Opinion ID: 2820784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Qualified

Text: The Company begins by arguing that Arbitrator McKee ignored the undisputed bargaining history of the CBA in his interpretation of the term qualified. [I]f an arbitrator attempts to interpret a written agreement that is silent or ambiguous without considering the parties' intent, his award will fail to draw its essence from the [agreement]. Boise Cascade, 309 F.3d at 1082 (citing Bureau of Engraving, Inc. v. Graphic Commc'ns Int'l Union, Local 1B, 164 F.3d 427, 429 (8th Cir. 1999)). Thus, the Company contends that the McKee Award failed to consider the parties' intent by failing to consult the undisputed bargaining history of the term qualified. The Company cites both Boise Cascade, 309 F.3d at 1084 and Bureau of Engraving, 164 F.3d at 429, as two analogous cases in which this court vacated arbitration awards when the arbitrator did not consider evidence of the parties' intent. We reject the Company's argument, however, because Arbitrator McKee did in fact address the parties' intent by explicitly considering the bargaining history introduced by the Company. Arbitrator McKee found that whatever the Company negotiated for, it is clear that the Union did not agree to change the language or otherwise bow to their interpretation of the term qualified. Our narrow review precludes us from reviewing the factual accuracy of Arbitrator McKee's finding. See Boise Cascade, 309 F.3d at 1084. Arbitrator McKee's interpretation of the term qualified followed prior arbitration awards. [A]n arbitrator generally has the power to determine whether a prior award is to be given preclusive effect . . . . Trailways Lines, Inc. v. Trailways, -10- Inc. Joint Counsel, 807 F.2d 1416, 1425 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Local 420, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 718 F.2d 14, 20 (2d Cir. 1983)); see also W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, Int'l Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Am., 461 U.S. 757, 764–65 (1983) (holding that an arbitrator's conclusion that he was not bound by a prior arbitrator's decision was binding on the federal courts). Thus, Arbitrator McKee's reliance on the interpretation of the term qualified in the U-Verse arbitration and his Senior Report Clerks arbitration decision was within his purview and is not subject to our review.