803 F.3d 1241
11th Cir.2015Background
- Union (IBEW Local 824) grieved Verizon Florida’s denial of bumping rights after layoffs under CBA Article XI §2.3, which allows bumping if employee has ability to perform job either because it was "previously held" or can be done with "minimum additional training."
- Arbitration before AAA focused primarily on whether employees could perform jobs with "minimum additional training"; union argued both prongs were at issue.
- Arbitrator’s original award found "minimum additional training" meant <4 weeks (denying bumping on that ground) but sustained grievance for two employees under the "previously held" clause.
- Union requested clarification whether two additional employees should have been awarded positions under the "previously held" rationale; company asked for full reconsideration and argued "previously held" was not submitted.
- Arbitrator issued a substituted award deleting the "previously held" analysis and denying all grievances, citing that he had relied on a provision not submitted; union sought to confirm original award and vacate substituted award in district court.
- District court confirmed original award, held substituted award exceeded arbitrator’s power under functus officio and AAA Rule 40; Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether original award exceeded arbitrator's authority | Union: grievance was broadly worded; arbitrator could decide both "minimum training" and "previously held" issues | Verizon: arbitration focused on "minimum training" only; "previously held" was not submitted | Court: arbitrator was "even arguably" acting within scope by addressing both; original award was within authority |
| Whether arbitrator could issue substituted award after concluding original exceeded authority | Union: request was a narrow clarification; arbitrator could only correct clerical errors, not revise merits | Verizon: arbitrator could revisit award because it was not final on the limited issue, and parties effectively sought reconsideration | Court: original award was final on merits; Rule 40/functus officio barred revisiting merits; substituted award exceeded power |
| Whether AAA Rule 40 (or functus officio) permits substantive revision | Union: Rule 40/functus officio preclude revisiting merits after award | Verizon: functus officio is questionable and parties can consent to reconsideration | Court: Rule 40 (incorporated into CBA) codifies functus officio; arbitrator bound and could not redetermine merits absent mutual, clear consent |
| Whether parties ‘‘mutually consented’’ to reconsideration | Union: its request was limited clarification, not broad reconsideration; no mutual request | Verizon: company’s later request and union’s question together allowed reconsideration | Court: requests were not mutual or coextensive; company’s request attacked merits and was not mutual consent; no waiver of Rule 40 |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Becker, 186 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir.) (functus officio bars arbitrator from revising final award)
- McClatchy Newspapers v. Cent. Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731 (9th Cir.) (arbitrator lacks continuing power after final award)
- Osram Sylvania, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union 528, 87 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir.) (courts defer to arbitrator so long as award arguably construes the contract)
- United Paperworkers v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (arbitrator’s award must draw its essence from the contract; courts do not review for legal error)
- Brown v. Witco Corp., 340 F.3d 209 (5th Cir.) (arbitrator may clarify award when parties voluntarily and mutually request clarification)
- T.Co Metals, LLC v. Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc., 592 F.3d 329 (2d Cir.) (arbitrator may amend award when parties and applicable arbitration rules authorize reconsideration)
- Lindland v. U.S. Wrestling Ass’n, Inc., 227 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir.) (arbitrators bound by applicable arbitration rules; cannot ignore them)