831 F.3d 985
8th Cir.2016Background
- Peterson was suspended indefinitely and fined six weeks’ pay under the NFL Personal Conduct Policy for a domestic-violence-related incident involving his child.
- The NFLPA appealed Peterson’s discipline to an arbitrator under the Collective Bargaining Agreement; the arbitrator affirmed the discipline.
- The district court vacated the arbitration award, ruling that the Commissioner retroactively applied a new policy and that the arbitrator exceeded authority.
- After vacatur, the Commissioner reinstated Peterson; the only issue on appeal concerns the monetary sanctions (fines) imposed.
- The district court applied Rice as a control but this court holds the arbitration decision was within the contract and the arbitrator’s authority, including interpretation of policy changes and the law of the shop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator acted within authority in applying August 2014 disclosures. | Association: August 2014 changes were new policy retroactively limiting discretion. | League: August 2014 communications reinforced, not changed, the Personal Conduct Policy; authority preserved. | Arbitrator acted within authority; retroactivity not impliedly prohibited. |
| Whether the district court correctly vacated the award for retroactivity and law-of-the-shop failures. | District court: retroactive application violated the CBA; ignored Rice. | Arbitrator properly distinguished Rice and applied contract and shop rules. | District court reversal of arbitration vacatur reversed; award reinstated. |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority by adjudicating a hypothetical discipline under the old policy. | Association: issues framed to old policy; arbitrator exceeded scope. | League: arbitrator analyzed whether August 2014 changes altered authority; result same under either policy. | Arbitrator did not exceed authority. |
| Whether the arbitrator ignored law-of-the-shop precedents or was biased. | Association: improper bias and ignoring precedents like Rice. | Arbitrator addressed precedents and applied law of the shop; no vacatur basis. | No reversible bias; decision within scope of arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1960) (industrial common law part of CBA; limits to vacatur when within contract scope)
- Misco, Inc. v. United Paperworkers, 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (arbitrator must be within authority; deference to construction of contract)
- Enter. Wheel & Car Corp. v. United Steelworkers, 363 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1960) (arbitrator’s interpretation of contract generally final if within scope)
- Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (U.S. 2001) (limited role of courts in reviewing arbitration; only vacate for lack of essence in CBA)
- Am. Nat’l Can Co. v. United Steelworkers, 120 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 1997) (arbitrator’s interpretation upheld if within contract and precedents)
- SBC Advanced Sols., Inc. v. Communications Workers Dist. 6, 794 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2015) (non-statutory grounds insufficient to vacate if arbitrator construes contract)