Entergy Operations, Inc. v. United Government Security Officers of America International Union
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8191
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Phillips, a nuclear security officer at Entergy’s Arkansas Nuclear One, was terminated after Entergy concluded his chronic folliculitis and resulting limited shaving would prevent a proper seal on a required full‑face respirator.
- Phillips’s doctor advised he could keep facial hair trimmed to about 3–4 mm and initially believed that hair would not be in the respirator’s sealing area; after discussion with Entergy personnel, the doctor acknowledged the inner chin cup may be part of the seal.
- Entergy did not perform a respirator fit‑test on Phillips with 3–4 mm facial hair; it temporarily reassigned him and then terminated him when no alternate respirator or position was found.
- An arbitrator ordered Phillips reinstated with backpay, finding (1) Entergy never empirically fit‑tested him with the proposed facial‑hair accommodation and (2) some posts (Sally Port and SOCA Port) do not require respirators, so Phillips could be assigned to a non‑respirator post.
- Entergy sought vacatur, arguing the award violated federal nuclear/OSHA respirator regulations (public policy) and that the arbitrator exceeded his contractual authority; the district court upheld the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union/Phillips) | Defendant's Argument (Entergy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award violates federal public policy (respirator/facial‑hair regs) | Reinstatement does not contravene public policy because there was no evidence Phillips cannot comply; Entergy never fit‑tested him | Regulations prohibit facial hair in respirator seal area; fit‑testing or employment without fit is unlawful | Court: No public‑policy violation because Entergy failed to fit‑test and arbitrator found non‑respirator posts available; award upheld |
| Whether Entergy was required to fit‑test Phillips with trimmed facial hair before termination | Fit‑testing is necessary to determine if medical condition can be accommodated | Company relied on regulations and medical concerns to deny fit‑testing | Court: Arbitrator reasonably required empirical fit‑test; Entergy’s refusal unsupported |
| Whether assigning Phillips to non‑respirator posts would violate federal law or contract | Assigning to Sally Port/SOCA Port is a permissible accommodation and does not violate law | These posts are intertwined with respirator posts; cannot be permanent solution | Court: Arbitrator’s factual finding that those posts don’t require respirators stands; assignment lawful and within contract scope |
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority under the collective‑bargaining agreement | Arbitrator interpreted and applied the agreement in fashion parties bargained for | Arbitrator exceeded authority by effectively rewriting contract, creating positions, or forcing unlawful acts | Court: Arbitrator at least arguably interpreted the contract; did not exceed authority; award stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Homestake Mining Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 153 F.3d 678 (8th Cir.) (standard of appellate review of arbitration awards)
- Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Local Union 204 of the Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, 834 F.2d 1424 (8th Cir.) (courts accept arbitrator’s factual findings; review legal conclusions de novo)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, Int’l Union of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers, 461 U.S. 757 (U.S.) (public‑policy exception to enforcement of arbitration awards requires a well‑defined dominant public policy)
- Muschany v. United States, 324 U.S. 49 (U.S.) (source for public‑policy standard in arbitration review)
- E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57 (U.S.) (reinstatement’s compatibility with public policy evaluated, not the underlying employee conduct)
- Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (U.S.) (arbitrator’s interpretation of contract must be upheld if it even arguably draws its essence from the contract)
- Excel Corp. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 102 F.3d 1464 (8th Cir.) (arbitrator cannot ignore or amend parties’ agreement)