Opinion ID: 780894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of Review of Arbitrators' Awards

Text: 14 A court's review of an arbitration award is very limited. Lee v. Chica, 983 F.2d 883, 885 (8th Cir.1993). Where parties agree to arbitrate, a court cannot substitute a judicial determination for the arbitrator's decision. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 40-41 n. 10, 108 S.Ct. 364, 371, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987). Courts may not review the merits of an arbitration award even though the parties may allege that the award rests on errors of fact or on misinterpretation of the contract. Bureau of Engraving, Inc. v. Graphic Communication Int'l Union, Local 1B, 284 F.3d 821, 824 (8th Cir.2002)(quoting Misco, 484 U.S. at 36, 108 S.Ct. 364). Even if the court is convinced that the arbitrator committed serious error, so long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, arbitration awards must be confirmed. Bureau of Engraving, 284 F.3d at 824 (quoting Misco, 484 U.S. at 38, 108 S.Ct. 364). 4 15 Although limited, arbitration awards are not entirely free from judicial review. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides limited grounds on which an arbitration award may be vacated. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 (2000). The FAA requires that an arbitration award be upheld unless it is obtained by corruption, fraud, or undue means; where there is evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators; where there was misconduct by the arbitrators; or where the arbitrators exceeded their powers. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)(2). 16 This court has held that beyond the grounds provided in the FAA, an arbitration award will be vacated only where it is completely irrational or evidences a manifest disregard for the law. Hoffman v. Cargill Inc., 236 F.3d 458, 461 (8th Cir.2001)(citing Val-U Constr. Co. of S.D. v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 146 F.3d 573, 578 (8th Cir.1998)). 17 An arbitrator is not free to ignore or abandon the plain language of the parties' agreement. Boise Cascade Corp. v. Paper Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers (PACE), Local 7-0159, 309 F.3d 1075, 1081 (8th Cir.2002). An arbitration award has been held to be irrational where it fails to draw its essence from the agreement. Hoffman, 236 F.3d at 462. An arbitrator's award draws its essence from the [parties' agreement] as long as it is derived from the agreement, viewed in light of its language, its context, and any other indicia of the parties' intention. Boise, 309 F.3d at 1080 (quoting Johnson Controls, Inc., Sys. & Servs. Div. v. United Ass'n of Journeymen, 39 F.3d 821, 825 (7th Cir.1994)). 18 But where there is no clear and unambiguous agreement, the arbitrator must utilize other sources to determine the parties' intent. As this court has previously held, [d]etermining the intent of the parties is the essential inquiry; if the written agreement is silent, the arbitrator may consider past practices and bargaining history to fill gaps. Boise, 309 F.3d at 1081-82 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). On the other hand, where the plain language of the parties' agreement is silent or ambiguous with respect to a disputed issue, an arbitrator is obliged to consider other relevant sources of the parties' intent. Id.