Albemarle Corp. v. United Steel Workers Ex Rel. Aowu Local 103, 703 F.3d 821

Albemarle terminated two PDC employees for alleged safety-rule violations after a spill; the union grieved the discipline and the dispute was sent to arbitration under the CBA.
The arbitrator found that the Grievants violated safety rules but concluded that discharge was too harsh and imposed a lengthy unpaid suspension with reinstatement and no backpay.
Albemarle challenged the award, seeking to vacate it in district court; USW moved to enforce the award.
The district court vacated the arbitrator’s decision relying on a Fifth Circuit per curiam DuPont decision; this court reversed, granting enforcement of the award.
Key evidence: spill of glycol in the Pilot Plant, attempts to report within five minutes, gasket failure, no emergency notification, and that the Grievants were leaving after a long shift.
The CBA grants management broad discipline authority, including discharge, and Article 906 states strict adherence to safety rules as a condition of employment; the arbitrator read ‘cause’ to permit discipline short of discharge given the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Arbitrator’s authority to impose lesser discipline	Albemarle argues the arbitrator was constrained to terminate.	USW argues arbitrator properly construed ‘cause’ and could substitute discipline.	Arbitrator within authority to suspend instead of discharge.
Interpretation of 'cause' and 'condition of employment' in the CBA	DuPont controls; a finding of cause to terminate followed from safety-rule breach.	CBA allows lesser sanctions; ‘condition of employment’ permits varied discipline.	Arbitrator’s reading of ‘cause’ under ‘condition of employment’ was within his authority.
Public policy exception to enforcement	Reinstating after fourteen months’ backpay loss violates public policy given legal spill reporting duties.	Public policy not violated given factual record and limited scope of policy concern.	Public policy exception does not apply; enforce award.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Local 900 of the International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 968 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1992) (arbitrator may not impose lesser sanction after finding definite discharge justification)
Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. Dist. 2 Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n, 889 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1989) (when contract defines ‘proper cause’ with list, arbitrator cannot impose different sanction)
Misco, Inc. v. United Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, 484 U.S. 29 (1987) (limited judicial review; arbitrator must be within scope of contract)
Weber Aircraft, Inc. v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 253 F.3d 821 (5th Cir. 2001) (arbitrator may vacate or modify discipline if not within CBA scope)
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of N. Am., Dist. Local No. 540 v. Neuhoff Bros. Packers, Inc., 481 F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1973) (arbitrator interprets undefined ‘proper cause’ as contract leaves question to arbitration)
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Becker, 195 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 1999) (contracts can interpret ‘condition of employment’ to permit varied sanctions)
Johnston-Tombigbee Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Local Union No. 2462, 596 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1979) (ambiguity in terms allows arbitrator interpretation)