Opinion ID: 3065161
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: HAL is party to the CBA.

Text: Balen contends that the district court’s finding that HAL was a party to the CBA was clearly erroneous. We disagree. Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential, requiring a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir. 2004). If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the entire record, the court of appeals may not reverse, even if it would have weighed the evidence differently. See Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002), aff’d, 540 U.S. 644 (2004). [10] Nothing in the record indicates that the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous. The CBA itself indicates that HAL is a party. The cover page states: “COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMOSUP ASSOCI- ATED MARINE OFFICERS’ AND SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HOLLAND AMERICA LINE INC. REPRESENTED BY UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC.” Balen contends, however, that HAL is not a party to the CBA, because UPL signed the CBA on HAL’s behalf. Balen’s argument is without merit, however, because a corporation must use employment agencies licensed by the POEA to employ Filipino Seamen. Accordingly, HAL had no choice but to engage an agency like UPL to represent it. Because ordinary contract and agency principles apply to arbitration agreements, see Letizia v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc., 802 F.2d 1185, 1187-88 (9th Cir. 1986), that UPL signed the CBA on HAL’s behalf renders HAL a party to the agreement. The district court did not clearly err when it found that HAL was a party to the CBA. BALEN v. HOLLAND AMERICA LINE 14225