Court Opinion

ID: 9480616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:53:33.268909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:48.255464
License: Public Domain

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur in the judgment to reverse the decision of the district court. I write separately to express concern that in this and in another recent case in our court arbitrators have seemed determined to counter employers’ efforts to deal appropriately with employees who have used, or abused, alcohol or drugs in job-related situations. Here an employer was confronted with facts showing that one of its employees had a severe drug and/or alcohol problem. Realizing that this employee was operating its trucks on public roads and highways and was making deliveries to public facilities, including schools, Interstate Brands responsibly suspended the employee in an effort to prevent a disaster.
As a matter of public policy, I would amend the arbitrator’s award to limit benefits to Furst up to the date on which he was found guilty by an Indiana court of alcohol-related driving offenses in 1986. *895As of that date it was clear that Furst’s serious problem with alcohol and drugs was a continuing one, and Interstate Brands should no longer have been required to place itself and the public at risk by allowing Furst to operate its large vehicles on highways and in school yards.
The arbitrator’s decision in this case goes to the limits of unusual interpretation of an agreement which seems clear and unequivocal on its face. Only because the Supreme Court, in United Paperworkers v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987), seems to tie the hands of the courts in reviewing enforcement of arbitration awards do I concur in this reversal of the district court. See also Dixie Warehouse v. General Drivers, Warehousemen, Local Union No. 89, 898 F.2d 507 (6th Cir.1990) (an egregious result reinstating an employee drinking while on duty).
I also find the issues here extremely close with respect to the procedural aspect and deficiencies of the Union’s claim on behalf of Furst. See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964); General Drivers, Warehousemen, Local Union No. 89 v. Moog Louisville Warehouse, Inc., 852 F.2d 871 (6th Cir.1988).
With strong reservations, then, I defer to a result which seems to be both illogical and potentially dangerous.