Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen v. Union Pacific Railroad
882 F. Supp. 2d 1032
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Arbitrator awarded UP in a union contract dispute with BLET under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
- 1952 agreement binds successors and concerns leave of absence and layoff authority.
- UP adopted an attendance policy in 2004, amended 2006, outlining full-time availability and discipline for excessive absenteeism.
- BLET argued the attendance policy repudiated the 1952 agreement and that layoff permissions were controlled by the crew caller.
- Arbitrator found the 1952 agreement primarily governs formal leaves, but UP may implement a separate attendance policy with discipline for pattern absenteeism.
- The award was clarified later to allow discipline for layoffs based on pattern, not just per-day absence, and to exclude sickness/injury from discipline if justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did arbitrator exceed jurisdiction by noncontractual basis? | BLET: award noncontractual; managerial rights treated as central. | UP: arbitrator interpreted contract and addressed management rights within scope. | Arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction; essence drawn from contract. |
| Is the award unenforceable due to public policy? | BLET: policy conflicts with FRSA and fatigue/safety statutes. | UP: policy limited to excessive absenteeism; public policy not violated. | No public policy violation; award aligned with statutory framework. |
| Does Twomey 1992 award undermine the current award? | BLET: Twomey invalidated more permissive policy and conflicts with current award. | UP: Twomey interpreted, not controlling; arbitration may differ here. | No fatal inconsistency; arbitrator properly distinguished Twomey. |
| Did arbitrator need to address the Guaranteed Extra Board Agreement? | BLET: failure to address supports vacatur. | UP: interpretive route shows compatibility with policy; silence not fatal. | Failure to expressly address is permissible; award still draws essence from contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 522 F.3d 746 (7th Cir.2008) (limited judicial review of arbitral essence; interpretation allowed)
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (U.S. (1960)) (arbitrator power to interpret contract under Misco principle)
- Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 v. Chicago Sun-Times, 935 F.2d 1501 (7th Cir.1991) (arbitrator need not provide perfect opinions; interpretive routes allowed)
- Chicago Newspaper Publishers’ Assoc. v. Chicago Web Printing Pressmen’s Union No. 7, 821 F.2d 390 (7th Cir.1987) (emphasizes essence-from-contract and discretion in arbitration)
- Bhd. of Maintenance of Way Emps. v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 24 F.3d 937 (7th Cir.1994) (arbitrators may consider past awards but not bound by them)
- E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 531 U.S. 57 (U.S. (2000)) (public policy limits under explicit, well-defined policy)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757 (U.S. (1983)) (public policy considerations in arbitration enforcement)
- Lyons v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 163 F.3d 466 (7th Cir.1999) (narrow scope of judicial review of arbitration awards)