Opinion ID: 456247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Arbitrator's Remedy

Text: 24 Plaintiff's final argument concerns the propriety of the remedy that the arbitrator ordered. Upon finding that plaintiff had acted arbitrarily and had violated Marsh's seniority rights, the arbitrator ordered plaintiff to award Marsh back pay and benefits from July 26, 1983, the date on which she should have been recalled, until the date on which she is reinstated. Plaintiff challenges the arbitrator's authority to fashion this remedy, arguing that the only remedy available to the arbitrator was to remand the dispute to the parties for a further determination of qualification. In support of its contention, plaintiff relies on the second sentence of section 4.2 of the collective bargaining agreement, which states, The arbitrator shall not abridge management's rights or determinations unless management acted arbitrarily or for the purpose of discrimination against members of the Union. According to plaintiff, under this provision, the arbitrator may only abridge management's determinations and may not reverse them. 25 Even if the parties intended this provision to address the arbitrator's authority to fashion an award, a conclusion that this court declines to make, the meaning of the word abridge is ambiguous. Abridge, as plaintiff concedes, means to diminish. Under section 4.2, an arbitrator may abridge or diminish a management determination if the arbitrator concludes that that determination was arbitrary. 26 This court agrees with the arbitrator that his authority to abridge a management determination encompasses the right to order reinstatement and that any other interpretation of his remedial authority would contravene the first sentence of section 4.2, which prohibits the arbitrator from modifying the terms of the agreement. According to the arbitrator, if plaintiff violated Marsh's contractual seniority rights, 27 then the remedy must be fashioned to recognize her contract right to recall on July 26, 1983. Any other remedy would be a plain alteration of or addition to the Agreement in open violation of that Agreement's seniority provision and contractual limitations upon the arbitrators' jurisdiction and powers. 28 The arbitrator recognized that the only effective remedy to redress plaintiff's violation of Marsh's seniority rights, and to abridge plaintiff's arbitrary decision, was to order plaintiff to reinstate Marsh with back pay. In numerous cases, this court has acknowledged that an arbitrator possesses wide latitude to fashion an appropriate remedy. See, e.g., International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 139 v. Carl A. Morse, Inc., 529 F.2d 574, 580 (7th Cir.1976); United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers v. Honeywell Inc., 522 F.2d 1221, 1226 (7th Cir.1975). Thus, because this court finds that the word abridge does not limit the arbitrator's remedial authority, this court affirms the arbitrator's award of reinstatement with back pay.