Opinion ID: 686800
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contempt, Backpay and Reinstatement

Text: 11 Burns argues that because Commonwealth Edison, an independent party, decided that it would not grant Sullivan site access, it was impossible for Burns to comply with the arbitrator's award by reinstating Sullivan. 12 Our problem arises because the parties interpret the award differently. Burns contends that reinstatement to her former position meant reinstatement as a nuclear security officer at Braidwood. Under this interpretation, Commonwealth Edison's refusal of consent would render that assignment impossible, and the award would literally require Burns to pay Sullivan indefinitely the earnings she would have had. The Union argues that compliance with the award was not impossible, because Burns, having failed to assign Sullivan to a position, could simply continue to pay her. 13 Perhaps the arbitrator, if the question had been put to him, would have said that he meant reinstatement to the position at Braidwood or an equivalent position on Burns' payroll, so that if Burns had offered an equivalent position, its obligation to make her whole for lost earnings would cease. The Union does accept that Burns' October 1993 reemployment of Sullivan ended Burns' obligations under the award. Either of the above interpretations would sustain the court's order now being appealed. 14 Burns contends that it took action to reinstate Sullivan at Braidwood by making what it called its formal request for restoration of Sullivan's access. It essentially urges a construction of the award so that although the award says, make her whole ... until her reinstatement, Burns need not continue paying her after Commonwealth Edison made her return to Braidwood impossible. This interpretation strains the exact language the arbitrator used and there is no reason to prefer it. 15 We do not know how the arbitrator would have initially phrased the award if Burns had brought to his attention that reinstatement at Braidwood would be dependent on Commonwealth Edison's decision on access (perhaps, in fact, dependent on Burns' willingness to persuade Commonwealth Edison that Sullivan had been rehabilitated by her eight months without pay and that her future performance would be appropriate). 16 Burns was well aware at the time of arbitration that reinstatement to duties at Braidwood could not occur without Commonwealth Edison's restoration of access. Yet it did not press that point to the arbitrator, nor did it seek remand to the arbitrator when the district court considered its challenge to the award and the Union's application for enforcement. Burns did not seek clarification after the denial of access, and rebuffed the Union's suggestion concerning resubmission. Under these circumstances, we hold that Burns has waived its claim for the interpretation it seeks. Nat'l Wrecking Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 731, 990 F.2d 957, 960-61 (7th Cir.1993); United Food & Commercial Workers Local 100A v. John Hofmeister and Son, Inc., 950 F.2d 1340, 1343-44 (7th Cir.1991), and cases cited therein. 17 We also note that it is questionable whether Burns made a good faith effort to restore Sullivan to her former position at Braidwood. The letter Burns wrote to Commonwealth Edison requesting restoration of Sullivan's site access at most is a grudging recognition of Burns' duty to comply with the award. It can also be read as a virtual invitation to Commonwealth Edison to deny Sullivan's access and thus deny her reinstatement at Braidwood. 3 18 We review the district court's ruling on the Union's contempt petition for an abuse of discretion. Badger Meter, Inc. v. Grinnell Corp., 13 F.3d 1145, 1154 (7th Cir.1994); Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Int'l Union, Allied Indus. Workers of America, 2 F.3d 760, 762 (7th Cir.1993). The district court abused its discretion if it made an error of law or based its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of fact. Badger Meter, 13 F.3d at 1154-55. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Burns' impossibility defense. 19 Burns further argues that (1) since the collective bargaining agreement only pertained to Braidwood, it was not obligated to find Sullivan a position at a facility not covered by the agreement; if the award had required such action, it would not have drawn its essence from the agreement; 4 (2) the district court erred when it ordered Burns to provide backpay at Braidwood rates, although Sullivan could not work there; (3) because its agreement with the Union expired in May 1991, 5 the Union had no further obligation to Sullivan after that date; and (4) it was not obligated to pay Sullivan's backpay at the rate provided in the new agreement between Burns and the union which now represents the Braidwood workers. 6 20 Neither party can point us to a case in which an arbitrator ordered an employee to be reinstated to a position at a location not covered by the collective bargaining agreement which gives rise to the arbitration. We see no reason why this remedy would not be within the arbitrator's authority where the particular job from which the employer had wrongfully discharged the employee was no longer available. 21 Burns' argument that it had no obligation to pay Sullivan at the new Braidwood rate after the agreement expired misses the point. The relief ordered by the court is for Burns' failure to reinstate at the time of the award. Of course at that time the collective bargaining agreement between the parties was still in force. If Burns had then reinstated her at Braidwood, and unless she had been fired for cause, had quit or died, she would have gone on to be paid under the collective bargaining agreement between Burns and the new union. We think that in awarding relief for Burns' violation of the award the court could make that assumption. 7 22 All of the above issues involve disputes over the obligations the award imposes on Burns. We find helpful analysis from case law which discusses enforcement proceedings involving ambiguous awards. As a general proposition, a district court should not attempt to interpret an ambiguous award. Teamsters Local No. 579 v. B & M Transit, Inc., 882 F.2d 274, 278 (7th Cir.1989) (appeal from a judgment confirming an award). When possible, however, a court should avoid remanding a decision to the arbitrator because of the interest in prompt and final arbitration. Id.; Ethyl Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 768 F.2d 180, 188 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1010, 106 S.Ct. 1184, 89 L.Ed.2d 300 (1986) (action to set aside an award; counteraction to enforce it); see also United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 598, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960) (A mere ambiguity in the opinion accompanying the award, which permits the inference that the arbitrator may have exceeded his authority, is not a reason for refusing to enforce the award.). In the present case, the argument about interpretation was not raised at the time of confirmation of the award, but in a proceeding for contempt for failure to comply. 23 This court must resolve issues stemming from an incident which took place almost seven years ago. The delay is due in part to Burns. See, e.g., footnote 1. Additionally, because Burns failed to inform the arbitrator of information relevant to formulating an award, the arbitrator did not explicitly provide for the contingency of continued denial of access. Burns' only basis for setting aside the award was its public policy argument. Finally, Burns ignored inquiries from the Union about remand to the arbitrator, prior to commencement of the present proceedings. This matter should have been laid to rest long ago; additional arbitration would further prolong resolution. Under the circumstances it does not seem fair to fault the district court for failure to remand for clarification, as Burns suggests.