Opinion ID: 471813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the Submitted Issue

Text: 31 The Company initially contends that the Arbitrator's decision was invalid because he exceeded his authority in addressing issues outside the scope of the submission. Arguing that the Arbitrator's decision addressed relief for employees not covered by the submission, the Company claims that only a kind of declaratory judgment on the agreement's meaning as to Group B employees was requested, not an interpretation to employees not receiving SUB benefits as of April 19, 1982. 32 In Champion International Corp. v. United Paperworkers International Union, 779 F.2d 328 (6th Cir.1985), it was stated: 33 [T]he extraordinary deference given to an arbitrator's ultimate decision on the merits applies equally to an arbitrator's threshold decision that the parties have indeed submitted a particular issue for arbitration: 34 Considering the strong presumption in favor of a party's right to arbitration and the extent of an arbitrator's authority, it would be a strange and grudging interpretation of Steelworkers Trilogy to demand that arbitrators stay narrowly within the technical limits of the submission. We do not mean to imply that an award that clearly goes beyond the grievance submitted to the arbitrator is enforceable.... But we do hold that the presumption of authority that attaches to an arbitrator's award applies with equal force to his decision that his award is within the submission. 35 Johnston Boiler Co. v. Local Lodge No. 893, 753 F.2d 40, 43 (6th Cir.1985). Therefore, it must appear that an arbitrator has clearly exceeded the scope of the submission for a court to overturn or modify an award on that ground. 36 Id. at 335. Accord Mobil Oil Corp. v. Independent Oil Workers Union, 679 F.2d 299 (3d Cir.1982). 37 Under that deferential standard, the Arbitrator did not exceed his authority. First, the submission's language did not clearly restrict the Arbitrator's authority to Group B employees, but referred generally to certain employees and to employees with over twenty years service.... That language is at least arguably broad enough to cover successive groups of employees who met specified qualifications. Second, according to the Arbitrator's opinion, the Union had unequivocally pressed at the hearings its position that guaranteed benefits had to be provided not only for the first group of 25 voluntaries, but indefinitely for all voluntaries who rotate into layoff status. In the Company's statement of position submitted to the Arbitrator at the hearing, moreover, it referred to the Union's contention that successive groups of senior employees were entitled to SUB benefits and not just Group B employees as claimed by the Company. We, therefore, conclude that the Arbitrator did not clearly exceed the scope of the submission. 38