Opinion ID: 3010300
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reasonableness of Arbitrator's Findings

Text: Finally, we consider whether the Chairman's finding in this case that Exxon lacked cause to order Cash to take a drug test was so unreasonable that it would violate public policy to enforce his award. The Chairman found that there was marijuana or marijuana residue in numerous places in the cabin Cash was using. Specifically, there was green leafy material in a desk and cabinet, ash on the rug, seeds under the rug, and two butts of marijuana, referred to as roaches, in a suitcase pouch. The Union emphasized Cash's minimal association with that room, in that Cash had been assigned there less than two days before and had spent only a few hours there because he was working long shifts elsewhere on the ship. At oral argument, Exxon argued that where, as here, a matter of public policy is involved, the arbitrator's findings should be held to a higher standard of scrutiny and set aside if unreasonable. We find no authority for vacating an arbitral award on such grounds. On the contrary, an arbitrator's decision need be neither wise nor internally consistent. In fact, arbitrators have no obligation to explain their reasons for an award or even to write an opinion unless the contract so requires. Virgin Islands Nursing Association's Bargaining Unit v. Schneider, 668 F.2d 221 (3d Cir. 1981); see also United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 598 (1960). Arbitrators' decisions are subject to a standard of only minimal rationality. Virgin Islands Nursing, 668 F.2d at 223 (quoting Robert A. Gorman, Basic Text on Labor Law 586 (1976)). Although we will vacate an award if we find that the award itself violates public policy, the public policy exception does not lessen our deference to an arbitrator's factual findings. The Supreme Court has made clear that findings of fact and inferences to be drawn therefrom are the exclusive province of the arbitrator. United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36, 44 (1987). That a court is inquiring into a possible violation of public policy [does not] excuse a court for doing the arbitrator's task. Id. at 45. Thus, this court may not refuse enforcement even if we consider the evidence sufficient to prove that reasonable cause existed to require Cash to submit to a drug test. Exxon challenges the reasonableness of the arbitrator's conclusions, but [n]o dishonesty is alleged; only improvident, even silly, factfinding is claimed. Id. at 39. It is not our role to draw inferences that the factfinder did not. We therefore will not disturb the arbitrator's finding that cause did not exist to require Cash to submit to a drug test. Accordingly, because we accept the arbitrator's finding that Cash was ordered to submit to a test without reasonable cause, his reinstatement does not offend public policy and the decision of the arbitrator must be enforced.