Opinion ID: 469049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Contract Interpretation

Text: 6 The Postal Service argues that the arbitrator's decision did not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement but rather relied on a state law whose terms were directly contrary to the express and unambiguous language of the contract. Appellant's Br. at 8. An award by an arbitrator does not, of course, draw its essence from the contract if it is based on external legal sources, wholly without regard to the terms of the parties' contract. American Postal Workers, 789 F.2d at 8. 7 Here, however, the arbitrator did not rely directly on the Tennessee statute but rather on the language of the collective bargaining agreement requiring management decisions to be consistent with applicable law. In American Postal Workers, this court held that this very language in the Postal Service's collective bargaining agreement could plausibly be read to incorporate the constitution as applicable law; the panel accordingly upheld an arbitrator's decision to exclude evidence from a discharge proceeding which the arbitrator concluded was inadmissible under the Miranda rule. 789 F.2d at 6. Like the constitution, the Tennessee statute is also an applicable law and thus, as in American Postal Workers, we hold that the real basis of the arbitrator's award lies in the collective bargaining agreement, not in the local statute itself. 8 Neither does the contract provision limiting paid court leave to regular employees alter our conclusion that the arbitrator's decision must be upheld. The arbitrator was aware of this contract provision; in fact, he quoted the entire provision and carefully pointed out that the applicable Tennessee statute made no similar distinction between regular and flexible employees. App. at 42-43, 45. In American Postal Workers, the Postal Service had similarly argued that the arbitrator should have relied upon a more specific provision of the contract. This court held that the arbitrator's decision had to be upheld because the arbitrator had considered all of the pertinent contract provisions and his conclusion as to which provision controlled was itself an interpretation of the contract which this court has no authority to disturb. 789 F.2d at 8. Here, too, the arbitrator's conclusion--that the management rights provision incorporated state law so as to supersede an inconsistent provision of the collective bargaining agreement--is a plausible reading of the contract which we have no authority to disturb.