Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen, General Committee of Adjustment v. Union Pacific Railroad
719 F.3d 801
7th Cir.2013Background
- 1952 collective bargaining agreement governs attendance and leave for some UP engineers; 2003 UP attendance policy adopted; union sought arbitration under the Railway Labor Act arguing conflict with the 1952 Agreement; arbitrator held no conflict and union sued to vacate the award; district court granted summary judgment for UP; Seventh Circuit affirms arbitration ruling as to jurisdiction and interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the arbitrator exceed jurisdiction by not interpreting the 1952 Agreement? | Union claims lack of proper contract interpretation. | UP argues arbitrator interpreted the contract. | No; arbitrator interpreted the contract. |
| Does the 1952 Agreement confer a right to lay off for thirty days? | Union asserts a 30-day lay-off right. | Arbitrator found no automatic right; procedures exist for leave. | Arbitrator’s interpretation within contract text; no automatic right. |
| Did the arbitrator rely on policies outside the 1952 Agreement or managerial prerogatives? | Arbitrator relied on external policies. | Arbitrator considered inherent managerial rights and contract terms. | Arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction by considering managerial context. |
| Was the award unclear or improperly reasoned to enact future discipline guidelines? | Award/clarification were unclear about discipline. | Judicial review focuses on contract interpretation, not extra-judicial clarity. | Debatable aspects of clarity do not render award vacated under standard review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyons v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 163 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1999) (deferential review of arbitral jurisdiction under the RLA)
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960) (arbitrator limited to interpreting the contract; not to administer justice)
- Ethyl Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 768 F.2d 180 (7th Cir. 1985) (arbitrator may consider general contract principles)
- Amax Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 92 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 1996) (arbitrator’s interpretation must be tethered to contract text)
- Hill v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir. 1987) (interpretation-based review; not whether the arbitrator erred)
- United Food & Commercial Workers v. Illinois-American Water Co., 569 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2009) (highly deferential standard for arbitration awards under the RLA)