Opinion ID: 176077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: NRAB’s Jurisdiction

Text: The appellants first argue that the NRAB acted outside its jurisdiction in rendering the award that this the subject of this appeal. We have explained that, [i]n the arbitration context, an award ‘without foundation in reason or fact’ is equated with an award that exceeds the authority or jurisdiction on the arbitrating body. . . . The arbitrator’s role is to carry out the aims of the [CBA], and his role defines the scope of his authority. When he is no longer carrying out the agreement or when his position cannot be considered in any way rational, he has exceeded his jurisdiction. Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co., 415 F.2d 403, 411–12 (5th Cir. 1969). We may therefore reject an NRAB award as exceeding the arbitrator’s jurisdiction if the order is “so unfounded in reason and fact, so unconnected with the wording and purpose of the [CBA] as to ‘manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator.’” Id. at 415 (quoting United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 (1960)). As explained in detail by the district court, the appellants’ argument fails to clear this high hurdle: the arbitrator made a good-faith, reasonable effort to interpret and apply the CBAs to the facts of this case, and our inquiry essentially ceases there. While the merits of the arbitrator’s decision are debatable were we to undertake de novo review, we emphasize once again that we “do not sit as super arbitration tribunals” and are definitively barred from “substitut[ing] [our] judgment[] for th[at] of the [NRAB] division[].” Diamond, 421 F.2d at 233. The argument made by the appellants itself belies their effort to contend otherwise: they argue only that the arbitrator applied the wrong provision of the 5 Case: 10-50324 Document: 00511245374 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/27/2010 No. 10-50324 CBAs at issue in assessing the appellants’ seniority claims. The provision that the arbitrator did apply is at least arguably controlling. Cf. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps., 550 F.3d 418, 425 (5th Cir. 2008) (rejecting NRAB decision where arbitrator’s reading was not “an arguable construction of” the CBA). We cannot say that the arbitrator’s award is so categorically wrong that it bears no relationship to the governing CBAs, see Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen, 415 F.2d at 411–12, nor does it “ignore[] an explicit term in a CBA,” see BNSF Ry., 550 F.3d at 425. The appellants merely disagree with the arbitrator’s reading of interrelated provisions of the multiple applicable CBAs. Thus, the appelants have not met their burden of showing that the arbitrator’s ruling bore so little relationship to the CBAs as to have exceeded the NRAB’s jurisdiction.