General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 89, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hays & Nicoulin, Inc., Defendant-Appellee., 594 F.2d 1093 (6th Cir. 1979 00:00:00)

Federal Circuits, 6th Cir. (March 20, 1979)

Docket number: 77-3221
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/36917198
Id. vLex: VLEX-36917198

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Supreme Court - Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960 00:00:00)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Local Union No. 337 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Peter Catalano, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Armour and Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant., 700 F.2d 327 (6th Cir. 1983 00:00:00)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Storer Broadcasting Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Cleveland Local, Afl-Cio, and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Defendants-Appellees., 600 F.2d 45 (6th Cir. 1979 00:00:00) Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Cleveland Local, Afl-Cio, and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Defendants-Appellees.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Sears, Roebuck and Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Teamsters Local Union No. 243, Affiliated With the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Defendant-Appellant., 683 F.2d 154 (6th Cir. 1982 00:00:00)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - District 30, United Mine Workers of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sovereign Coal Corporation, Defendant-Appellant., 750 F.2d 37 (6th Cir. 1984 00:00:00)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Detroit Coil Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Lodge # 82, Defendant-Appellee., 594 F.2d 575 (6th Cir. 1979 00:00:00)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc; United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc, Local 1123; Albert A. Deangelis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. the Timken Company, Defendant-Appellee., 717 F.2d 1008 (6th Cir. 1983 00:00:00)

See all citations to this document

Text:

George H. Logan, Hardy, Logan & Hastings, Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.

W. Bruce Baird, Middleton, Reutlinger & Baird, Louisville, Ky., for defendant-appellee.

Before WEICK and MERRITT, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Union appeals from the District Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Company. The effect of the lower court's decision was to overturn an arbitration award directing the Company to reinstate a discharged employee with back pay. The Company's justification for the dismissal was that the employee's bad health rendered him unfit for his job.

The arbitrator based his decision on an interpretation of the following provision, § 2.20, of the collective bargaining agreement:

The Qualified employee with the greater seniority and Ability to perform the work remaining to be done shall be the last employee laid off, providing this does not conflict with the provisions of Par. 1.10 above (regarding shop stewards), and the first to be recalled provided he has the ability to perform available work. Ability shall be determined by the contractor in the first instance. (Emphasis added.)

He determined that the sentence emphasized above indicated that, in later instances, such as grievance proceedings, the Company's determination of an employee's unfitness can be reviewed. The arbitrator then concluded, on the basis of expert medical testimony, that the discharged employee was not unfit.

The District Court disagreed with the arbitrator and held that the following sentence in Article I, § 1.8 of the bargaining agreement governed the dispute: "The (Company) shall be the sole judge of the qualifications, capability, number, purpose and tenure of the employees." The lower court concluded that this language indicated that the arbitrator could not contradict the Company's determination that the employee was unfit. The court held that, in so doing, the arbitrator exceeded his authority. We affirm.

The arbitrator's application of § 2.20 instead of § 1.8 was premised on the notion that the employee was laid off and then not recalled due to the Company's assessment of his unfitness. The record indicates, however, as the Union conceded in oral argument, that the employee was discharged. Consequently, the layoff and recall provisions of § 2.20 do not govern the instant dispute. Rather, the governing provision is § 1.8 which states that the Company is to be the sole judge of employees' qualifications and tenure. By substituting his judgment of the discharged employee's fitness for that of the Company, the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the collective bargaining agreement. His construction of the contract, therefore, did not draw "its essence from the collective bargaining agreement." United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car. Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960).