Document: 531 U.S. 57121 S.Ct. 462148 L.Ed.2d 354 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION, PETITIONERv.UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 17, et al. No. 99-1038 SUPREME COURT THE UNITED STATES Argued October 2, 2000 November 28, ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The arbitration provisions petitioner Eastern Associated Coal Corp.'s collective-bargaining agreement with respondent union specify, inter alia, must prove binding it has "just cause" discharge an employee, else arbitrator will employee reinstated. James Smith worked for as a truck driver Department Transportation (DOT) regulations requiring random drug testing workers engaged "safety-sensitive" tasks. After each two occasions on which tested positive marijuana, sought him. Each time, went arbitration, and concluded use did not amount ordered Smith's reinstatement certain conditions. On second occasion, filed suit vacate arbitrator's award. District award's enforcement, holding conditional violate strong regulation-based public policy against by who perform safety-sensitive functions. Fourth Circuit affirmed. Held: Public considerations do require courts refuse enforce award ordering employer reinstate twice marijuana. Pp. 3 9. (a) assumes itself calls reinstatement, parties have granted authority interpret meaning their contract's language, including such words cause," see Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 593, 599, does claim here acted outside scope his contractually delegated authority, see, e.g., Paperworkers Misco, Inc., 484 29, 38. Since distinguishable from contractual agreement, decide whether requirement would fall within legal exception makes unenforceable "a collective bargaining contrary policy." W. R. Grace Co. Rubber Workers, 461 757, 766. Any "explicit," "well defined," "dominant," "ascertained reference laws precedents, general supposed interests." Ibid. question violates policy, but him so. 5. (b) A specified conditions run policy. correctly articulated standard set out Misco applied reach right result. narrow satisfy principles forth those cases. Moreover, where political branches created detailed regulatory regime specific field, should approach particular caution pleas divine further area. asserts drugs can discerned examination Omnibus Employee Testing Act 1991 DOT's implementing regulations. However, these expressions law embody just policies employees transportation positions favor testing, also include favoring rehabilitation drugs. And relevant statutory read light background labor favors determination disciplinary questions through when chosen result labor-management negotiation. See, California Brewers Assn. Bryant, 444 598, 608. several policies, taken together, condone conduct ignore risk safety drivers pose, punishes placing reinstatement. It no provision regulation, consistent DOT rules completion substance-abuse treatment returning work Act's driving license suspension requirements its rehabilitative concerns. fact recidivist sufficient tip balance Eastern's favor. argument withdrawal proposed "recidivist" rule leaves open possibility appropriate penalty repeat offenders fails because based withdrawal, upon more severe was needed, leave place remedies. cannot find Act, regulations, precedent explicit, well defined, dominant decision runs contrary. 5 9.188 F.3d 501, Breyer, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, concurring judgment, Thomas, Opinion Justice Breyer Court. 1 had us We conclude they not. reinstate, rather than discharge, employee. 2 * Petitioner, respondent, Mine Workers America, provisions. specifies that, cause." Otherwise final. App. 28 31. member road crew, job required drive heavy trucklike vehicles highways. As driver, 49 CFR §§382.301, 382.305 (1999). 4 In March 1996, Smith. test discharge. Instead provided (1) accept 30 days without pay, (2) participate program, (3) undergo tests at discretion (or approved professional) next five years. Between April 1996 January 1997, passed four tests. But July 1997 he again marijuana mitigating circumstances. First, been good 17 Pet. Cert. 26a 27a. And, second, credible "very personal appeal under oath . concerning personal/family problem caused this one time lapse usage." Id., 28a. 6 new slightly three months; reimburse costs both proceedings; continue substance- abuse program; (4) testing; (5) provide signed, undated letter resignation, take effect if 29a. 7 brought federal court seeking vacated, arguing contravened operation dangerous machinery 66 F. Supp. 2d 796 (SDWV 1998). while recognizing functions, held 804 805. enforcement. 8 Appeals affirmed reasoning 188 1999 WL 635632 (1999) (unpublished). certiorari disagreement among Circuits. Compare id., **1 (holding prohibit "reinstatement used illegal past"), with, Exxon Corp. Esso Workers' Union, 118 841, 852 (CA1 1997) prohibits enforcement similar award). now affirm Circuit's determination. II 9 claims make unenforceable. considering claim, we assume That See 599 (1960). They "bargained for" "arbitrator's construction" agreement. aside interpretation what means only rare instances. 596. Of course, "must draw essence contract simply reflect own notions industrial justice." 38 (1987). "But long [an honest] even arguably construing applying acting authority," convinced committed serious error suffice overturn decision." Ibid.; Wheel, supra, 596 (the "proper" judicial "refus[e] review merits"). authority. Hence treat represented between proper St. Antoine, Judicial Review Labor Arbitration Awards: Second Look Its Progeny, 75 Mich. L. Rev. 1137, 1155 (1977). For present purposes, 10 then 766 (1983). clear "dominant." 'by precedents interests.' " (quoting Muschany 324 49, (1945)); accord, 43. answered To put specifically, conditions, 29a, well-defined, ascertained interests? III 11 initially argues erred asking, "contrary to" "as reference" law, "violates" says too narrow. believe, however, 2d, 803 43), 12 agree, principle, courts' invoke limited solely instances law. Nevertheless, Misco. case like us, 13 regime, consists embodies congressional finding "the greatest efforts expended eliminate drugs, off duty, individuals involved [certain positions, including] trucks." Pub. 102 143, §2(3), 105 Stat. 953. adds "increased testing" "most effective deterrent" "use drugs." §2(5). requires Secretary promulgate "testing operators commercial motor controlled substance." U.S.C. § 31306(b)(1)(A) (1994 ed., III). mandates driven vehicle influence 31310(b)(1)(A) (requiring least year first offense); §31310(c)(2) years offense). sanctions applicable 382.605 14 view, detect use. failed undermine point judge employer-union 15 argument, loses much force considers remedial aims complex. "rehabilitation critical component program," §2(7), 953, "should available individuals, appropriate," ibid., programs," 31306(e). specifically state return position until evaluated "substance professional" determine 382.605(b) (1999); professional certified followed program prescribed, §382.605(c)(2)(i); return-to-duty test, §382.605(c)(1). addition, six during after job. §382.605(c)(2)(ii). Neither nor forbid once twice. directives above-stated prerequisites met. 16 promulgating decided employers either "hold driver" positive, basis decisions left management/driver negotiation." 59 Fed. Reg. 7502 (1994). reflects basic principles, interference agreements about discipline. 608 (1980) (noting "this Nation's longstanding policy" give "employers freedom establish employment"). believe policies. points out, testing. 18 together. pose. Rather, suspending months, thereby depriving nearly $9,000 lost wages, Record Doc. A, p. 2; pay sides; insists (by signed resignation) 19 regulation. work, 382.605(c)(2)(i) (1999), preclude assigning non-safety-sensitive completes prescribed program. 1-year 10-year requirements, apply who, unlike Smith, actually operated 31310(b), (c). concerns, work. 20 severely lapse. punishment, included 90-day suspension, satisfied adopt punished tests, 60 days. 57 59585 (1992). offenders. fails, place, "only prohibition period substances violation," "completion negative result." 7493 21 Regarding persons then, Congress enacted statute. issue subject. Upon careful consideration, notice comment, done seen fit mandate worker hesitate infer area beyond scheme created. 22 recognize reasonable people differ remedy here. agreed entrust arbitrator. "dominant" "runs contrary." U.S., 43; Grace, lower rejected claim. judgment Affirmed. 23 whom Thomas joins, judgment. 24 I concur Court's agree prevents so complies decision, Transportation's endorse, statement "[w]e law." Ante, No cited support proposition, none could be. There single since washed hands common-lawmaking Erie Tompkins, 304 64 (1938), refused "public grounds violate, violation of, some Hurd Hodge, 334 (1948) (refusing doctrine restrictive covenant violated Rev.Stat. §1978, 42 1982). 25 dictum opening door flaccid arguments sort presented here, immediately posts giant "Do Not Enter" sign. "[T]he exception," says, "is Grace," ante, 5, (1983) (1945)). hard imagine how identified fashion, conflicting If ever exist, surely benefit preserving ability deal far outweighed confusion uncertainty, hence obstructive litigation, Delphic "agree[ment] principle" engender. 26 intuition actual prohibitions there way knowing apparent gaps intentional inadvertent. final form statute especially regulated fields likely rear head, often compromise various interest groups, resulting go farther. One can, summon up parade horribles, airline alcoholic pilot somehow escapes being grounded seems me our face correction omissions declined power define common-law offenses. Hudson, Cranch 32 (1812). Surely invalidate providing actions (but "ought" be) less important welfare harmful acts be). efficacious, depends willingness assert interest. (If terribly concerned reinstating pilot, opportunity prevent reinstatement.) horribles imagined really horrible come pass readily corrected agency, retroactivity. Supervening always dissolution obligation. Restatement (Second) Contracts §264 (1979). 27 sum, game play endorsing "in enunciate worth candle. Agreeing except insofar principle concerned,

Category: 6