Labor & Employment Law

USCA, District of Columbia Circuit issues primer on labor arbitration

American Postal Workers v. U.S. Postal Service, ___F.3d___(D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 2008), provides an excellent summary of how difficult it is to vacate an arbitration, that arbitration is a creature of the parties contract and even if the arbitrator makes a serious error, courts should not vacate the decision.

As the court explained:

The 2003 Award is the arbitrator?s interpretation of the CBA. As such, judicial review of the award is ?extremely limited,? and the award may not be overturned on the basis of even a serious error if the arbitrator was ?even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority.? Teamsters Local Union No. 61 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 272 F.3d 600, 604 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).

However, the primary issue here is not whether the arbitrator properly construed the CBA or exceeded his authority, but what the 2003 Award means. To answer that question, a court first looks to the four corners of the award, for arbitration awards ?may be madewithout explanation of [the arbitrators?] reasons and without a complete record of their proceedings.? Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 436 (1953); see Sargent v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 882 F.2d 529, 532 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

An arbitration award, as a conceptual matter, is to be ?treated as though it were a written stipulation by the parties setting forth their own definitive construction of the contract.?Cole v. Burns Int?l Sec. Servs., 105 F.3d 1465, 1475 (D.C. Cir. 997) (quoting Theodore J. St. Antoine, Judicial Review of Labor Arbitration Awards: A Second Look at Enterprise Wheel and its Progeny, 75 MICH L. REV. 1137, 1140 (1977) (footnote omitted)); see Am. Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Serv., 789 F.2d 1, 6-7 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

Thus, the interpretation of an arbitration award is, like the interpretation of a contract, primarily a question of law, see O'Hara v. District No. 1-PCD, 56 F.3d 1514, 1522 (D.C. Cir. 1995), and like a contract, analysis of what an arbitration award means must begin with its text, see id. at 1523; cf. also Am. Fed?n of Gov?t Employees, Local 2924 v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 470 F.3d 375, 381 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Because we conclude that the 2003 Award is unambiguous on its face, we need not decide under what circumstances a court may appropriately look to the arbitral record to resolve an ambiguity and thereby render the award enforceable, see, e.g., Ethyl Corp v. United States Steelworkers of Am., 768 F.2d 180, 188 (7th Cir. 1985).

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 03, 2009 (boomark / email).