Court Opinion

ID: 2964678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:24.251971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:08.555111
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2211

                          EL MUNDO BROADCASTING CORPORATION,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                     UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO CLC,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                     [Hon. Carmen C. Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            David R. Jury,  Assistant General Counsel, United Steelworkers  of
            _____________
        America, with whom Hilary E.  Ball-Walker and Cooper, Mitch, Crawford,
                           ______________________     ________________________
        Kuykendall & Whatley were on brief for appellant.
        ____________________
            Luis D. Ortiz Abreu with whom Frances  R. Colon Rivera and Goldman
            ___________________           ________________________     _______
        Antonetti & Cordova were on brief for appellee.
        ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                     June 2, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      ALDRICH,   Senior  Circuit   Judge.     The  United
                                 _______________________

            Steelworkers  of America, AFL-CIO  CLC (the  "Union") appeals

            from an order of the district court granting summary judgment

            to appellee El  Mundo Broadcasting Corporation  ("El Mundo"),

            vacating an arbitration award in favor of the Union.  It also

            appeals the  court's denial of  its cross motion  for summary

            judgment to enforce the award.  We affirm.

                                    I.  Background
                                        __________

                      This  cases  arises  from  the  Union's attempt  to

            proceed on a grievance  covered under a collective bargaining

            agreement (the "CBA") between  the Union and El Mundo  and in

            effect  from  September  1991  through  September  16,  1994.

            Section XLV  of the CBA describes the  grievance procedure as

            follows:

                      Sec.  1 -  The contracting  parties shall
                      follow the following procedure  to settle
                      on  complaints,  disputes  or  grievances
                      related  to  the  construction   of  this
                      bargaining agreement  which arise between
                      both:

                      First  Step:    The complaining  employee
                      shall  take his/her  case directly  to or
                      through  the  shop  steward   in  his/her
                      department   to    grievant's   immediate
                      supervisor  within  three (3)  days after
                      the occurrence of the act or action which
                      gave rise to the complaint or claim.  The
                      supervisor shall have up to  two (2) days
                      to rule on the case, and must immediately
                      notify the shop steward, or the grievant,
                      in writing, of his/her decision.

                      Second  Step:   If  the  solution at  the
                      First  Step  is  unsatisfactory   to  the
                      grievant,  he/she,  on  his/her   own  or

                                         -2-

                      through  the  shop steward,  within three
                      (3)  days   of  being  notified   of  the
                      decision at the First Step, may bring the
                      case to the head  of the department where
                      the employee works, who shall have up  to
                      two  (2)  days  to  rule  on  the  matter
                      submitted, and must notify in writing the
                      grievant  or  shop  steward   of  his/her
                      decision,  within  the  period  specified
                      herein.

                      Third  Step:   If  there is  no  solution
                      satisfactory to the parties at the Second
                      Step, the  grievant or the  shop steward,
                      may submit the case in  writing, no later
                      than three (3) days after being given the
                      decision  in  the  Second  Step,  to  the
                      Grievance  Committee   which  is  created
                      hereinbelow . . . .

                           b)  The  Grievance  Committee  shall
                           hear  and  see  the testimonial  and
                           documentary  evidence  submitted  by
                           the  parties  and  shall   make  its
                           decision,  based  on   all  of   the
                           evidence within ten  (10) days  from
                           the  date  on  which  the   case  is
                           submitted to it . . . .

                      Sec. 3 - Arbitration:   No later than ten
                      (10) days  from  the date  on  which  the
                      decision  is  issued  by   the  Grievance
                      Committee,  either  of  the  parties  may
                      bring its case before an arbitrator . . .
                      the parties shall have the opportunity to
                      present  their case once  more before the
                      arbitrator, who in his/her  decision must
                      adhere  to the  terms of  this Bargaining
                      Agreement  and  to  the submission  being
                      submitted to him . . . .

                      In  November  1992,  a  full-time  editor  position

            became  available.   El Mundo  did not  post the  position as

            required  under  the CBA.   On  December  9, 1992,  the Union

            received a "personnel  action" advising it that El  Mundo had

            given  the  editor position  to  one  Sandra Lopez  effective

                                         -3-

            November  23,   1992.    On  December   16,  Juan  Villalongo

            ("Villalongo"),  President of  Local 9314,  sent a  letter to

            Jose  Mendoza  ("Mendoza"),  El  Mundo's  personnel  manager,

            alleging that El  Mundo had  violated the CBA  by failing  to

            post the editor position and  to consider two other employees

            with  greater seniority  than  Lopez.   On  January 5,  1993,

            Mendoza   replied  to   Villalongo,   denying   the   Union's

            allegations  and  reminding him  of  a  meeting the  previous

            November  where  Villalongo  had  not  objected when  Mendoza

            suggested  eliminating the  posting  process and  giving  the

            editor  position to  Lopez,  in effect  agreeing through  his

            silence.    Villalongo  did  not respond.    Nothing  further

            happened  until March 8, 1993  when the Union  sent Mendoza a

            "Grievance  Report."    El  Mundo's  response  was  that  the

            grievance was not arbitrable because the Union had  failed to

            comply  with  the procedures  and  time limits  for  filing a

            grievance  under  the CBA.   On  March  19, 1993,  not having

            complied with the Second Step, the Union filed a petition for

            the  designation   of  an  arbitrator  with   the  Bureau  of

            Conciliation and Arbitration.

                      Boiled  down, we  note  five presently  significant

            matters.    First,  Section  1 provides,  "[t]he  contracting

            parties   shall   follow   the  following   procedure. . . ."
                      ______________

            (Emphasis ours.)   Second, all time  requirements are notably

            firm and short.   Third, the complaining employee "shall take
            ______________                                     __________

                                         -4-

            his/her case"  to the employer's attention  "within three (3)
                                                         ________________

            days  after the occurrence."  Fourth, within three days after
            __________________________

            an employer decision the dissatisfied party may submit to the

            Grievance Committee.  Fifth,  the only provision for bringing

            the "case before an  arbitrator" is (Sec. 3), "no  later than

            ten (10) days from  the date on which the decision  is issued

            by the Grievance Committee."

                      Item third was done too late, unless this grievance

            was a new grievance, occurring every day.  The fourth was not

            done,  ever.   The  fifth did  not  occur unless  seeking  an

            arbitrator before a Grievance Committee decision qualifies as
                       ______

            "no  later than ten days from  the date on which the decision

            is  issued."   This  was waived,  however,  on the  issue  of

            procedural arbitrability, by El Mundo's  specific submission,

            leaving procedure, to the degree open under the agreement, to

            the arbitrator.  John  Wiley & Sons, Inc. v.  Livingston, 376
                             ________________________     __________

            U.S. 543, 557-58 (1964).

                                 II.  The Arbitration
                                      _______________

                      A.  Introduction
                          ____________

                      The parties were unable to agree on the question to

            be submitted.  Accordingly, each provided the arbitrator with

            its  own version  of  the  question.   The  Union's  petition

            described the issue to be arbitrated as:

                           The  Company['s]  grant[ing of]  the
                      job vacancy of Editor, without  its being
                      posted   for   the  information   of  the
                      interested employees, to an employee with

                                         -5-

                      less  seniority,  there  being  personnel
                      with more  seniority and equally  able to
                      perform it, among them the injured party.

            The petition repeated El Mundo's response, which was, simply,

            that the case was not arbitrable.

                      The arbitrator, purporting to rely upon local rules

            when the matter to  be decided had not been agreed  on, said,

            in his award, that the question was:

                           [W]hether    the     grievance    is
                      arbitrable  or  not  in   its  procedural
                      aspect.    Should  he/she decide  in  the
                      negative    the   grievance    shall   be
                      dismissed.  Should he/she rule that it is
                      arbitrable,   he/she   shall  issue   the
                      remedy.

                      Pausing here, there was a basic question facing the

            district court.

                      B.  Finality
                          ________

                      It   is   essential   for  the   district   court's

            jurisdiction  that the arbitrator's  decision was  final, not

            interlocutory.  See, e.g., Local 36, Sheetmetal Workers Int'l
                            _________  __________________________________

            v. Pevely  Sheetmetal Co.,  951 F.2d  947,  949-50 (8th  Cir.
               ______________________

            1992); Orion Pictures Corp. v. Writers Guild of Am. W., Inc.,
                   ____________________    _____________________________

            946 F.2d  722, 724 (9th  Cir. 1991).   We start  by what  was

            before him.

                      The  arbitrator heard  testimony  from  Mendoza  on

            behalf  of El  Mundo  and received  into  evidence copies  of

            documents he provided.  Along with the correspondence between

            Mendoza and Villalongo, El Mundo provided the arbitrator with

                                         -6-

            copies of two earlier arbitration awards arising from similar

            belated  circumstances and finding in favor of El Mundo based

            on  the Union's  failure to  proceed timely  with grievances.

            The Union  provided no  testimony and no  documentation, and,

            apparently,  only  half-heartedly  attempted  to  justify its

            failure to adhere to the CBA time limits.

                      The arbitrator's  view of the issue,  ante, we read
                                                            ____

            to be, (1) the arbitrator  will determine whether, under  the

            agreement, the  grievance was arbitrable, viz.,  timely.  (2)

            If  not arbitrable,  he would  order it dismissed.   (3)   If

            arbitrable,  he shall order "the  remedy."  As  to this last,

            with  neither party  presenting  evidence on  the merits,  we

            consider  the only  remedy open  was an  order to  follow the

            grievance procedure.

                      The award was as follows:

                           [W]e  find  that  the  grievance  is
                      arbitrable  in   its  procedural  aspect,
                      since it is of a continuous nature.

                           Discussion   of  the   grievance  is
                      ordered   at  the   third  step   of  the
                      procedure  for  Grievances.   We consider
                      that since  this matter has  already been
                      discussed with the Personnel  Manager, it
                      would [sic] a futile exercise to go  back
                      to the first two steps of the procedure.

                           If  the  grievance has  to  be ruled
                      upon  on its  merits by  this arbitrator,
                      the claim,  if it  is in order,  shall be
                      retroactive to March 8, 1993, the date on
                      which  the  Union   filed  the   document
                      "Grievance Report."

                                         -7-

                      In  finding  jurisdiction  without discussion,  the

            district court assumed this to  be a final order.   Even more

            to the  point, the Union,  representing the grievant,  in its

            pleading specifically so stated:

                           2.   The subject matter at issue has
                      been  arbitrated, and a final award which
                      is binding between the parties, under the
                      terms  and conditions  of the  CBA and/or
                      applicable law, has been issued.

            The Union is bound by its pleading.1

                                    III.  Analysis
                                          ________

                      A. Is the Award Reviewable?
                         ________________________

                      In  general,  even  final  and  binding arbitration

            awards  are not  subject  to judicial  review.   See  General
                                                             ___  _______

            Drivers,  Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 89 v. Riss & Co., 372
            __________________________________________    __________

            U.S. 517, 519 (1963); United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel
                                  ___________________    ________________

            &  Car  Corp.,  363   U.S.  593,  596  (1960).     In  United
            _____________                                          ______

            Paperworkers Int'l  Union, AFL-CIO  v. Misco, Inc.,  484 U.S.
            __________________________________     ___________

            29, 38 (1987), the  Court said, "[A]s long as  the arbitrator

            is  even arguably  construing  or applying  the contract  and

            acting within the  scope of  his authority, that  a court  is

                                
            ____________________

            1.  While  unnecessary  under  the  circumstances,   we  deal
            briefly  with  the  argument   that  the  arbitrator's  third
            paragraph was a  retention of jurisdiction.   Third Step, the
            processing by the Grievance Committee, is a proceeding all by
            itself.     A   disappointed  party  may   subsequently  seek
            arbitration,  but it would be a choice, a new proceeding, not
            preordained.  We regard the  arbitrator's statement as to the
            date the grievance should  begin to be merely a  spelling out
            of  the interpretation on which he based his finding that the
            claim  was  a day  to day  claim arising  daily.   It  had no
            independent consequences.

                                         -8-

            convinced  he committed  serious  error does  not suffice  to

            overturn  his decision."  At  the same time  the Court stated

            that "the arbitrator's award  settling a dispute with respect

            to  the interpretation  or application  of a  labor agreement

            must draw  its essence  from the  contract and  cannot simply

            reflect the arbitrator's own notions of industrial justice."2

            If  the arbitrator fails to  meet this standard, "courts have

            no  choice   but  to   refuse  enforcement  of   the  award."

            Enterprise Wheel,  363  U.S. at  597.   We feel  that in  the
            ________________

            present  case  this admittedly,  extremely  narrow exception,

            exists  because  the arbitrator  enlarged  the agreement  and

            exceeded his authority under the CBA.

                      B.  Was There a Continuing Violation?
                          _________________________________

                      To  comply  with  grievant's  "obligation  to  file

            promptly  or  lose  his  claim,"  Sabree  v.  United Bhd.  of
                                              ______      _______________

            Carpenters & Joiners  Local No.  33, 921 F.2d  396, 402  (1st
            ___________________________________

            Cir.  1990), the  arbitrator found  that the  claim "is  of a

            continuous nature;"  "arises and is renewed from day to day."

            For  this he  cited arbitration  decisions where  an employer

                                
            ____________________

            2.  We have found there  may be critical distinctions between
            Misco and claims which may be made in other cases.  In Misco,
            _____                                                  _____
            "[t]he specific  issue was  whether, under the  contract, the
            arbitrator  could  limit  the  evidence  before  him  to  the
            evidence that had  been before  the employer at  the time  of
            discharge . . . a  matter on which the  contract was silent."
            S.D. Warren Co. v. United Paperworkers' Int'l Union, AFL-CIO,
            _______________    __________________________________________
            Local  1069, 846 F.2d 827, 828 (1st Cir. 1988) (setting aside
            ___________
            arbitrator's determination under Misco as unsupported by  the
                                             _____
            essence of the agreement.)

                                         -9-

            changed  a  rate  of pay  or  work  diminishing or  depriving

            employees of  daily pay.3  The  daily failure to  pay was the

            direct "act or  action."  The act or occurrence  here was the

            naming  of a person to the editorship.   Pay was not the act,

            but was merely one of its consequences.

                      This is of logical  and practical significance.  In

            the ordinary case of loss of pay, or of work,  the matter can

            be  remedied  in  due course,  as  of  the  date  of  a  late

            grievance, if  it  still continued,  without prejudicing  the

            employer.  A  belated order  that a grievant  should oust  an

            incumbent  of a special office requiring posting and have her

            position, disturbs  settled order.   If recognized  simply to

            the extent of  giving the grievant  the increased salary,  it

            will be paying her for work she is not doing, and doubles the

            employer's costs.

                      The   appointment  of  an   editor  is  a  specific

            occurrence.    Clearly an  employer has  a  right to  have an

            appointment  settled  at  the  outset, and  require  that  an

            employee claiming loss  of it complain  promptly, and not  be

                                
            ____________________

            3.  Quaker   State  Refining   Corp.,  78   LA  1328   (1982)
                ________________________________
            (continuing  violation  from  loss  of  pay  through  union's
            failure  to object  to erroneous  designation of  seniority);
            Lockheed Missiles  & Space  Co.,  61 LA  90 (1972)  (employer
            _______________________________
            farmed  out work  to non-union  employees); Sears,  Roebuck &
                                                        _________________
            Co.,  39 LA 567 (1962)  (reduction in commission  and loss of
            ___
            pay raise).  The arbitrator did not mention,  if only as shop
            procedure, two  similar cases, but where  El Mundo prevailed.
            See In re Judith Borunet, Case No. A-1320 (1989); In re Ramon
            ___ ____________________                          ___________
            Viscarrondo and Luis Enrique Marrero, Case No. A-2250 (1983).
            ____________________________________

                                         -10-

            allowed   to  wait   until  such   time  as   serves  his/her

            convenience.  The arbitrator's purported logic  and treatment

            of plain language has rejected this right.  By misstating the

            basic nature  of the occurrence the arbitrator  read the time

            provisions  out of  the  contract,  ignoring  its  "essence."

            Paperworkers, ante.   We affirm  the rulings of  the district
            ____________  ____

            court.

                                         -11-