Akers National Roll Co. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union
712 F.3d 155
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Union represents clerical/technical employees at Akers National Roll; CBA from Sept 1, 2008 to Feb 29, 2012 governs dispute.
- Lubik, a maintenance clerk, was not scheduled for Saturday overtime despite maintenance dept. working; Union grieved as past practice.
- Arbitrator sustained grievances and awarded Lubik back wages and profits; Company sued to vacate award.
- District Court vacated award, held CBA unambiguously gave Company exclusive scheduling rights; denied Union’s summary judgment.
- Arbitrator’s award focused on past practice and Section 2 zipper clause; issue whether past practice could exist under CBA.
- Court of Appeals reverses District Court, enforcing Arbitrator’s award that past practice existed and violated by Company.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether past practice can supplement or override clear contract terms | Lubik argues past practice valid and binding; can bypass written terms. | Bechtol argues zipper clause and Section 3 grant exclusive scheduling; past practice not permitted. | Past practice permissible to supplement if ambiguity exists; not barred as to essence. |
| Effect of zipper clause on establishment of past practice | Zipper clause does not preclude past practice established pre-CBA. | Zip clause precludes unwritten agreements altering terms. | Zip clause not dispositive; past practice found despite zipper clause. |
| Whether the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the CBA | Award can derive from CBA language and past practice; consistent with contract. | Award ignores exclusive scheduling rights in CBA; not drawn from contract. | Award draws its essence from the CBA and should be enforced. |
| Whether CBA Sections 3 and 9 unambiguously assign exclusive scheduling rights | Ambiguity exists; past practice valid; Section 3’s language insufficiently clear to preclude. | Plain language of Sections 3 and 9 vests exclusive scheduling in Company. | Not unambiguous; interpretation permits past practice and arbitrator’s inquiry. |
| The proper scope of judicial review of arbitration awards | Arbitrator’s construction bargained for; limited review standard applies. | District Court should vacate for manifest disregard of the CBA. | Arbitrator’s interpretation protected; award should be enforced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ludwig Honold Mfg. Co. v. Fletcher, 405 F.2d 1123 (3d Cir. 1969) (award draws essence if derivable from agreement)
- United Paperworkers Int‘l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 1987) (essence test for awards)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Exxon Seamen’s Union, 73 F.3d 1287 (3d Cir. 1996) (narrow review; defer to arbitrator when within authority)
- Major League Umpires Ass’n v. Am. League of Prof’l Baseball Clubs, 357 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2004) (arbitration deference; cannot overrule arbitrator’s construction)
- News Am. Publ’ns, Inc. v. Newark Typographical Union, Local 103, 918 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1990) (court should not overrule arbitrator’s decision due to disagreement)
- NF&M Corp. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 524 F.2d 756 (3d Cir. 1975) (prior practice can relax literal contract language)
- Quick v. N.L.R.B., 245 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2001) (extrinsic evidence admissible to resolve ambiguity in CBA)
- Skinner Engine Co. v. United Auto., etc., 188 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 1999) (ambiguity may justify extrinsic evidence to explain contract)
- Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp., 993 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1993) (en banc; exception for implied terms via past practice)
- H.K. Porter Co. v. United Saw, File & Steel Prods. Workers of Am., 333 F.2d 596 (3d Cir. 1964) (premise of relaxation of literal language by prior practice)