Opinion ID: 2820784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Performance of Higher-Classified Work

Text: The Company also argues that the McKee Award inexplicably departed from the Heinsz Award's interpretation of performing higher-classified work. Unlike in the issue of temporarily assigned work, Arbitrator McKee failed to distinguish prior similar arbitral awards involving the same performance of higher-classified work. In Trailways, we commented on our grave concerns when an arbitrator did not give precedential effect to a prior arbitration award. 807 F.2d at 1425. Trailways involved two grievances regarding an employer's no beard policy. Id. at 1417. The two grievances were raised by different groups of employees represented by the same union. Id. Both grievances were arbitrated. Even though the arbitrations involved the same company, the same union, essentially the same issue, and interpretation of the same contract, id. at 1425, they reached different conclusions. Id. at 1418–19. Whereas the first arbitration award found for the company, the second arbitration award did not discuss the similar nature of the two grievances and why, in light of this fact, the [first arbitration award] was not to be given preclusive effect. Id. at 1425. [A]lthough not the basis of our decision, we stated that [i]f an arbitrator does not accord any precedential effect to a prior award in a case like this, or at least explain the reasons for refusing to do so, it is questionable when, if ever, a 'final and binding' determination will evolve from the arbitration process. Id. at 1425–26. On the issue of performing higher-classified work, Arbitrator McKee did not apply the Trailways standard by at least explaining his reasons for departing from the Heinsz Award. While Arbitrator McKee did not have to follow the Heinsz Award, he at least should have explained his departure—as he did for the temporariness issue outlined above—under Trailways. 807 F.2d at 1425–26; see also Am. Nat'l Can Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 120 F.3d 886, 891–92 (8th Cir. 1997) (acknowledging the burden on arbitrators under Trailways, but nevertheless finding that Trailways was satisfied because the arbitrator specifically identified the critical factual differences -13- between the arbitral decisions cited by ANC and the case before him and, based upon those material distinctions, determined that no preclusive effect should be accorded the two prior decisions.). Nevertheless, an arbitrator's error in failing to give precedential or preclusive effect to a previous arbitration award is not alone sufficient to vacate an arbitration award. Am. Nat'l Can Co., 120 F.3d at 892 (finding that inconsistency with another award is not enough in itself to justify vacating an award . . . [and] that neither award will be set aside where both draw their essence from the collective bargaining agreement. (alterations in original) (quoting McGraw Edison, Wagner Div. v. Local 1104, Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, 767 F.2d 485, 489 (8th Cir. 1985))). Therefore, as long as Arbitrator McKee's interpretation draws its essence from the CBA, we will uphold the award, despite the Heinsz Award precedent. See id. at 893. Taking into account Arbitrator McKee's findings that the CSRs performed work that was not a part of their job classification but was a part of the SRs' job classification, we conclude that Arbitrator McKee's interpretation drew its essence from the CBA. The applicable language of § 7 requires compensation to employees who do[] work in a position with a higher established maximum rate of pay. While the Heinsz Award interpreted this language to require that the work at issue was exclusively performed by higher job classifications, Arbitrator McKee interpreted the key [a]s whether the functions being performed by the lower-rated job title are 'clearly attributable' to a higher-paid job. While the two interpretations are not perfectly congruous, we cannot say that Arbitrator McKee's interpretation fails to draw its essence from the CBA. Therefore, we will not vacate the McKee Award based on the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA or its inconsistency with the Heinsz Award. -14-