Opinion ID: 544220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Suitability of Tripartite Arbitration

Text: 22 Appellant's last argument is that even if the court is going to apply the Ninth Circuit's holding to this case, that court's decision would lead to a different result in this case because it rested upon deference to the arbitrator's opinion. As with the Louisiana-Pacific point, it is not clear whether the arbitrator's views were important, because they were not among the three factors upon which the court expressly rested its decision. To be sure, the court did add that the conclusions of the arbitrator should be considered, noting that although he denied intervention, he expressed his view that tripartite arbitration would be appropriate, i.e., fair and sensible. 893 F.2d at 1121. 23 If the Ninth Circuit did rely upon the arbitrator's views, we think it was only with regard to the practical desirability of arbitration, and not, contrary to the APWU, with regard to the issue of law before it. And the arbitrator's practical opinion, if relevant, is not a point of distinction from this case. In one of the proceedings before us the arbitrator stated that resolution of the conflict ... would be greatly facilitated by tripartite arbitration, and in the other the arbitrator commented on the intrinsic merit of tripartite arbitration, noting that [i]t is economical, time saving, practical and convenient. Accordingly, deferring to the arbitrator would not alter the outcome of this case.