Titan Tire Corp. of Bryan v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 890L
656 F.3d 368
6th Cir.2011Background
- Linda Tracy, a Titan employee and union member, tested positive for marijuana after a wrist injury on the job and was terminated.
- The drug policy, adopted via the CBA and a written understanding, required advance notice to employees of the consequences for a positive test.
- Titan terminated Tracy solely based on the positive drug test, arguing there was just cause under the policy.
- The Union grieved, and the dispute went to arbitration under the CBA; the arbitrator found no just cause due to lack of advance notice.
- The arbitrator suspended Tracy for 90 days with backpay and allowed unannounced random testing for one year after reinstatement.
- Titan sought to vacate the award in district court; the court and now the Sixth Circuit affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator properly construed the contract. | Titan contends the arbitrator relied on bargaining history in violation of Article 19.04. | Union asserts the arbitrator reasonably interpreted ambiguous terms and applied the contract. | Arbitrator reasonably construed contract; deference upheld. |
| Whether lack of advance notice violated the just-cause standard. | Titan argues there was no just cause because Tracy's termination lacked proper notice of policy. | Union contends the policy allowed discharge subject to termination, but Titan failed to give notice. | Award grounded in proper interpretation of notice requirement; affirmed. |
| Whether the use of bargaining history was permissible under the CBA. | Titan relies on Article 19.04 to bar bargaining-history evidence. | Union maintains the history aided, not warped, contract interpretation. | Use of bargaining history permissible; not a basis to vacate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan Family Resources, Inc. v. Service Employees Int'l Union Local 517M, 475 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2007) (arbitration review limited to whether arbitrator interpreted contract)
- United Steelworkers v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (Supreme Court 1960) (arbitration review limited to essence of contract)
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court 1960) (final adjustment by grievance procedure; or arbitrator's authority)
- American Manufacturing Co. v. United Steelworkers, 363 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court 1960) (contract interpretation rests with arbitrator)
- Garvey v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 532 U.S. 504 (Supreme Court 2001) (deferential review; arbitrator's interpretation)
- Equitable Resources, Inc. v. United Steelworkers, 621 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2010) (deferential stance toward arbitrator; limited grounds to vacate)