Opinion ID: 290929
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Position of Appellants in this Court.

Text: 24 The appellants in this appeal argue in essence, to use their own words, that Westenberg made a secret attempt to influence the resolution of the seniority dispute in favor of the original Hemingway drivers and that this requires our setting aside the decision of the Joint Area Committee without any need [on the part of the Novick drivers] to prove that the secret approach actually influenced the decision of the [Joint Area] Committee. (Emphasis in the original). 5 In support of this position it is contended that the decision of the Joint Area Committee was an arbitration at least in the limited sense of being subject to the same standards as are imposed by Section 10 of the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10. In this connection appellants rely principally upon the case of Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U.S. 145, 89 S.Ct. 337, 21 L.Ed. 2d 301 (1968), which holds that an arbitrator has a duty to disclose to the parties any of his dealings that might create an impression of possible bias. 6 The analogy proposed by the appellants is that Westenberg's visit with Harding created such an impression of possible bias which gave rise to a duty of disclosure. 25 Even assuming arguendo that the Joint Area Committee was subject to the standards of the Arbitration Act, we conclude that the doctrine of Commonwealth Coatings is inapposite. Appellants' analogy contains a major flaw. In Commonwealth Coatings it was an arbitrator whose activities and relationships gave rise to the impression of bias, and as an arbitrator he was in a position to directly influence the decision by participating in the deliberations of the arbitrating panel and by casting his vote. Westenberg, by contrast, was not a member of the decision-making body. 26 Finally, we reiterate that there is no evidence whatever that Harding was influenced by Westenberg or that Harding in turn influenced or even attempted to influence the Joint Area Committee or any of its members. 7 We cannot accept the proposition that the Westenberg-Harding meeting standing alone, undesirable as it may have been, so taints the decision of the Joint Area Committee that its decision must be set aside. 27 The judgment will be affirmed. 28 Judge VAN DUSEN concurs in the result.