140 F. Supp. 3d 738
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- U.S. Soccer (employer) and the U.S. National Soccer Team Players Association (union) are parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and a Uniform Player Agreement (UPA); the operative CBA/UPA (amended 2011) contemplates sponsors’ use of print creatives but contains no explicit approval process for print/digital materials containing likenesses of six or more players.
- Dispute arose after U.S. Soccer stopped submitting "Print Creatives" (advertising/printed materials with six or more players) to the Players Association for advance approval in Feb 2014; the Players Association grieved and the matter went to arbitration.
- The arbitrator found the CBA/UPA silent on an approval process but ambiguous in context, considered past practice (U.S. Soccer had submitted such creatives to the PA for roughly 12–13 years), and awarded relief in favor of the Players Association requiring submission/approval.
- U.S. Soccer sought to vacate the arbitration award under §301 of the LMRA and the FAA, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his authority by relying on past practice and effectively adding terms to the contract; the Players Association moved to confirm/enforce the award.
- The district court reviewed evidentiary objections, concluded they did not affect disposition, applied the narrow standard for judicial review of arbitration awards, and confirmed the arbitrator’s award, granting the Players Association’s motion for summary judgment and denying U.S. Soccer’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S. Soccer) | Defendant's Argument (Players Assn.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority by relying on past practice to require submission/approval of Print Creatives | Arbitrator ignored plain contract language and added a term based on past practice; no interpretive route from the CBA/UPA to the award | Agreement is silent/ambiguous on approval process; where ambiguous arbitrator may consider past practice to determine parties’ intent | Court: Confirmed award — arbitrator reasonably found ambiguity and permissibly relied on past practice; award draws its essence from the CBA/UPA |
| Whether integration, no-modification, and no-waiver clauses barred consideration of past practice | Clauses show parties intended the written agreement to be exclusive; arbitrator should not look outside four-corners | Clauses do not prevent arbitrator from resolving an ambiguity by considering extrinsic evidence; arbitrator analyzed these clauses and concluded they did not bar consideration | Court: Clauses do not bar consideration here because arbitrator concluded he was resolving an ambiguity and gave reasons; analysis suffices under limited review |
| Proper scope of judicial review of arbitration award | (Implied) Court should vacate award if arbitrator substituted his own policy or ignored contract | Courts should enforce labor arbitration awards unless arbitrator’s decision has no possible interpretive route from the CBA or violates public policy | Court: Applied deferential standard — only vacated if award lacks any interpretive route or exceeds contractual bounds; concluded arbitrator acted within scope and did not dispense his own brand of industrial justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Titan Tire Corp. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union, 734 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2013) (arbitration award enforceable if it draws its essence from the CBA)
- United Food & Commercial Workers v. Ill. Am. Water Co., 569 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2009) (award falls outside the CBA when arbitrator relies on standards outside the contract)
- NIPSCO v. United Steelworkers, 243 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2001) (arbitrator may fill gaps and consider past practice when contract is silent or ambiguous)
- Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Beer Workers Local Union 744, 280 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 2002) (arbitrator impermissibly altered an express contractual provision by relying on past practice)
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1960) (arbitrator cannot dispense his own brand of industrial justice)
- Jasper Cabinet Co. v. United Steelworkers, 77 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 1996) (arbitrator’s interpretation must be derived from contract language)
- Ethyl Corp. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 768 F.2d 180 (7th Cir. 1985) (unsound arbitrator interpretation still draws essence from contract if based on contract analysis)