Court Opinion

ID: 9486236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:41:29.355978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:35.554757
License: Public Domain

SEITZ, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
In the context of the application of the same public policy issue here presented, this court said in Kane Gas Light & Heating v. International Brotherhood of Firemen, Local 112, 687 F.2d 673, 682 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1011, 103 S.Ct. 1251, 75 L.Ed.2d 480 (1983):
Consideration of [General Teamsters, Local Union 219 v.] Consolidated Freightways, [464 F.Supp. 346] [ (1979) ] [International Assoc. of Machinists v.] Campbell Soup [Co.] [406 F.2d 1223] [(1969)] and [International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v.] Otis Elevator [Co., 314 F.2d 25] [ (2d Cir.1963) ] convinces us that only if upholding an award would amount to “judicial condonation” of illegal acts, should the award be vacated on grounds of inconsistency with public policy.
While agreeing that illegal acts are not involved here, the majority say that the quoted ruling is distinguishable, permitting it to promulgate a different controlling legal rulé. Given the quoted ruling in Kane Gas Light, I submit that it is not distinguishable. If the explicit rule in that case is to be rejected, it is for an en banc court to do so. Otherwise, our Internal Operating Procedure, making reported opinions binding on subsequent panels, IOP 9.1, will be deprived of its stabilizing value.