Holsum Bakery Inc. v. Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers, Local 232
699 F. App'x 690
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Holsum Bakery (employer) and Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers Local 232 (Union) were parties to a 2009 collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- Union grieved Holsum’s 2012 termination of payment of “lap time” (1.5x pay) for shifts worked on scheduled days off; arbitrator awarded relief to the Union.
- Holsum sued in district court under § 301 of the LMRA to vacate the arbitration award; the Union moved to confirm.
- The district court vacated the arbitrator’s award, finding it did not draw its essence from the CBA and was too inconsistent to be enforced.
- The Union appealed; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the arbitrator’s decision drew its essence from the CBA and was sufficiently definite to enforce.
- The Union’s request for attorney’s fees was denied because Holsum’s pursuit of judicial review was not frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (Holsum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator’s award "draws its essence" from the CBA | Award interprets CBA language (§4.C: “all”) to require lap-time pay for scheduled/required hours on days off | Arbitrator misread CBA; award rests on errors, not the contract | Reversed: award draws its essence from the CBA; arbitrator arguably construed/applied the contract |
| Whether the award is sufficiently definite and enforceable | Award is clear: pay lap time to employees scheduled/required to work on scheduled days off | Award is internally inconsistent and full of mistakes; not a final definite award | Reversed: award is definite and enforceable; errors of law or interpretation do not void enforcement absent manifest disregard |
| Whether Union is entitled to attorney’s fees for Holsum’s refusal to comply | Fees warranted because Holsum unjustifiably refused to follow the arbitrator’s award | Holsum properly sought judicial review; its arguments were not frivolous | Denied: Holsum’s challenge was a legitimate judicial appeal, not a baseless refusal to comply |
Key Cases Cited
- Stead Motors of Walnut Creek v. Auto. Machinists Lodge No. 1173, 886 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (arbitration award must "draw its essence" from the CBA to be upheld)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (arbitrator must be at least arguably construing or applying the contract)
- Va. Mason Hosp. v. Wash. State Nurses Ass’n, 511 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2007) (courts may uphold awards even if convinced arbitrator misread the contract)
- G.C. & K.B. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2003) (awards enforceable despite erroneous legal interpretations absent manifest disregard of law)
- Sw. Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. Drywall Dynamics, Inc., 823 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 2016) (judicial scrutiny of plausibility of arbitrator’s interpretation is limited)
- Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers v. W. Indus. Maint., Inc., 707 F.2d 425 (9th Cir. 1983) (attorney’s fees may be awarded when employer unjustifiably refuses to abide by an arbitrator’s award)
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1984) (frivolous challenges can justify fee awards; absence of frivolousness defeats fee recovery)