e r

im pl em en ta ti on ." (Em

ph as is ad de d. ) A rb itr at or Mc K ee th en up he ld th e gr ie va nc e an d

cl ari fie d t ha t h e wou ld "ret ai n ju ris di ct io n fo r th e sp eci fic pu rp os e o f res ol vi ng an y
di sp ut es th at m ay ari se be twee n th e pa rti es ab ou t th e ap pl ic at io n or in te rp ret at io n of

th is award ed rem ed y ."

Th e C o mpan y so ug ht rev ie w o f th e McKe e Award un de r § 30 1 of th e La b o r

Man ag em en t Rel at io ns Act. 29 U.S.C. § 18 5. The di st ric t co u rt affi rm ed th e

a r b i t r a ti on award

. The Co m pa ny arg ue d th at th e McKe e Award sh ou ld be va cat e d

be cau se it "fa il s to dr aw it s es se nc e fro m th e [CBA]." Se e Hof fma n v. Ca rg il l, In c. , 23 6 F.3 d 45 8, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). The di st ric t co ur t di sa gr eed

, gr an ti ng th e Uni on 's

-7

-m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Giv in g du e de fere nc e to th e arb it rat or 's de ci si on , th e

co ur t ex am in ed each of Arb it rat or McKe e's fin di ng s an d co nc lu de d th at Arb it rat or

McKe e di d no t e x c e ed hi s au th or it y

. In pa rti cu la r, th e co ur t fo un d th at Arb it rat or

McKe e was no t bo un d by pr ev io us arb it rat io n award s, s u ch as th e Hein sz Award

, "b ecau se th e in st an t gr ie va nc e do es no t in vo lv e th e sa m e is su e un de r th e sa m e fact s

an d ci rcu m st an ces as th e pr io r H e i n s z arb it rat io n." The co ur t al so reject ed th e

Co m pa ny's arg um e n t t h a t by ret ai ni ng juri sd ic ti on , Arb it rat or McKe e vi ol at ed th e fu nc tu s of

fi ci o do ct rin e th at ho ld s th at "o nc e an [arb it rat or ] ren de rs a de ci s io n

reg ard in g th e is su es su bm it te d, [h e] be co m es fu nc tu s of fi ci o an d la ck s an y po wer to

reex a mi n e t h a t de ci si on ." Domi no Grp

., In c. v. Ch ar li e Par ker Mem'l Fou nd

. , 98 5

F.2 d 41 7, 42 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (q uo ta ti on an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The d i s t r ic t co ur t

fo un d th at Arb it rat or McKe e's ret en ti on of juri sd ic ti on was ba se d on th e n e e d to

ad dr es s pr ob le m s th at m ay ari se in im pl em en ta ti on of th e award

, su ch as th e
de te rm in at io n of ho w m

uc h each gr ie va nt is du e ba se d on th e nu m be r of week s th ey

wor ke d two to ur s or m or e. The co ur t de te rm in ed th at th is di d no t vi ol at e th e fu nc tu s of fi ci o do ct rin e, whi ch was m ean t "t o li m it th e 'p o t e n t ia l ev il ' of ou ts id e

co m m un ic at io ns affe ct in g a n a rb it rat io n a ward ."

II. Dis cu ss io n

On ap p eal

, th e Co m

pa ny se ek s ou r rev ie w of th e McKe e Award co nt en di ng

th at it fai ls to dra w it s ess en ce from th e CBA. In ad di ti on , th e Co m pa ny arg ue s th at

th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by fin di ng th at Arb it rat or McKe e was no t bo un d by pr ev io us
arb it rat io n award s, th e Hein sz Award in pa rti cu la r. Fi na ll y , th e Co m pa ny arg ue s th at

Arb it rat or McKe e's ret en ti on of juri sd ic ti on was im pr op er. "We rev ie w de no vo bo th

th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t an d th e co ur t's le ga l co nc lu si on s in it s
de ni al of a m ot io n t o v acat e an arb it rat io n award ." Tr ai lmo bi le Tra il er , LLC v. In t'l

Uni on of Elec

., Elec

., Sa la ri ed

, Mac h. & Fur ni tu re W

or ker s
, AF L– CIO

, 22 3 F.3 d

74 4, 7 46 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0) (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d)

.

-8

-W he n re vi ewin g an arb it rat io n award , " we

. . . a cco rd 'an ex tra or di na ry lev el

of de fere nc e' to th e un de rlyin g award it se lf." Boi se Ca s c a d e Co rp

. v. Pap er
All ie d- In du s., Ch em. & Ene rg y W or ker s (PACE), Lo ca l 7- 01 59

, 30 9 F.3 d 10 75

, 10 80
(8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo ti ng Kee bl er Co

. v. Mil k Dri ver s & Dai ry Emps

. Uni on
, Lo ca l No

. 47 1

, 80 F.3 d 28 4, 28 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 )). Thu s, ou r r e v i e w o f arb it rat io n award s is

ex tre m el y li m it ed

, an d we are no t to rev ie w th e m eri ts

. Osc e o l a Cn ty

. Rur al W at er Sy s., Inc. v. Su bs ur

fc o, Inc.

, 91 4 F.2d 10 72

, 10 75 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. "[A]s lo ng as th e arb it rat or is ev en arg ua bl y co ns tru in g or ap pl y in g th e co nt ract an d

act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of hi s au th or i t y, t h at a co ur t is co nv in ced he co m m it te d

se rio us erro r do es no t s uf fic e to ov ert ur n hi s de ci si on ." Uni te d Pap er W or ker s In t'l

Uni on
, AFL–C

IO v. Mis co
, In c. , 48 4 U.S. 29

, 38 (1 98 7)

. Thu s, "[w]e m ay no t se t an
award as id e si m

pl y be cau se we m ig ht ha ve in te rp ret ed th e ag reem en t d iff eren tl y or
be cau se th e arb it rat or s erre d in in te rp ret in g th e la w or in de te rm in in g th e fact s."
Hof fma n , 23 6 F .3d at 4 62 (qu ot at io n a nd cit at io n o m it te d)

.

W hi le th is de fere nc e m ak es it an "u nu su al ci rcu m st an ce[]" whe n we ov ert ur n

an arb it rat io n award

, Fir

st Opt io ns of Ch i., In c. v. Ka pl an , 51 4 U.S. 93 8, 94 2 (1 99 5)

, arb it rat io n award s are no t im m un e fro m jud ic ia l ov ers ig ht

. W e wil l ov ert ur n an award

if "i t is co m

pl et el y irr at io na l or ev id en ces a m an ife st di sr eg ard fo r th e la w." Hof fma n , 23 6 F.3 d at 46 1 (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. "An arb it rat io n de ci si on m ay on ly

be sa id to be irr at io na l whe re it fa il s to dr aw it

s es se nc e fr om th e ag re emen t

, an d an
arb it rat io n de ci si on on ly m an ife st s di sr eg ard fo r th e la w whe re th e arb it rat or s cl earl y
id en ti fy th e ap pl ic ab le , g ov ern in g la w a nd th en pr oc eed to ig no re i t." Id

. at 4 61 –6 2
(em ph as is ad de d) (ci ti ng St ro h Co nt ai ne r Co

. v. Delp hi In du s. , 78 3 F.2 d 74 3, 74 9– 50
(8 th Cir . 19 86 )).

A. Dra wi ng Its Ess en ce Fr om t he Agr eemen t

The Co m pa ny arg ue s th at th e McKe e Award sh ou ld be va cat ed be cau se it fai ls

to dr aw it s es se nc e fro m th e CBA in th e fo ll owi ng res pe ct s: Fi rs t, Arb it rat or McKe e

fai le d to co ns id er th e pa rti es ' ba rg a i n i ng hi st or y an d im pr op erl y co ns id ered pr io r

-9

-arb it rat io n award s in hi s in te rp ret at io n of th e te r m " q u a li fie d." Seco nd

, Arb it rat or

McKe e im

po se d ne w ob li ga ti on s an d im pr op erl y de pa rte d fro m pr ev io us arb it rat io n
award s i n hi s in te rp ret at io n of the te rm "t em po rari ly sch ed ul ed or a ss ig ne d." Thi rd

, Arb it rat or McKe e im

pr op erl y i g no red pr ev io us arb it rat io n award s an d un di sp ut ed

ev id en ce wh en he fou nd th at CSRs pe rfo rm ed hi gh er-c la ss ifi ed work

.

1. " Qua li fi ed "

The Co m pa ny be gi ns by arg ui ng th at Arb it rat or McKe e ig no red th e undi sp ut ed

ba rg ai ni ng hi st or y of th e CBA in hi s in te rp r e t a t i on of th e te rm "q ua li fie d." "[I ]f an
arb it rat or at te m

pt s to in te rp ret a writ te n ag reem en t th at is si le nt or am bi gu ou s wit ho ut

co ns id eri ng th e pa rti es ' i n te nt

, hi s award wil l fai l to dr aw it s es se nc e fro m th e [ag reem en t]." Boi se Ca sc ad e , 30 9 F.3 d at 10 82 (ci ti ng Bur ea u of Eng ra vi ng
, In c. v.

Gra ph ic Co mmc'n s In t'l Uni on
, Lo ca l 1B

, 16 4 F.3 d 42 7, 42 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )). Thu s,

th e Co m pa ny co nt en ds th at th e McKe e Award fai le d to co ns id er th e pa rti es ' in te nt by

fai li ng to co ns ul t th e un di sp ut ed ba rg ai ni ng hi st or y of th e te rm "q ua li fie d." The

Co m pa ny ci te s bo th Boi se Ca sc ad e , 30 9 F.3 d at 10 84 an d Bur ea u of Eng ra vi ng , 16 4

F.3 d at 42 9, as two an al og ou s c a s e s in whi ch th is co ur t va cat ed arb it rat io n award s
whe n t he arb it rat or di d n ot co ns id er ev id en ce o f th e p art ie s' i nt en t.

W e reject th e C o mp an y 's arg um en t, ho wev er, be cau se Arb it rat or McKe e di d

in fact ad dr es s th e pa rti es ' in te nt by ex pl ic it ly co ns i d e rin g "t he ba rg ai ni ng hi st or y

in tro du ced by th e Co m

pa ny." Arb it rat o r McKe e fo un d th at wha te ve r th e Co m pa ny

ne go ti at ed fo r, it is cl ear th at th e Uni on di d no t ag ree to ch an ge th e l a n g u ag e or

ot he rwis e bo w to th ei r in te rp ret at io n of th e t erm "q ua li fie d." Our na rro w rev ie w

pr ecl ud es us fro m rev ie win g th e fact ua l accu racy of Arb it rat or McKe e's fin di ng

. Se e

Boi se Ca sc ad e , 30 9 F .3d at 1 08 4.

Arb it rat or McKe e's in te r p ret at io n of th e te rm "q ua li fie d" fo ll owe d pr io r
arb it rat io n a ward s. " [A]n arb it rat or ge ne ral ly h as th e p owe r to de te rm in e whe th er a

pr io r award is to be gi ve n pr ecl us iv e effe ct

. . . ." Tr ai lw ay s Li ne s, In c. v. Tr ai lw ay s,

-1 0-In c. Jo in t Co un se l

, 80 7 F.2 d 14 16

, 14 25 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (ci ti ng Co nn

. Li gh t & Pow er

Co

. v. Lo ca l 42 0, In t'l Bhd

. of Elec

. W or ker s , 71 8 F.2 d 14

, 20 (2 d Ci r

. 19 83 )); se e
al so W .R. Gra ce & Co

. v. Lo ca l Uni o n 75 9, In t'l Uni on of Uni te d Rub be r, Co rk

, Li no le u m & Pla st ic W

or ker s of Am. , 4 61 U.S. 7 57 , 7 64 –6 5 (1 98 3) (h ol di ng th at an
arb it rat or 's co nc lu si on th a t h e w a s no t bo un d by a pr io r arb it rat or 's de ci si on was
bi nd in g on th e fed eral co ur ts ). Thu s, Arb it rat or McKe e's rel ia nc e on th e in ter pr et at io n

of th e te rm "q ua li fie d" in th e U-Ver se arb it r a t i o n an d hi s Se ni or Rep or t Cl er ks

arb it rat io n d eci si on was wi th in hi s p ur vi ew an d i s n ot su bjec t t o o ur rev ie w.

2. Temp or ar il

y S ch ed ul ed or Ass ig ne d

Nex t, t h e Co m

pa ny arg ue s th at th e McKe e Award m is co ns tru es th e te rm

" t e mp or ari ly sc he du le d or as si gn ed " an d th us im po se s a ne w ob li ga ti on on th e

Co m pa ny no t ba rg ai ne d fo r in th e CBA. The Co m pa ny r e l i e s up on ou r de ci si on in

Kee bl er to su pp or t its po si ti on

. 80 F.3 d 28 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Bec au se Kee bl er is no t

ap po si te , we are u np ers ua de d.

In Kee bl er , a co m

pa ny an d it s u n i o n e n t e red in to a CBA an d su bs eq ue nt ly a
si de ag reem en t to th e CBA go ve rn in g th e sa le s an d de li ve ry of fo od pr od uc ts

. Id

. at

28 6. W he n a di sp ut e aro se , th e pa rti es se t tl ed th e di sp ut e an d is su ed a se tt le m en t

le tt er go ve rn in g th e se tt le m en t. Id

. Wh e n a se co nd di sp ut e aro se , th e cas e was
arb it rat ed

. Id

. Thi s co ur t va cat ed th e arb it rat or 's award in fav or of th e un io n be cau se

we fo un d th at th e arb it rat or b a s ed hi s award on th e se tt le m en t le tt er an d no t on th e

la ng ua ge of th e CBA or th e si de ag reem en t. Id

. at 28 8 ("Th e arb it rat or fo un d th at [th e

c om pa ny] 's ob li ga ti on to ob ta in [th e un io n's ] ag reem en t aro se un de r th e se tt l e men t

le tt er, to whi ch th e arb it rat or ap pa ren tl y al so lo ok ed to d i sc ern th e pa rti es ' in te nt

un de r th e [CBA] an d th e si de ag reem en t." ). In th is cas e, ho wev er, Arb it rat or McKe e
ba se d hi s award so le ly on th e am bi gu ou s la ng ua ge "t em

po rar i l y sc he du le d or

as si gn ed " fo un d i n t he CBA.

-1 1-Arb it rat or McKe e's i n t e rp ret at io n rel ie d up on pr ev io us arb it rat io n de ci si on s

th at ad dr es se d th e sa m e is su e in Se ni or Rep or t Cl er ks an d U-Ver se

. The in te rp ret at io n

th at a wor k as si gn m en t is te m po rary un ti l th e C o m

pa ny ha s ch an ge d th e job

de sc rip ti on of th e lo wer-jo b cl as si fic at io n to in cl ud e th e hi gh er-c la ss ifi ed wor k was

fir st art ic ul at ed by McKe e in Se ni or Rep or t Cl er ks

, th en ad op te d by Arb it rat or Dan a
Eis ch e n i n hi s U-Ver

se de ci si on

. Arb it rat or McKe e reco gn iz ed

, ho wev er, th at th is

in te rp ret at io n was co nt rary t o th e in te rp ret at io n of te m po rari ne ss i n t he Hein sz an d

Fo wler Award s. As we st at ed in Tr ai lw ay s , "we reco gn iz e th at th ere m ay be si tu at io ns
whe re an arb it rat or wil l refu se to de fer to a pr io r award in vo lv in g th e sa me i s su e,"

in cl ud in g whe n "'(1 ) [t]he pr ev io us de ci si on was cl earl y an in st an ce of ba d jud gm en t; (2 ) th e de ci si on was m ad e wit ho ut th e be ne fit of so m e im po rta nt an d rel ev an t fact s

or co ns id erat io ns ; or (3 ) ne w co nd it io ns ha ve ari se n qu es ti on in g th e reas on ab le ne ss

of th e co nt in ue d ap pl ic at io n of th e de ci s i o n

. ' " 80 7 F.3 d at 14 25 n.1 6 (q uo ti ng F.

Elk ou ri & E. Elko ur i, How Arb it ra ti on W or ks 42 8 (B NA 4t h e d. 1 98 5) ).

Arb it rat or McKe e ex pl ai ne d hi s de cl in at io n of de fere nc e to a pr io r award

in vo lv in g a si m il ar di sp ut e b y s t a ti ng hi s di sa gr eem en t wit h th e pr io r de ci si on s's

in te rp re ta tio n of the co nt ract 's pr ov is io ns

. Acco rd in g to Arb it rat or McKe e, th e Hein sz

an d Fo wler Award s in te rp ret ed te m po rari ne ss in a m an ne r th at ga ve th e Co m pa ny an

in cen ti ve to vi ol at e th e CBA as lo ng as th ey vi ol at ed it co ns is te nt ly fo r a gi ve n

am ou nt of ti m e (o r at le as t un ti l th e hi gh er-c la ss ifi ed job fu nc ti on s wer e p erfo rm ed

lo ng en ou gh by lo wer-c la ss ifi ed em pl oyees to be co ns id ered a pe rm an en t pa rt of th ei r job ). Arb it rat or McKe e co nc lu de d th at th is in te rp ret at io n was erro ne ou s b e c a us e it

ga ve th e Co m

pa ny th e un il at er a l ab il it y to ren de r th e te m po rari ne ss req ui rem en t

m ean in gl es s. In su m , Arb it rat or McKe e's de ci si on to fo ll ow ce rt ai n ar bit ra tion award s

an d no t ot he rs , ba se d up on th os e award s' fact ua l an d le ga l di ffer e n ces , do es no t

au th or iz e u s t o v acat e h is award un de r Tr ai lw ay s

.

-1 2-3. Perf or man ce o

f Hi gh er -Cl as si

fi ed W or k

The Co m pa ny al so arg ue s th at th e McKe e Award in ex pl ic ab ly de pa rte d from

th e Hein sz Award 's in te rp ret at io n of pe rfo rm in g hi gh er-c la ss ifi ed wor k. Unl ik e in th e
is su e of te m

po rari ly as si gn ed wor k, Arb it rat or McKe e fai le d to d i st in gu is h pr io r
si m il ar ar bi tra l awa rd s i nv ol vi ng th e sa m e p erfo rm an ce o f hi gh er-c la ss ifi ed work

.

In Tr ai lw ay s , we comm en te d on ou r "g rav e co nc ern s" when an arb it rat or di d

no t gi ve pr eced en ti al effe ct to a pr io r arb it rat io n award

. 80 7 F.2 d at 14 25

. Tr ai lw ay s

in vo lv ed two gr ie va nc es reg ard in g an em pl oyer's "n o be ard " po li cy

. Id

. at 14 17

. The

two gr ie va nc es were rai se d by di ffer en t gr ou ps of em pl oyees rep res en te d by th e sa m e

un io n. Id

. Bo th grie va nc es were arb it rat ed

. Eve n th ou gh th e arb it rat io ns "i nv ol ve d th e

sa m e co m pa ny, th e sa m e un io n, ess en ti al ly th e sa m e is su e, an d in te rp ret at io n of th e

sa me c o nt ract ," id

. at 14 25

, th ey reac he d di ffer en t co nc lu si on s. Id

. at 14 18 –1 9.

W he reas th e fir st arb it rat io n award fo un d fo r th e c o mp a n y, th e se co nd arb it rat io n
award "d id no t d is cu ss th e si m il ar n at ur e o f th e two gri ev an ces an d wh y , in li gh t of

th is fact

, th e [fi rs t arb it rat io n award ] was no t t o b e gi ve n pr ecl us iv e effe ct ." Id

. at

14 25

. "[A]lt ho ug h no t th e ba si s of ou r de ci si on ," we st at ed th at "[i ]f an arb it rat or do es

no t acco rd an y pr e c e d en ti al effe ct to a pr io r award in a cas e li ke th is

, or at le as t

ex pl ai n th e reas on s fo r refu si ng to do so , it is qu es ti on ab le whe n, if ev er, a 'fi na l an d

bi nd in g' de te rm in at io n wil l ev ol ve fro m th e arb it rat io n pr oc es s." Id

. at 14 25 –2 6. On

th e is su e o f pe rfo rm in g h ig he r-cl as si fie d wo rk , Arbi tra to r McKe e d id no t ap pl y th e

Tr ai lw ay s st an da rd by at le as t exp la in in g hi s re as on s fo r de pa rti ng fro m th e Hei ns z
Award

.

W hi le Arb it rat or McKe e di d no t ha ve to fo ll ow th e Hein sz Award

, he at le as t

sh ou ld ha ve ex pl ai ne d hi s de pa rtu re— as he di d fo r th e te m po rari ne ss is su e ou tl in ed

ab ov e—u nd er Tr ai lw ay s

. 80 7 F.2 d at 14 25 –2 6; se e al so Am. Na t'l Ca n Co

. v. Uni te d

St eel wo rk er s of Ameri ca , 12 0 F.3 d 88 6, 89 1– 92 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (ack no wled gi ng th e
bu rd en on arb it rat or s un de r Tr ai lw ay s , b ut ne ve rth el es s fi nd in g th at Tr ai lw ay s was

sa ti sf ie d be cau se th e arb it rat or "s pe ci fic al ly id en ti fie d th e cri ti cal fact ua l di ffer en ces

-1 3-be twee n th e arb it ral de ci si on s ci te d by ANC an d th e cas e be fo re hi m an d, ba se d up on

th os e m at eri al di st in ct io ns , de te rm in ed th at no pr ecl us iv e effe ct sh ou ld be acco rd ed

th e two pri or

de ci si on s." ).

Nev ert he le ss , an arb it rat or 's erro r in fai li ng to gi ve pr eced en ti al or pr ecl us iv e

effe ct to a pr ev io us arb it rat io n a ward is no t al on e su ffi ci en t to va cat e an arb it rat io n
award

. Am. Na t'l Ca n Co

. , 12 0 F.3 d at 89 2 (fi nd in g "t ha t in co ns is te nc y wit h an ot he r
award is no t en ou gh in it se lf to jus ti fy va cat in g an award

. . . [an d] th at ne it he r award

wil l be se t as id e whe re bo t h d r a w th ei r es se nc e fro m th e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng

ag reem en t." (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng McGra w Edi so n, W ag ne r Div. v. Lo ca l

11 04

, In t'l Uni on of Elec

., Rad io & Mac h. W or ker s , 76 7 F

. 2 d 48 5, 48 9 (8 th Ci r.

19 85 ))). The refo re, as lo ng as Arb it rat or McKe e's in te rp ret at io n dr aws it s e s s en ce

fro m th e CBA, we wi ll up ho ld th e award , d es pi te th e Hein sz Award pr eced en t. Se e
id

. at 8 93

.

Tak in g in to acco un t Arb it rat or McKe e's fi n d i n gs th at th e CSRs pe rfo rm ed

wor k th at was no t a pa rt of th ei r job cl as si fic at io n bu t was a p a r t o f t h e SRs ' job

cl as si fic at io n, we co nc lu de th at Arb it rat or McKe e's in te rp ret at io n d rew it s es se nc e

fro m th e CBA. T he ap pl ic ab le la ng ua ge of § 7 req ui res co m pe ns at io n to em

pl oyees
who "d o[ ] wor k in a po si ti on wit h a hi gh er es ta bl is he d m ax im um rat e of pa y ." W hi le

th e Hein sz A w a r d i nt erp ret ed th is la ng ua ge to req ui re th at th e wor k at is su e was

ex cl us iv el y pe rfo rm ed by hi gh er job cl as si fic at io ns , Arbit ra tor McKe e in te rp ret ed th e

"k ey [a]s whe th er th e fu nc ti on s b e i n g pe rfo rm ed by th e lo wer-ra te d job ti tl e are
'cl earl y at tri b ut ab le ' to a hi gh er-p ai d job ." W hi le th e two in te rp ret at io ns are no t

pe rfec tl y co ng ru ou s, we can no t sa y th at Arb it rat or McKe e's in te rp ret at io n fai ls to

dr aw it s es se nc e fro m th e CBA. The ref o r e , w e wil l no t va cat e th e McKe e Award

ba se d o n th e arb it rat or 's in te rp ret at io n of th e CBA or it s in co ns is te nc y wit h th e
Hein sz Award

.

-1 4-B. Rete nt io n o f Ju ri sd ic ti on

Fi na ll y , th e Co m

pa ny arg ue s th at th e McKe e Award sh ou ld be va cat ed be cau se

it im pr op erl y ret ai ns juri sd ic ti on in vi ol at io n of th e fu nc tu s of fi ci o do ct rin e. Als o, th e

Co m pa ny co nt en ds th at th e McKe e Award erro ne ou sl y refo rm s th e CBA by im po si ng

ne w ob li ga ti on s be y on d wha t th e pa rti es ne go ti at ed in th e CBA. The Co m pa ny arg ue s

th at Arb it rat or McKe e is at te m pt in g to gi ve th e Uni on a se co nd bi te of th e ap pl e. The

Co m pa ny b el ie ve s ret ai ni ng juri sd ic ti on wou ld en ab le th e un io n to ad du ce m is si ng

ev id en ce to a vo id a fai lu re o f pr oo f on whet he r gr ie va nt CSRs work ed two to ur s o r

m or e fo r eac h wee k t he y

are s eek in g a pa y

di ffer en ti al

.

Fi rs t, Arb it rat or Mc K ee's ret en ti on of juri sd ic ti on do es no t gi ve th e Uni on

fu rth er op po rtu ni ty to pr ov e th e pr im a faci e el em en ts of th ei r cas e. W hi le th e

Co m pa ny arg ue s th at Arb it rat or McKe e fo un d th at th e Uni on ha d no t carr ie d th ei r
bu rd en of sh owi ng th at th e gr ie va nt CSRs ha d wor ke d two to ur s or m or e a week

, he

act ua ll y fo un d th e ex act op po si te

. Alt ho ug h th e ev id en ce was de sc rib ed as "u ne ve n"

on th is to pi c, Arb it rat or M c K ee fo un d th at th e gr ie va nt CSRs "s at is fie [d ] th e

req ui rem en t th at th e wor k be pe rfo rm ed 'th ro ug ho ut two or m or e fu ll to ur s pe r week .'"

The refo re, as it pe rta in ed to li ab il it y , t he Uni on h a d m et it s bu rd en of sh owi ng th at

th e Co m pa ny vi ol at ed th e CBA. As it pe rta in ed to th e amo un t du e to each gr ie va nt

, Arb it rat or McKe e was pe rs ua de d by th e Co m pa ny's ev id en ce of th e po ss ib il it y "t ha t

ea ch of th e CSRs di d no t pe rfo rm [th e hi gh er-c la ss ifi ed ] wor k th ro ug h o u t t w o or

m or e to ur s ea ch wor k week aft er th ei r tra in in g oc cu rred ." Acco rd in g to th is fin di ng , Arb it rat or McKe e fo un d th at "[t ]he Grie va nt s are en ti tl ed to be m ad e who le fo r th ei r
lo ss es ," b ut ret ai ne d ju ris di ct io n " fo r th e sp eci fic pu rp os e of res ol vi ng an y di sp ut es

. . . ab ou t th e ap pl ic at io n or in te rp ret at io n of th is award ed rem ed y ." To th e ex te nt th e

pa rti es co ul d no t ag ree on th e am ou n t of co m pe ns at io n du e to each gr ie va nt

, Arb it rat or McKe e co ul d th en co ns id er ev id en ce to de te rm in e d u r i ng whi ch week s
each CSR wo rk ed two or m or e to ur s th at wou ld de te rm in e th e d ol la r am ou nt of t he

award

.

-1 5-Fo r th e sa m e reas on s, Arb it rat or McKe e's ret en ti on of juri sd ic ti on do es no t

vio la te th e

fu nc tu s of fi ci o do ct rin e. Thi s co ur t reco gn iz es th e "g en eral ru le in co m m on

la w arb it rat io n th at whe n arb it rat or s ha ve ex ecu te d th ei r award s an d de cl ar ed th ei r
de ci si on th ey

are fun ct us of

fic io an d hav e no po wer t o p ro ceed fur th er." Lo ca l P-9

, Uni te d Foo d & Co mmerc ia l W or ker s In t'l Uni on
, AFL-CIO v. Geo rg e A. Hor mel &

Co

. , 77 6 F.2 d 13 93

, 13 94 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (q uo ta ti on an d ci t a ti on om it te d)

. The
fu nc tu s of

fi ci o do ct rin e on ly ap pl ie s, ho wev er, whe n an a r b i t rat io n award is

co ns id ered a fin al award

. Se e id

. ; Leg io n In su ra nc e Co

. v. VCW

, In c., 19 8 F.3 d 71 8,

72 0 (8 th Cir . 19 99 ).

In Lo ca l 3 6

, S h e e t Met al W

or ker s In te rn at io na l Ass oc ia ti on
, AFL-CIO v.
Pevel y Sh eet Met al Co

. , we up he l d a n a rb it rat or 's ret en ti on of juri sd ic ti on un de r

c i r c u ms t an ces si m il ar to th es e. 95 1 F.2 d 94 7, 94 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). In Pevel y Sh eet

Met al

, a b oa rd th at res em bl ed a pa ne l of arb it rat or s up he ld a un io n's gr ie va nc e on Aug us t 4, 19 88

, bu t ret ai ne d juri sd ic ti on in cas e th e pa rti es co ul d no t st ip ul at e to th e

am ou nt of ba ck pa y owe d to th e gr ie va nt s. Id

. at 94 8. W he n th e pa rti es were un ab le

to res ol ve th e is su e of da m ag es , th e bo ard co ns id ered ev id en ce at a he ari ng an d is su ed

an award wit h a sp eci fic do ll ar am ou n t

. Id

. at 94 8– 49

. W e up he ld th e bo ard 's

ret en ti on of juri sd ic ti on an d ul ti m at e rev is it at io n o f t h e a w ard be cau se th e or ig in al

award was n ot fin al

.

Alt ho ug h th e Aug us t 4, 19 88

, de te rm in at io n of lia bi li ty was m or e th an jus t a pr oc ed ur al ev en t, it was no t a fin al or de r.

. . . The Aug us t 4, 19 88

,
or de r sp eci fic al ly co nt a i n e d a pr ov is io n whe reb y th e [b oa rd ] ret ai ne d juri sd ic ti on if th e pa rti es were un ab le to reac h an a g r e e ment as to da m ag es

. [The un io n] ha d no arb it rat io n award to en fo rce un ti l da m ag es

were de te rm in ed

. The Aug us t 4, 19 88

, de ci si on , whi le it was fin al as to li ab il it y , was no t in te nd ed to be a fin al en fo rcea bl e award as is sh own by
th e [b oa rd ]'s ret ai ni ng juri sd ic ti on

.

-1 6-Id

. at 94 9. Si m il arl y , whi le th e McKe e Award de ci de d li ab il it y , it is no t a fin al or de r

un ti l t he am ou nt of t he award is ev en tu al ly det erm in ed

.

The Co m pa ny rel ie s pr im ari ly on Leg io n In su ra nc e to supp or t it s arg um en t th at

th e Mc Kee Award was a fin al award th at tri gg ered th e fu nc tu s o ff ic io do ct rin e. 19 8

F.3 d 71 8 ( 8 t h Ci r. 19 99 ). In Leg io n In su ra nc e , an arb it rat io n pa ne l's in it ia l award

fo un d th at VCW was li ab le to Leg io n In su ran ce be cau se it ha d no t rem it te d in su ran ce

pr em iu m s. Id

. at 7 19 . The ar bi tra to r la te r res ci nd ed it s awa rd ord eri ng VCW to pa y
th e pr em iu m s. Id

. On ap pe a l

, VCW so ug ht to up ho ld th e reci si on of th e or ig in al

award on th e ba si s th at it was no t fin al be c a u s e th e arb it rat or s "s ti ll ha d to de ci de

ad di ti on al is su es , su ch as th e am ou nt of ad jus tm en ts to th e award of pr em iu m s." Id

.

a t 7 2 0

. W e ack no wled ge d th at "[a ]n a ward can no t be fin al if si gn ifi can t is su es st il l

ne ed to be de te rm in ed ." Id

. Not w i t h s t an di ng , "we do no t th in k th at a m in or
ad jus tm en t to t he award crea te s an im po rta nt is su e." Id

. A m in or ad jus tm en t to a

pe cu ni ary award is qu it e di ffer en t th an th e in it ia l de te rm in at io n of th e award 's

am ou nt

. In Pevel

y Sh eet Met al

, we reject ed a si m il ar arg um en t "t ha t th e de te rm in at io n

of da m ag es was [m erel y ] a 'm in is te ria l' de ta il " be ca use "t he de te rm in at io n of da m ag es
di d no t m erel y in vo lv e a si m pl e cal cu la ti on , bu t req ui red th e res ol ut io n of si gn ifi can t

is su es ." 95 1 F.2 d at 94 9. W e fin d th at th e f a ct ua l de te rm in at io n of ho w m an y to ur s
each CSR wor ke d du rin g whi ch week s is m or e ak in to th e si gn ifi can t is su es in Pevel y
Sh eet Met al rat he r th an th e m in or a d ju s t ment to an award in Leg io n In su ra nc e

. The r e f o r e , t h e McKe e Award is no t fin al an d th e fu nc tu s of fi ci o do ct rin e is no t

tri gg ered

.

The Co m pa ny a l s o arg ue s th at Arb it rat or McKe e's ret en ti on of juri sd ic ti on

su bjec ts th em to a pi ecemeal he ari ng pr oc es s th at im po se s ne w ob l ig at io ns on th e

pa rti es th at is f

o r e i g n to wha t th ey ba rg ai ne d fo r in th e CBA. In th e St eel wo rk er s
tri lo gy, th e Su pr em e Co ur t sa id th at pa rti es th at su bm it to arb it rat io n ba rg ai n fo r th e
arb it rat or 's "jud gm en t an d al l th at it co nn ot es ." Uni te d St eel wo rk er s of Am. v. Am.
Mfg

. Co

., 36 3 U.S. 56 4, 56 8 (1 96 0)

. Bec au se th e "am ou nt s du e [to gr ie va nt ]

-1 7-em

pl oyees" is a pa rt of th e jud gm en t o f an arb it rat or , Uni te d St eel wo rk er s of Am. v.

Ent er

. W he el & Ca r Co rp

. , 36 3 U.S. 59 3, 59 9 (1 96 0)

, we f i n d n o m eri t to th e

Co m pa ny's arg um en t. Arb it rat or McKe e's ul ti m at e de te rm in at io n of th e am ou nt du e

to em pl oyees is th e ve ry pr oc ed ur e an d rem ed y th e Co m pa ny an d th e Uni on
ba rg ai ne d fo r in th e CBA wh en th ey ne go ti at ed an arb it rat io n c la us e.

III. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th e reas on s st at ed he rei n, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's jud gm en t en fo rci ng

th e Mc Kee Award

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 8-