18 F.4th 736
4th Cir.2021Background
- Constellium operates an aluminum plant in Ravenswood, WV; the Union represents certain hourly maintenance and production employees.
- In Barton v. Constellium, 856 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2017), this Court held retiree health benefits under the earlier CBA were durational, not vested.
- The parties negotiated a new 2017 CBA (effective Sept. 19, 2017–Sept. 19, 2022) containing a Cap Letter and retiree benefits materials; Constellium later unilaterally changed healthcare for Medicare‑eligible retirees.
- The Union grieved; both sides sought relief in district court (district court held preclusion questions for the arbitrator and granted the Union a preliminary injunction).
- An arbitrator found Constellium breached the 2017 CBA by changing retiree benefits; Constellium moved to vacate the award in district court, which denied vacatur; Constellium appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Constellium's Argument | Union's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides the preclusive effect of Barton on the current grievance? | District court should decide preclusive effect; Barton precludes the Union's claim. | Preclusion is a procedural/affirmative defense for the arbitrator to decide. | Preclusive effect is for the arbitrator to decide. |
| Standard of judicial review for an arbitrator’s preclusion ruling | Courts should use "plenary review" (determine correct preclusion law and reweigh). | FAA/Fourth Circuit precedent requires deferential review (manifest disregard or statutory §10 grounds). | Plenary review rejected; manifest disregard/FAA standards apply. |
| Did the arbitrator manifestly disregard res judicata or collateral estoppel? | Arbitrator ignored/ misapplied Barton and preclusion law, warranting vacatur. | Arbitrator applied law to facts; at most legal error, not manifest disregard. | Arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law. |
| Did the arbitrator exceed his authority interpreting the 2017 CBA? | Arbitrator issued an award inconsistent with the CBA and beyond his powers. | Arbitrator properly interpreted the CBA under the parties’ submission; award drew its essence from the CBA. | Arbitrator acted within authority; award stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barton v. Constellium Rolled Prods.-Ravenswood, LLC, 856 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2017) (prior appellate decision on vesting of retiree benefits)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (courts should not review merits errors by arbitrators)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes arbitrability questions for courts from procedural questions for arbitrators)
- Del Webb Cmtys., Inc. v. Carlson, 817 F.3d 867 (4th Cir. 2016) (discusses Howsam categories and procedural issues for arbitrators)
- Wachovia Sec., LLC v. Brand, 671 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (explains limited judicial review and manifest-disregard standard in this circuit)
- Long John Silver’s Rests., Inc. v. Cole, 514 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2008) (articulates elements of manifest disregard)
- Hall St. Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (legal error is not an enumerated ground for vacatur under the FAA)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1986) (courts should not decide merits-equity arguments before arbitration)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1960) (award legitimate if it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement)
- U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 204 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2000) (reaffirms highly deferential review of arbitration awards)