Opinion ID: 2718835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “[W]e review the district court’s decision to vacate the arbitrator’s award de novo.” Alcan Packaging Co. v. Graphic Commc’n Conference, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters & Local Union No. 77-P, 729 F.3d 839, 841 (8th Cir. 2013). PSC’s action to vacate the arbitrator’s award arises under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. “Under this section, we review an arbitrator’s award to determine whether: (1) the parties agreed to arbitrate; and (2) the arbitrator had the power to make the award.” Excel Corp. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, Local 431, 102 F.3d 1464, 1467 (8th Cir. 1996). The parties do not dispute that the grievance was subject to arbitration, so the question before us is whether the arbitrator had the authority to enter the award. Judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision is extremely limited. Courts “must accord ‘an extraordinary level of deference’ to the underlying award itself.” Boise Cascade Corp. v. Paper Allied-Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers, 309 F.3d 1075, 1080 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Keebler Co. v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Emps. Union, Local No. 471, 80 F.3d 284, 287 (8th Cir. 1996)). “[A]s long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, 739 F.3d 1136, 1140 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987)); see also Alcan Packaging, 729 F.3d at 843. Also, “[a] mere ambiguity in the opinion accompanying an award, which permits the inference that the arbitrator may have exceeded his authority, is not reason for refusing to enforce the award.” United Steelworkers v. -4- Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 598 (1960). An arbitrator’s decision, however, is not completely free from judicial review. Boise Cascade, 309 F.3d at 1080. We may vacate an arbitrator’s award when it does not “draw[] its essence from the collective bargaining agreement” and instead reflects the arbitrator’s “own brand of industrial justice[.]” Misco, 484 U.S. at 36 (quoting Enter. Wheel, 363 U.S. at 597). That is to say, “[t]he arbitrator may not ignore the plain language of the contract[,]” id. at 38, and “may not . . . modify unambiguous contract provisions[,]” Trailmobile Trailer, LLC v. Int’l Union of Elec., Elec., Salaried, Mach. & Furniture Workers, 223 F.3d 744, 747 (8th Cir. 2000).