Court Opinion

ID: 9480966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:03:54.133833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:01.390379
License: Public Domain

DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in all but Part V-A of the court’s opinion, and I respectfully dissent as to that part.
In the present context, the term “interim earnings” strikes me as ambiguous. I simply do not know whether it was intended to signify all outside earnings or merely the marginal earnings which, as the transcript itself suggested, were attributable to the increased time Mr. Friday was able to devote to his outside business during the interim period.
Mr. Friday will not be made whole for the full loss suffered during the interim period if his normal outside earnings are deducted in addition to the marginal earnings made possible by his absence from the factory. Perhaps the arbitrator really intended that Friday be penalized by deduction of the outside earnings he would have received after the 30th day anyway, but if so, the arbitrator’s choice of the words “made whole” seems infelicitous. I would ask the arbitrator to clarify both the interim earnings question and the overtime question.