The burden of overturning an arbitrator’s labor decision is a weighty
one. Both state and federal courts are reluctant to overrule the decision
of an arbitrator who may have heard days of testimony from scores of witnesses
before issuing his or her decision. Judge George Singal, writing for the
Federal District Court of Maine, recently added yet another decision to the long
line of cases upholding arbitrators’ rulings.
The case
involved an appeal by the Bath Marine Draftsmen Association (“BMDA”), a union
representing designers and engineers, of an arbitrator’s decision in favor
of Bath Iron Works Corporation (“BIW”), a manufacturer of ships for the
United States Navy. The ship construction process requires significant
amounts of design, as well as production scheduling and planning. The
underlying arbitration involved a dispute over which of two unions would have
work jurisdiction over something known as the raw stock material process.
Raw stock material includes interchangeable and standardized parts that are
frequently used in the building process and which generally require
modification, such as drilling, cutting, or bending, prior to
installation. The BMDA claimed that the work at issue belonged to it, as
opposed to another BIW union, Local 7, that represents planning
employees.
The BMDA’s
claim over the work centered on a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”)
provision that granted it jurisdiction for “work normally performed” by that
union. The arbitrator, after hearing five days of testimony and examining
fifty-five exhibits, decided the case in favor of Bath Iron Works. He made
a factual finding that the work at issue historically had “been performed by
employees in both [BMDA and Local 7].” He concluded that, “[s]ince the
work is normally performed by workers in both unions, there is overlapping
jurisdiction for both groups.” Relying on that factual finding, the
arbitrator concluded that Bath Iron Works “would have the discretion to assign
the work to employees in either union.”
In its
appeal to the Federal District Court, the BMDA argued that the arbitrator, in
rendering his decision, exceeded the authority granted to him by the CBA or, in
the alternative, modified a term of the CBA. The two grounds raised are
among the very few recognized by the courts as possible justification for
overturning an arbitrator’s decision. Judge George Singal, however,
concluded that the arbitrator’s decision was based on a plausible reading of the
underlying collective bargaining agreement. The Judge noted with approval
that the arbitrator considered both BIW’s internal practices as well as more
general trade practices in construing the term “normally performed,” a phrase
not defined by the CBA.
The
court’s decision was not unanticipated. Judges have consistently ruled
that a court’s task is limited to determining if an arbitrator’s interpretation
of a contract is in any way plausible. If so, the courts cannot and will
not substitute their own interpretation. Judge Singal also noted in his
decision the absence of a transcript of the proceedings and the inherent
difficulties of overturning an arbitrator’s decision without such
documentation. The pre-arbitration decision whether to have proceedings
transcribed cuts both ways. If an employer is successful in obtaining a
positive decision from an arbitrator, the absence of a transcript is a distinct
advantage. If, however, the employer receives a negative decision,
overturning it is extremely difficult without a transcript.
Bath Iron
Works was represented in this case by Preti Flaherty.
