Court Opinion

ID: 9391587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 18:00:34.404918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.466719
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10371        Document: 00516734498             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/02/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                             May 2, 2023
                                        No. 22-10371                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

   Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Dex Media, Incorporated, doing business as Thryv,
   Incorporated,

                                                                   Defendant—Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:20-CV-3295

   Before Graves, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         In August 2020, an arbitrator ruled in favor of Appellee Thryv, Inc.
   (“Thryv”) concerning the January 2014 termination of George Animadu, a
   member of Appellant Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO
   (“CWA”). The arbitrator dismissed CWA’s grievance on Animadu’s behalf
   based on laches. CWA sued in federal district court to vacate the decision.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10371      Document: 00516734498           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/02/2023

                                     No. 22-10371

   On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court denied CWA’s
   motion and granted Thryv’s, confirming the arbitrator’s decision. CWA now
   appeals.
          We review the district court’s decision de novo. Petrofac, Inc. v.
   DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 687 F.3d 671, 674 (5th Cir. 2012).
   Our review of the underlying arbitral decision, however, is “exceedingly
   deferential.” Delek Ref., Ltd. v. Local 202, United Steel, 891 F.3d 566, 570 (5th
   Cir. 2018) (citing Brabham v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 376 F.3d 377, 380
   (5th Cir. 2004)). Even if the arbitrator seriously erred in finding facts or
   interpreting the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”), we “will
   uphold a decision that is rationally inferable from the purpose of the CBA.”
   Delek, 891 F.3d at 570 (citing United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, 484
   U.S. 29, 38 (1987); Executone Info. Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 26 F.3d 1314, 1325 (5th
   Cir. 1994)). That said, deference is not limitless. We will vacate an
   arbitrator’s decision if it exceeds the CBA’s jurisdictional limits or ignores
   its plain terms. Delek, 891 F.3d at 570 (citing Albemarle Corp. v. United Steel
   Workers ex rel. AOWU Local 103, 703 F.3d 821, 824 (5th Cir. 2013); Smith v.
   Transp. Workers Union of Am., Local 556, 374 F.3d 372, 375 (5th Cir. 2004);
   Misco, 484 U.S. at 38)). Those occasions are “rare,” however. Ibid.
          In this case, the CBA outlines a two-step process for handling
   grievances against Thryv by its CWA-represented employees. If CWA is
   unhappy with Thryv’s decision at step one, it can appeal to step two within
   two weeks. The formal grievance process is deemed complete after Thryv
   makes a step-two decision or “default[s]” in its duty to meet with CWA, as
   outlined in Section 7:
          Meetings at each level of the grievance procedure shall be
          arranged promptly. If, due to [Thryv’s] actions, a mutually
          agreeable meeting date is not arranged within two (2) weeks of
          either [Thryv’s] receipt of the initial notification or the appeal

                                          2
Case: 22-10371     Document: 00516734498           Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/02/2023

                                    No. 22-10371

          of the grievance, the [CWA] may present its original grievance
          to the next higher level of the formal grievance procedure.
   A separate section of the CBA permits any party to submit the dispute to
   arbitration within 60 days after completion of the formal grievance
   procedure.
          The arbitrator dismissed the grievance based on Thryv’s laches
   defense. This equitable doctrine requires showing that a claimant’s
   unreasonable delay in asserting his rights unduly prejudiced the defendant.
   See Uptown Grill, L.L.C. v. Shwartz, 817 F.3d 251, 256 (5th Cir. 2016). In
   essence, the arbitrator decided that CWA could have proceeded to
   arbitration as early as August 2015, but nonetheless waited over four years to
   demand arbitration in December 2019, prejudicing Thryv’s defense. On
   appeal, CWA argues this decision ignored the CBA’s express language and
   must be vacated. We disagree.
          As the district court correctly ruled, the arbitrator’s decision “is
   rationally inferable from the language and purpose of the CBA.” See Delek,
   891 F.3d at 570. The arbitrator found step one of the grievance process was
   complete when Thryv provided a written decision rejecting the claim on
   August 7, 2015. CWA timely appealed, but Thryv never scheduled a step-
   two meeting, thus ending the formal grievance process. “Therefore,” the
   arbitrator concluded, CWA “had the right in August 2015 to proceed to the
   next higher level of the formal grievance procedure, which was arbitration.”
   Yet CWA did not do so at that time. Instead, over the ensuing two years, it
   filed information requests on Animadu’s termination, as well as a charge with
   the National Labor Relations Board. CWA did not file for arbitration until
   December 2019. Applying laches, the arbitrator found CWA’s unreasonable
   delay in seeking arbitration prejudiced Thryv’s ability to respond to the

                                         3
Case: 22-10371         Document: 00516734498                Page: 4        Date Filed: 05/02/2023

                                            No. 22-10371

   charges, since “it was undisputed that no witnesses were available to prove
   [Thryv’s] burden of just cause.”
           On appeal, CWA argues the arbitrator ignored the plain language of
   Section 7 of the CBA which, as discussed above, provides that CWA “may”
   escalate to arbitration once the grievance process is complete. According to
   CWA, this permissive language allows it to indefinitely postpone seeking
   arbitration while it waits for Thryv to schedule a step-two meeting. By
   requiring CWA to seek arbitration within a definite period, argues CWA, the
   arbitrator replaced “may” with “shall.” We disagree.
           Contrary to CWA’s argument, the arbitrator rejected any notion that
   “may” means “shall.” Indeed, the arbitrator agreed with CWA that Section
   7 did not require it to seek arbitration within two weeks or forever lose that
   right. But, as the district court correctly understood, the arbitrator reasoned
   that Section 7 did not allow CWA to arbitrate “on ‘whatever date in the
   future it decides.’” Such an interpretation of the CBA would be
   “inconsistent with having agreed upon grievance procedures that facilitate
   the quick resolution of disputes.” CWA is mistaken that this interpretation
   somehow ignores or adds to the plain words of Section 7.
           CWA relies on four of our cases where we vacated arbitral awards, but
   all are distinguishable. In three of them, the CBA expressly allowed a
   company to fire an employee for cause, but arbitrators reinstated the
   employees even after agreeing such cause existed.1 And in the fourth, a
   company had exclusive authority under a CBA to evaluate employees’
   performance, yet the arbitrator ignored the agreement and made a de novo

           1
            See Am. Eagle Airlines, Inc. v. Airline Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 343 F.3d 401, 410 (5th Cir.
   2003); E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Local 900 of Int’l Chem. Workers Union, AFL-
   CIO, 968 F.2d 456, 459 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District
   2 Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n, AFL-CIO, 889 F.2d 599, 601, 604 (5th Cir. 1989).

                                                  4
Case: 22-10371        Document: 00516734498              Page: 5       Date Filed: 05/02/2023

                                          No. 22-10371

   determination of the employee’s qualifications. 2 In all four cases, then, the
   arbitrator “utterly contorted” the contract by acting “contrary to an express
   contractual provision.” Vantage Deepwater Co., 966 F.3d at 375 (quotation
   omitted). Those cases are not this one. Here, CWA fails to identify any
   specific terms of the CBA the arbitrator ignored.3
           The district court’s decision confirming the arbitral award is therefore
   AFFIRMED.

           2
             Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Int’l Bhd of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 66, 71
   F.3d 179, 181, 185 (5th Cir. 1995).
           3
             CWA also argues the arbitrator denied it due process by failing to provide notice
   of her “contract construction theory.” Like the district court, we disagree. Parties to an
   arbitration are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Totem Marine Tug &
   Barge v. N. Am. Towing, Inc., 607 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1979). CWA received all this and
   more when the arbitrator notified both parties that she would first decide whether the
   grievance was procedurally arbitrable in light of Thryv’s laches defense. See Howsam v.
   Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S 79, 85 (2002). CWA cites no authority for the
   extraordinary proposition that the arbitrator was also required to preview her reading of
   Section 7 before issuing her ruling. Cf., e.g., Am. Arbitration Ass’n, Labor
   Arbitration                          Rules                      14                  (2013),
   https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Labor_Arbitration_Rules_3.pdf (stating that an
   “arbitrator . . . may . . . direct the parties to focus their presentations on [dispositive]
   issues”).

                                                5